1911-01-17

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved that the House -will, to-morrow move itself into Committee of the Whole House to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to authorize the Governor in Council to, on or after the seventh of April, 1911, grant a subsidy for steamship service between a port or ports on the Pacific coast of Canada and China and Japan, for such period or periods of time as may be deemed expedient, not, however, to exceed in the aggregate ten years, and to pay therefor a subsidy or subsidies, as the case may be, not exceeding the sum of 25,000 pounds sterling per annum for such service as may be deemed expedient from time to time.
He said:	His Excellency having been
advised of the subject matter of this resolution recommends it to the favourable consideration of this House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. KING moved that the House will on Thursday next move itself into a Committee of the Whole House to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient, in connection with Bill 10 now before this House, to
[Stage Direction]
provide for the prohibition of the manufacture and importation of matches made with white phosphorus; to empower the Commissioner of Patents on petition to fix terms for the use of any process patented at the time of the passing of this Act for the manufacture of matches without white phosphorus, other than matches intended to strike only on a surface specially prepared for the purpose; to provide for the inspection of any place where it is suspected that matches made with white phosphorus may be found; to examine any receptacle or place in which it is suspected that such matches may be; to authorize the Governor in Council to make such orders and regulations as may be necessary; and to fix penalties for infraction of the Act.
He said:	His Excellency having been
advised of the subject matter of this resolution recommends it to the favourable con sideration of this House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. KING moved that the House will on Thursday next move itself into a Committee of the Whole House to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient, in connection with Bill 22 now before the House, to provide for the prohibition of the importation, manufacture, sale and use of opium for other than scientific and medicinal purposes; to empower magistrates to grant warrants, to search for opium in any place in which it is suspected that opium may be found, and to authorize the destruction thereof; to provide penalties for violations of the Act; and to empower the Governor in Council to make such regulations as are necessary.
He said:	His Excellency having been
advised of the subject matter of this resolution recommends it to the favourable consideration of this House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. KING moved that the House will on Thursday next move itself into a Committee of the Whole House to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide for the prohibition of the sale and use of cocaine and morphine for other than medicinal or scientific purposes.
He said:	His Excellency having been
advised of the subject matter of this resolution recommends it to the favourable consideration of this House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called.
Mr. WILCOX.: I desire to ask the government to what extent the International regu-Mr. KING.
lations for the protection of fisheries in the Great Lakes and other international waters have been modified. On this point the Detroit ' Free Press ' of Friday, January
13, says:



MICHIGAN WILL GAIN BIG ADVANTAGES FROM PROVISIONS OF TREATY.

[Stage Direction]
Special to the Free Press.
Washington, January 12.-It is reasonably certain now that the treaty between the United States and Canada covering the fisheries question on the Great Lakes will, before its promulgation, be satisfactory in every respect to the fishermen of the state of Michigan.
It can be stated that not only will Lake Michigan be exempted from the regulations to be promulgated in the treaty, but that practically half of Lake Huron will be given over to the fishermen of Michigan for their operations. In other words, they will be allowed to operate from a point east of Thunder Bay to a point south near Port Sanilac in Lake Huron. This will give them everything they desire. The new proposition will be added to the fishing regulations as an amendment.
It is also proposed that the Michigan fishing regulations shall be adopted by the international commission, and to-day Senator Smith wired Governor Osborn to send at once a copy of the state fishing laws to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries of Canada.
I would ask the Prime Minister whether the statements contained in this dispatch are correct and also whether any action was taken by this government to investigate the conditions which exist among the fishermen on the Canadian side of the Detroit river, and if it is probable that the Detroit river will be exempted from the provisions of the proposed treaty.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: With regard to the question whether the government has investigated the condition of things prevailing in the Detroit river, I have no information ; perhaps the Minister of Marine has. The treaty is before the House, but no modification has been agreed to yet. Whether any is contemplated or not I do not know.



COBALT MAIL SERVICE.

Mr. GORDON (Nipissing).: I would like to ask the Prime Minister for an answer to my question of Friday last regarding a mail car to Cochrane. I see that we have back with us the Postmaster General, and I trust this matter has been brought to his attention.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: The report made at the request of the Prime Minister was brought before me this morning, and I may say that I signed the report, and the postal car will be there next week.



FISHERIES REGULATIONS.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: The Prime Minister promised a statement to-day with

regard to the recent negotiations incident to the award of the Hague Tribunal.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is not ready to-day, but perhaps will be to-morrow or the day after.



TREATIES OF -COMMERCE.

Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).: I would like to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister it the proposed reciprocity treaty will be submitted to this House for consideration before it is signed.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not think the treaty will be submitted to the House before it is signed, but it will not go into force until it is ratified by this parliament.


John Allister Currie: If the treaty is to be signed before it is submitted to the House for consideration then I wish to give notice that I intend to move a resolution to the effect that treaties of commerce, before they are signed or ratified, should be laid before this parliament for consideration for a certain length of time.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.

Mr. FOSTER.: I would like to call the attention of the right hon. the First Minister to some orders for returns which I would like to have as soon as possible. One ordered on December 5, is for the dates of the opening and closing of parliament from 1896 to 1910. That should not take very much time to compile. Another has reference to the cost of the Senate ; it was ordered on December 14. That is somewhat important, in view of the discussion which is to be brought forward on Monday next by my hon. friend from Lincoln, -and I would like to have the information before that time. Then, with reference to the dispatch of Sir John Thompson, might I ask the Prime Minister if he has made any inquiries about that?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think that will be down to-morrow.


George Eulas Foster: Then, as co the return the order for which was passed in 1909 with regard to the war vessels of the United States on the Great Lakes. The Prime Minister promised to look into that and see why it had not been brought down.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will look into it.



GRAND TRUNK TRAINMEN'S ' STRIKE. '

Mr. BLAIN.: I would like to ask the Minister of Labour if the government will be responsible for the whole or any part of the remuneration to be paid to Judge Barron who is investigating the claims of the recent strikers on the Grand Trunk.


Mr. KING.: No.



FISHERY REGULATIONS.

Mr. RHODES.: I would like to inquire of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries when I may expect a return, the order for which passed the House last year, with reference to the fines imposed and the names of the persons fined for breach of the fishery regulations in the counties of Cumberland and Pictou. Three or four weeks ago the hon. minister informed me that the returns had been prepared and had been handed to the Secretary of -State. Within the past two days I have inquired of the Secretary of State, and he has informed me that he has seen no such return. I also inquired of the Under Secretary of State, and he says the same thing. I hope the minister will see that the return is brought down immediately.


Mr. BRODEUR.: The return was ready some weeks ago, for I saw it. There must have been some misunderstanding. I will make inquiries with regard to it.



SUPPLY-THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
["But I never learned until to-day from him that it W'as better for a company to put a mortgage on its property to build additions than to sell common stock at double its par value in order to make necessary improvements. Let us be just and fair with this road, do not let this House become stampeded on questions of this kind and let us get down' to the common sense view of things. If it is necessary, in order to clear the atmosphere, pass a resolution abolishing the ten per cent clause and leave the rates of the Canadian Pacific railway to the Railway Commission. Is it not better for this House to leave these questions alone at the present time when the bankers in Wall street are gathering and sitting up every night v'ondering whether another bank is going to go to smash or the financial world is going to come to an end. We as Canadians would be better to leave this question alone than adopt a meaningless resolution of this kind.\nAt six o'clock, the House took recess. After Recess.\nHouse resumed at eight o'clock."]
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York).: Mr. Speaker, I intend, in connection- with this motion, to bring before the House and the country the claim of the Canadian people who use the Canadian Pacific railway for a reduction in the tariff of that railway, and I propose to approach it in this way :
That before the said motion do pass, this House hereby declares that steps should be at once taken to ascertain the rights of the public using the Canadian Pacific railway to a reduced tariff because of provision in that regard contained in the Act of parliament ratifying the agreement with that company, or any other Act.
I have added the words, ' or any other Act,' as I wanted to make it clear that I was cognizant of what is said to be the fact, t-hat the railway company now admits that it is under the operation of the General Railway Act, and I intend to approach this question in an absolutely impartial and non-partisan way. I hope to approach it as speaking for all the people of Canada who use that great railway, a railway that has now over 10,000 miles of track in operation, which serves every province in Canada with the single exception of the little island of Prince Edward. I hope I shall speak for the people of the east, the manufacturers of Ontario and the people of Ontario, for those who live on and, cultivate the plains, and for the people of the Pacific coast, who also use the railroad. I admit that it is a great railway ; it is a magnificent railway ; it is the greatest triumph, the greatest memorial, Sir John Macdonald left after him. The Canadian

Pacific railway is an immense success. Of all the things in Canadian history that had hirth in this House, it is the one that has vindicated itself. Perhaps it is greater than the National Policy. As it set out in tlie preamble, it was the Canadian Pacific railway that bound this country together. It was built for a great national reason, and it is to the credit of those men who sat in this House in the early days and propounded that policy, carried it out, vindicated it, and at last saw it triumph, and also saw those who opposed it at its inception come to justify it, to be proud of it, and to be active in its defence. But if I admit the greatness of that railroad and the service it renders, I am not blind to the duties that its charter imposed. With all great public franchises great duties go-	.
There is a duty involved. There are public rights as well as the rights of the company to be considered, and to-day I am raising my voice on behalf of those public rights which the people have in the original charter and subsequent laws to a reduction in the charges imposed by that railway-whether those charges be for fares, for sleepers, or parlour cars, or for meals in dining or refreshment rooms, or freights, for express, telegraph or telephone charges, for electricity, if it be sold, and for even water charges in connection with steamers that may form a part of its railway system; so that while I admire the greatness of the Canadian Pacific railway and its success and what it has done to build up the credit of Canada, I also raise my voice in the matter of the duties which that road owes to this country-duties in the way of service and most of all its duty to have its rates revised in the interests of the people who pay them. I hope to be able to show that the time has come when parliament or some body must interfere so as to secure a reduction in these rates.
Just for a moment I want to read the clause in the original Act which deals with the rates of the company and which, I am told, if not obsolete or repealed, is to-day ineffective. Whether that be so or not, it certainly throws a lot of light on the matter. I propose to read, in the first place, clause 20 of the Statutes of Canada, 1881, chapter 1. That clause reads as follows:-
The limit to the reduction of tolls by the parliament of Canada provided for by the eleventh subsection of the 17th section of The Consolidated Railway Act of 1879, respecting tolls, is hereby extended so that such reduction may be to such an extent that such tolls when reduced shall not produce less than 10 per cent per annum profit on the capital actually expended in the construction of the railway, instead of not less than 15 per cent per annum profit as provided by the said subsection; and so also that such reduction shall not be made unless the net income of the company, ascertained as described in said Mr. MACLEAN.
subsection, shall have exceeded 10 per cent per annum instead of 15 per cent per annum as provided by the said subsection, and the exercise by the Governor in Council of the power of reducing the tolls of the company as provided by the 10th subsection of said section 17 is hereby limited to the same extent with relation to the profit of the company and to its net revenue, as that to which the power of parliament to reduce tolls is limited by said subsection 11 as hereby amended.
That is rather complicated and tough, reading, but you get a little elucidation if you read the Railway Act, which is quoted in that section. That Railway Act was passed in 1879, two years before the Canadian Pacific railway charter was granted, and its clauses are 10, 11 and 12:-
10.	Every by-law fixing and regulating tolls shall be subject to revision by the Governor in Council from time to time after approval thereof, and after an order in council, reducing the tolls fixed and regulated by any by-law, has been twice published in the 'Canada Gazette/ the tolls mentioned in such an order in council shall be substituted for those mentioned in said by-law so long as the order in council remains unrevoked.
11.	The parliament of Canada may from time to time reduce the tolls upon the railway, but not without consent of the company, or so as to produce less than 15 per cent per annum profit on the capital actually expended in its construction, nor unless on an examination made by the Minister of Public Works of the amount received and expended by the company, the net income from all sources for the year then last passed is found to have exceeded 15 per cent upon the capital so actually expended.
12.	No by-law of any railway company by which any tolls are to be imposed or altered, or by which any party other than the members, officers and servants of the company are intended to be bound, shall have any force or effect until the same has been approved and sanctioned by the Governor in Council.
In substance, those two laws amount to-this: Under the general law, a railway could have its tolls reduced if the net profit from its operation exceeded 15 per cent of the amount actually expended in its construction, but in the case of the Canadian Pacific railway the government or parliament, or some one, was to have power to reduce the tolls whenever the net income of the road exceeded 10 per cent of the amount of money actually invested in it. In other words, the people were to be treated under the Canadian Pacific Railway Act 5 per cent better than under the general Act. That was in substance the arrangement; apparently some means should have been taken by the Canadian Pacific railway or the government of the day to have an account kept of the money actually expended on construction. Evidently, however, nothing of that kind was done, and1

the thins dragged along and no question was raised and no one knew exactly how matters stood.
One reason why the Canadian Pacific railway was asked to treat the public so much better was because it was given exceptional advantages. It was given $25,-O00,000 in cash, 25,000,000 acres of land, customs exemptions, exemptions from the municipal law, rival lines were prohibited, and in many other ways had special privileges and powers conferred on it.
But in connection with all these advantages, there was a clause to this effect, that inasmuch as the railway was getting all these things it should do something for the public in return, and consequently there was a provision guaranteeing to the government control of the rates. The essence of the agreement was whenever a certain thing happened the public were entitled to a reduction in the tolls. That matter was brought up and discussed in this House many times by myself and by members from the west' and other portions of the country, but always some special pleading was raised to prevent this clause from taking effect. One by one, however, the special privileges pleaded on behalf of the Canadian Pacific railway have been removed-some by the payment of money and others by other means. When the Crows-nest Pass charter was granted, it was granted on the condition that the Canadian Pacific railway should reduce its rates in the west. Then the prohibition against rival roads was removed at the instance of the people of Manitoba. So in various ways special privileges disappeared, and only one remains, the exemption from taxes, which is now, I believe, before the Privv Council.
Whenever these questions were brought up, we never could get a satisfactory answer We were always treated to evasions and were told that they have to be settled by the courts. The last statement ever made in this connection was that 'made by the then Minister of Justice, now Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, who acknowledged, to me that the company had abandoned its claim to the protection of the 10 per cent clause in the original charter and admitted that it came under the jurisdiction of the Railway Act and the Board of Railway Commissioners. And, to show that that is the situation today, I propose to quote a statement by Mr. Creelman, the counsel of the Canadian Pacific which appeared in a Toronto newspaper the other day. This is a despatch, dated Montreal, January 10, and I wish to Tead it because it is the first written or printed document that I have seen which states the abandonment by the Canadian Pacific railway of any protection in this Tespect that it enjoyed under the original charter. We have had the statement of the
former Minister of Justice, and I have seen statements in the newspapers, that the company would submit itself to the Railway Commission, but this statement by Mr. Creelman is the first I have seen from that source, and I propose to read it in order to get it on the records:-
In an interview to-night Mr. A. R. Creelman, K.C., general counsel for the Canadian Pacific railway, and also one of the directors of the company, discussed the recent increase in dividend of the company.
' Will the increase in the dividend to ten per cent mean that the company must submit its rates to the Railway Commission? ' Mr. Creelman was asked.
' Not at all/ was his answer. ' The declaration of an extra dividend was made in view of the position of the land account, and of the other extraneous assets of the company. The distribution from these sources, commencing with the payment of the next quarterly dividend, will be at the rate of three per cent per annum, instead of one per cent as heretofore/	, .
' Does not your charter call for a revision of rates by the government as soon as your company pays ten per cent ? '
' No, such is not the case/ was his reply.
' Our charter says that neither parliament nor the Governor General in Council shall reduce our rates until the railway is making ten per cent net on the actual capital expended in the construction of the road/
' And what is the amount expended in actual construction?'
' We do not know/ said Mr. Creelman.
' Some time ago we took up this matter with the Supreme Court in order to have them determine what the actual expenditure was. We wanted to know whether it meant only the main line, or whether it included branches, terminals, &c. That case is still pending, but, as a matter of fact, the Canadian Pacific railway agreed some years ago not to claim) the protection of the ten per cent clause, and, further, we have repeatedly expressed our willingness to submit our rates to the Railway Commission to have them deal with them on their merits. In other words, in so far as our rates aup concerned, we have been in the same position as any other railway in Canada. We have voluntarily submitted our rates to the Railway Commission whenever these rates have been attacked.
' And, after all/ he added, ' rates are determined by the business of the country and by competition. We could not arbitrarily fix rates which would he excessive.' ' There has been/ said Mr. Creelman, ' a good deal of misunderstanding regarding this ten per cent clause. But it only refers to a time when the road is making ten per cent net on the actual capital expended on construction. And, further, we have never taken refuge behind our rates agreement, but have freely submitted our rates to the Railway Commission. So far as our rates are concerned, we have been in the same position as other roads in Canada.
Now, as I read it, that practically means that the Canadian Pacific railway came before the Board of Railway Commissioners,

and admitted that they were under that jurisdiction and would so remain. If that is so, it is very important that we should know it; it is very important that a matter of such great concern to the people of Canada should be definitely stated.


Robert Laird Borden: Was it not stated in this House two years ago ?


William Findlay Maclean: 
William Findlay Maclean: adian Pacific has indulged in in the past. Mr. Creelman goes on to speak of referring rates to the Railway Commission ' to have them deal with them on their merits.' I hope they will be dealt with on their merits, and it is with that view that I bring the matter up to-day. He speaks of ' whenever these rates have been attacked.' Apparently, he is ready to -meet the attack, if such it be, when made before the Railway Commission; and, in substance, my proposal this afternoon is to make that attack on his rates before the Railway Commission and to have the parliament of Canada order it to be done in such a way that the public shall have relief. I have heard another rumour, and I believe there is a good deal of truth in it, that the Canadian Pacific railway is prepared to come down in its rates the moment it is asked to do so. And there are reasons why its rates should come down.
Before I take that up, I want to deal for a moment with this so-called settlement that took place. Why did the coon come down? The coon came down, apparently, from the Governor in Council revising the rates. The coon came down, and something else also happened. Perhaps Mr. Davy Crockett put down his gun when he went for the coon. Anyway, some kind of an investigation was held; I have been told that something took place in the Supreme Court. Will the Minister of Railways help me by saying whether that was the case? Was this matter of the control of rates referred to the Supreme Court?


Mr. GRAHAM.: A case was prepared for submission to the Supreme Court, but it was never carried out.


William Findlay Maclean: Then counsel must have been employed. If a case was prepared, then counsel was employed by the government. There was a Davy Crockett, there was a gun, and there was a coon, and the coon came down. There was a case, and the jurisdiction simply was changed. The people were complaining of the high rates. Somebody must have had a grievance. But after they proceeded under the special Act they said: The coon says it is a hard thing to find out under the special Act, and we will do it in the Railway Commission, and under the General Railway Act. So the coon came down, and counsel was dismissed, apparently there was no more appeal to the Supreme Court, and there the matter rested. Why did counsel abandon that case in the Supreme Court under the special Act, instead of forthwith pursuing it under the general Act, and under the same instructions? Now, that is a matter that ought to be explained, and I hope the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Justice will explain it here to-day.

Because it looked as if the people were going to get their rights, that the railway was afraid to go to court and to tell how much the road was costing, what had happened to all the things it had got. To-day the Canadian Pacific railway would not like to go into court and say what they did with the twenty-five millions of stock they had got a right to issue, and whether any money was obtained from that, and whether it went into the undertaking. They might not like to have their accounts opened up in regard to contracts, in regard to what the road actually cost. Although it was a hard undertaking for them, and they had great trouble in financing it, the original figures might show that it cost a comparatively small amount. Anyway, when they were afraid of that issue, and when the people apparently had a grievance as to the regulation of freights, the proceedings stopped, and from that day to this anybody who has had a grievance in connection with that railway must be satisfied to proceed under the general Act governing railways.
Now, I would still like to know from the minister who the counsel vras that was employed, what was the case he had worked up, why they left the Supreme Court with the matter, and why it is, when an arrangement was reached that redress was to be handed out by the Board of Railway Commissioners, no further steps were taken to remedy the grievances of the people of the Canadian west, and of the Canadian east, against the Canadian Pacific railway. That there were grievances, the walls of this House know well. They have resounded with the cry of the people of the west, and even of the people of the east, for an amelioriation of the traffic charges of that great company, and that complaint still continues. I hardly ever take up a Toronto paper that I do not read that the Board of Trade, or the merchants there have a substantial grievance against the Canadian Pacific railway. I read about the Board of Trade in Winnipeg almost every week expressing a grievance against the traffic charges of the Canadian Pacific railway. There was a deputation of farmers down here not long ago and they filed in this chamber, at an interview with the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues, a document setting forth their grievance against the railways. I will now read from the * Grain Growers' Guide ' of December 28, on page 12, a sentence from a paper presented by Mr. James Bower, president of the United Farmers of Alberta:
Tlie third question to which we would refer you is the excessive railway tolls, both passenger and freight, which are burdens keenly felt by the farmers all over Canada.
Now, I reiterate that statement in connection with the Canadian Pacific railway;
their rates are excessive. I will put one other witness in the box, and that is Mr. Charles Melville Hays, president of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, and general manager, and probably president, of the Grand Trunk railway. Not long ago he had a strike on his railway of the trainmen. They came to him with their grievance, and he said to them: I cannot very well increase your pay just now, I cannot give you as much as you ask, because the Grand Trunk is not yet doing business in the Canadian west where railway rates are high and profitable. New, Mr. Hays, president of the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific, made the confession that in his estimation the charges taken by the Canadian Pacific railway from the public of the west were very profitable, and he regretted that he was not a participant therein. Now, there is a further witness as to these excessive tolls, which are a burden keenly felt by the farmers all over Canada. In Ontario, in the maritime provinces, in the west, on the Pacific coast, they are excessive, and the time has come for them to be reduced. But as I say, I have another witness. Somebody has been pursuing the Canadian Pacific railway before the Railway Commission to-day, in the matter of excessive express charges, and I ask the Minister of Railways who instituted that action.


George Perry Graham: I understand that is the Dominion Express Company.


William Findlay Maclean: Understanding that, will he please answer the question: Who instituted it? Was it under the direction of the government?


George Perry Graham: If I remember rightly, the investigation began on a special complaint from certain sections of the people as to the rates, and as the inquiry involved large questions, it was made a general investigation.


William Findlay Maclean: Under instructions from the government?


George Perry Graham: The investigation was made general because the special case could not be investigated without going into the whole case. That is my understanding of it.


William Findlay Maclean: There is a confession from the Minister of Railways that the express rates were excessive, and he went for the express companies and I give him credit for it. He should have gone after them in respect to passenger rates, telegraph rates, telephone rates, sleeping car rates. [DOT] The case is made out. The farmers spoke of the excessive rates which are a burden on the public, and that is proved by the fact that the government themsel-

ves have undertaken to instruct counsel to have the express charges modified. What did the commission find? I am going to read from the Montreal ' Witness I shall not read the first two lines which compliment myself, and that would not do.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Read.


William Findlay Maclean: Oh, no.


George Perry Graham: I will read them when it comes to my turn.


William Findlay Maclean: Among other things, shortly discuss the extension of the .parcels post, is again remindful that while Great Britain has for many years had a parcel post service in connection with the post office which is efficient and cheap in a high degree, the United States and Canada have been so under the thumb of the express companies that the government of neither country has been able to throw off their yoke, and their yoke is heavy indeed.
In Canada we have recently had a report from the Railway Commission on express charges, and they were found to be so profitable as to open the eyes of the public very wide. The commissioners told us that the Canadian Express Company in conjunction with the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and the Dominion Express Company in conjunction with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, have been taking out of the pockets of the people something like 55 and 65 per cent profits respectively on excessively watered stocks. The commissioners call attention to other queer doings, and orders them, among other orders, to reduce their charges by ten per cent.
And the correspondent wTho had read that wants to know why they did not make them reduce the tariff 40 per cent.
Here is another proof of what the farmers buffer from excessive railway charges in Canada, including those of the Canadian Pacific railway. So excessive are they that the government has been forced-or let us say rather has, as a matter of public policy, intervened and put counsel to work, and so successfully that the Railway Commission has been convinced of the wrongdoing that was uncovered and a reduction of tolls has been ordered. Now, we have the fruit growers expressing some appreciation of this Act of the government and the hope that its effects will be extended. Is there any other proof of the excessive charges of this railway? I am going to leave it to the members of this House who represent various constituencies throughout the country to state whether these charges are excessive. Let the men- who represent the west, let the men who represent British Columbia, tell us whether they like the treatment they are getting from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


William Findlay Maclean: British Columbia has ports of her own upon the Pacific ocean, freight comes around the Horn and up to Victoria and Vancouver, is unloaded there,- and what sort of charges do the Canadian Pacific railway impose upon that freight for a hundred miles inland? Are the people of British Columbia satisfied with that treatment? It takes nearly as much to send that freight inland for a hundred miles or two hundred miles from the Pacific coast, as if it were landed at Montreal and sent westward by train. They have a great grievance in the west. So have the farmers of the plains, so have the manufacturers of Ontario, so have the people of the east. They are all complaining of these excessive freight charges, the case has been fully established and the time has come for some kind of revision of these rates.
If I may change my course a bit, I want to take another view of this issue, and it is this: Can the Canadian Pacific Railway Company stand a revision of its rates? What shape is its treasury in? In what position is it, to use the language of the original Act, to stand reductions- that is the word in the original Act-in its tolls where there is an excessive profit? Is there an excessive profit and cannot it stand a reduction in its tolls? That is a matter which will be really easy to reach. There never was such a fat treasury in anything in connection with the history of Canada as the treasury of the Canadian Pacific railway to-day. For proof of that let me quote that good old newspaper, the Toronto ' Globe.' Last week it had an article on ' The Year of Jubilee.' Oh, you people in the west, the year of jubilee has arrived for you, according to the ' Globe,' and here it is:-
The burghers of Amsterdam

Happy burghers.
-who many years ago bought Canadian Pacific railway stock because a man named Van Horne was at the head of the company must have rejoiced greatly yesterday when they learned that they would hereafter get a dividend of ten per cent on stock they bought twenty years ago for about forty cents on the dollar. Thousands of Canadians who have had faith in the Canadian Pacific railway and have from time to time acquired Canadian Pacific railway stocks had great reason to rejoice also. This is a year of jubilee for the shareholders of the great railway.
What about the poor devil raising wheat out at Pile-o'-Bones and the . freight charges he has to pay? Is it a year of jubilee for him? Does the ' Globe ' give him any consideration now? Where is the year of jubilee for him? Are there not excessive freight charges that he has to pay? Of course, a line or two down, the ' Globe ' says that it is going to be a year

of jubilee for him, and the Canadian Pacific railway hereafter is going to get along without rate regulation, and that the residents of the west are also to participate in it, but they want to participate in it in the same way and they say: If your shareholders gets large dividends we should have reduced tolls. We see that the ten per cent dividend has arrived, we see the year of jubilee for the Dutch, the foreign owners of the road, but what about the native Canadian who pays the tolls? I am speaking to-day for the native Canadian or any resident of this country who has to pay tolls on that great railway. What else have we got, besides this year of jubilee, which the ' Globe ' is so glad has arrived for the Dutch shareholder?
I think that Sir William Van Horne is about the greatest man who ever came to this country. He has made a glorious name for himself in Canada.


Mr. LALOR.: What rate do they actually earn on their capital?


William Findlay Maclean: I am coming to that in a moment. I think Sir William Van Horne is one of our greatest men and that he has done this country a splendid service, but I would have wished that when his monument came to be raised the inscription on it would be twofold-that he did well for his shareholders but he did better for the people who had to pay the railway rates of this country. I met a man the other day who is performing a great public service at the present moment, and he said to me: I am discharging that public service in this country and I hope to get some of the flowers handed to me before they put them on my grave; the flowers I want handed to me now are the appreciation of the public service I am doing. That man is engaged in the operation of a great public franchise owned by the public, and that is his idea of appreciation in that respect.
But, we do not require even to take the ' Globe ' for the story of the year of jubilee. Here is the finest document that I have read for a long while. I get a copy of this every year, so does every hon. member of this House. I think it is in the charter and I will give the Canadian Pacific railway credit for discharging that part of the duties imposed upon it* namely, giving a copy of. its annual report to every member of this House. It is a document that is remarkable for what it contains, what it does not contain, and what you can dig out of it if you have the spade and the method. It is a document that would never pass muster before the Interstate Commerce Commission of the United States. They have changed all that now and every statement presented to the Interstate Commerce Commission
must be much more detailed and much more exact as to the thing that it pur-., ports to tell. I am going to read just a few statements in this report and comment on them:



[Stage Direction]
29th Annual Report of the Directors, Year Ended June 30.
The accounts of the company for the year ended June 30, 1910, show the following results :-
I wish gentlemen who have this report would follow the figures. On the first page of this statement of the accounts of the company it says that they actually get in interest on deposits and loans $904,000 a year. It is a pretty good company that receives such an amount in interest. Then it gets a million and a half additional on dividends on certain stocks which it owns. In other words, from these two sources it gets $2,500,000 every year. Its net earnings last year wrere $34,000,000, nearly a million a week, after paying all its running expenses, and its net surplus is $13,-
500,000.	The average price at which it sold its land was over $14 an acre. Little statements occur in other paragraphs of the report which are illuminative. For instance, it says:-
You will be asked to authorize the issue and sale of a sufficient amount of 4 per cent consolidated debenture stock to provide for the construction of the following branch lines.
Then it enumerates an enormous number of branch lines to be built with 4 per cent debenture stock. The next paragraph states that another railroad is to be acquired at a rental equivalent to the interest at 4 per cent per annum on the bonds of the railway, and still another railway is to be acquired on similar terms. When they acquire other railroads it is by paying 4 per cent on bonds, the proceeds of which were actually spent in construction.
I go from the report to the condensed balance sheet to June 30. There is a statement of assets and liabilities, and will defy anybody, even the best chartered accountant in America or Canada, to tell me by that statement what the actual assets of the company are. It is marvellous for not showing what the assets of that great company to-day are. That is the significant deduction to be made from the statement. It says that the railway and equipment is worth $317,000,000, and I thought that probably that was all that had been put into the report in that way, but I saw at page 17 just a little note at the bottom dealing with the whole history of the land fund. nIt says:-
Amount expended in construction of railway and equipment and deducted from cost of property, $36,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
That is, the Canadian Pacific railway has applied to construction and equipment out of its land fund already $36,000,000. Thus, we must add to the value of the railway and equipment as given, that is $317,000,000, this further sum of $36,000,000 that had been applied to it from the land fund. How could that, then, be a statement of its assets or its value, when that amount has been carefully deducted?
Then they give a list of acquired securities, the most magnificent list of acquired securities I have seen in a long time. They are all put down at their cost, and I suppose that there, or in*the next item, you would find, some place, if you could dig down, the acquired securities in connection with the Dominion Express Company, up in the millions, according to the Railway Commission, but not stated here at all. That is all watered stock, apparently, and I suppose it is only put down as a few thousand dollars.
. Then this company has this magnificent item of current assets, amounting to $6,-
900,000,	and it has $46,000,000 in cash in its treasury. It has something else, it has temporarily invested in government securities ten million dollars and over. So great is the Canadian Pacific railway to-dav that it is the banker for the government of Canada. Forty-six millions in its treasury. $10,000,000 additional temporarily invested in government securities, and which I believe was money really loaned to the government of this country. That is the condition of the treasury of this great company.
Thus, besides all its railroads and other things, it has assets a good deal over $100,000,000, that ought, in my contention, to be applied to a reduction of rates. I do not see why a great railway, great as it may be, should be allowed to accumulate an enormous reserve fund like that and be a banker for the country in which it is located and be temporarily investing in government securities. From a banker's point of view, it does not pay to give shareholders 10 per cent on stock and to get that money in the treasury and then to lend it to the government at 3 per cent. That is not good banking, if they are in the banking business.
I wish now to turn to the other side of this balance sheet. The land grant is dealt with there, but it is hard to understand and it is so uncertain that I do not propose to deal with it. But before I pass from the assets I wish to refer to that land grant, which is an enormous asset of that company. Its condition, Toughly speaking, is set out at page 17 of this report. The company has already received $79,000,000 out of its land grant, but it paid $36,000,000 in various kinds of costs, and the rest went4' into the equipment, but it has to-day a very large surplus in that land grant. The
William Findlay Maclean: total area of agricultural lands still owned by the company in connection with the original land grant is 74 million acres, but this is not included in the statement of the company's assets. It also owns 44 million acres from the British Columbia land grants. The statement does not set out how much of these lands are town sites. Probably the land grants, besides the $46,000,000 in the treasury and the money temporarily invested in government securities, would, together, be worth millions of dollars. So I would roughly say there are $85,000,000 to $100,000,000 of assets of the company to-day which could be realized if it disposed of its land grant. Here is this great company with all this accumulated cash on hand, and all this land grant that can be disposed of and enormous sums coming to it from those who bought lands but have not yet completed payment.
They have a treasury the like of which was never seen in any other country in the world. Never was so fat a treasury. The directors are lost when they try to do anything with it. And yet they fail to carry out their part of a solemn agreement to devote some part of that overflowing treasury to a reduction of the freight charges against which the people of Canada to-day complain. Any one who will examine carefully this statement of assets of the company will see that the company is enormously rich, and that it does not expose what its actual assets are. It never has done so yet, because it has never been asked to do so. If it is ordered by the Railway Commission to make such a statement, and such a statement is made, it will be found that that company has to-day anything from a quarter of a billion of dollars upward which it cannot use in the undertaking, which it has in some w'ay to switch away and give to its shareholders, but which is consecrated money. If ever there was money consecrated on the altar, the assets of that company are consecrated to a reduction of freight rates on the railway, and when the shareholders, those rich burghers of Holland, have their ten per cent, they ought to reduce their rates. They say:	We use it
for the building of other lines. They do not do that out of the treasury of the company. When they -want to build other lines, what do they do? When you look at their liabilities in that statement, let me tell you what they consist of:	Capital stock,
$150,000,000; mortgage bonds, $39,000,000; 4 per cent preference stock, $55,000,000 ; 4 per cent consolidated debentqre stock, $136,000,000. All these other millions are invested in the road besides the stock. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company has no difficulty in issuing debentures at 4 per cent to build any extensions they want. But they have an inclination to issue not only debenture stock, but common stock in

the shape of a melon to the shareholders, and now I want to come to that. This is what they have been doing. According to this last report they gave 7i per cent to the shareholders, making $10,500,000, and they gave a 1 per cent dividend on the land fund, making $1,500,000; or in all $12,000,000. That was at the rate of 8 per cent. By the report of last year, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company paid its shareholders 8 per cent and 8 per cent alone; and if called into court or into this House, they would say, that is all we gave. But I read in this House last session the statement of a shareholder in England, and it has never yet been denied, that for the last five years his return from his investment in the Canadian Pacific Railway Company amounted to 14 per cent per annum. Any one who wants that statement will find it in the Fin-eial ' News,' for the month of June, 1910. Now, what did the Canadian Pacific Railway give to its shareholders last year? It gave them the 8 per cent dividend, and as a melon it distributed amongst them pro rata 300,000 shares of stock at 125. It did propose to give it to them at par, and some months ago I started an agitation in this House against it. Whether that was efficacious or not, certainly when the stock came to be issued, it was issued at 125tand the consequence was that with the stock worth 175, or 50 points better than the rate of issue, $22,500,000, was distributed among the shareholders. That was exactly equal to 10 per cent, which, with the 8 per cent paid as dividend, made 18 per cent paid last year to the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific railway. I ask the people of the Canadian west, and the farmers of Canada generally, if they will say that that is what they expected the Canadian Pacific Railway shareholders to distribute among themselves last year. And in the evening papers of last night it is said that there is to be in a few days another issue of $20,000,000 of stock, so that if the shareholders get 10 per cent in that shape besides their dividends, another 18 per cent is in sight for the next year. No wonder the stock is going up; no wonder it is the finest stock in the world. But is the company discharging its obligations to the people of Canada as well as to its shareholders? Do the people of Canada intend that this game shall be continued forever? The dividend now is to be 10 per cent, according to Mr. Creelman; and for the last five years up to last year it was 4 per cent additional in the way of melons and bonuses of stock, and another melon of $20,000,000 of additional stock is to be issued in a few days. How long is this to be continued? Is this good policy? You can play this game too long. The stock issued now is $180,000,000, and that is to carry 10 per cent hereafter. It will soon be $200,000,000,
and if that is to pay 10 per cent, then every year out of the net earnings of the company $20,000,000 will have to be paid in dividends alone. The railway will not stand it; and yet they will go on and make other issues, until, if not interrupted, they will increase the stock to $300,000,000; and they build the extensions of the road out of shareholders' stock instead out of debenture stock. Eventually they will kill the goose that lays the golden egg, and they will get to a point beyond which they cannot go. All the financial crimes in connection with the railroads of the United States have their origin in the issue of new stock and the payment of bonuses to shareholders, so that to-day American railroad securities are without credit in the world. These things have not been done to any great extent in Canada as yet; but the great Canadian Pacific railway has started in to do them; they are paying bonuses and big dividends to their shareholders, while they are not discharging their duties to the Canadian public; and unless we take care to avoid it, our securities will be in the same position that American securities are in Wall street to-day. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company can get what money it wants for its undertakings by the issue of 4 per cent debenture stock, and its other earnings should be devoted to a reduction of the traffic charges paid by the people of this country.
Now what about the new company that was to be created for holding purposes? Perhaps one or two members of this House and one or two newspaper men headed it off. Perhaps it never was attempted, but every newspaper in this country said it was under way, in imitation of what had been done by certain notable financiers in connection with the Great Northern and other western roads in the United States. The scheme was to form a company-out of gift stock or paid up stock. I do not know-[DOT] of exactly the same shareholders as the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific railway and to switch all the lands a^y from the treasury of the Canadian Pacific railway and convert them into a great melon for those shareholders. Sir Thomas Shaug-nessy denied that in a way subsequently; but all the financial authorities in Wall street and London confidently expected that this new company was to be created out of the Canadian Pacific railway shareholders There was a similar temptation in this in stance to do what Jim Hill did in connection with the iron lands in Minnesota. If that had been done, all the land reserves and town sites, all the acreage now held by the Canadian Pacific Tailway would have been taken out of its treasury, and never -ould have been used as an argument for a reduction of rates. That, however, did not take place. Why, I do not know; but .

that it was contemplated I have every reason to believe. All this shows that while the Canadian Pacific railway have acted in a creditable way in some respects, it has not discharged the full obligation contained in that solemn undertaking in its original charter, under which the rates are always open to revision and ought to be revised when the treasury of the company can afford it.
This was a rather bold game to contemplate. It would have been a horrible example to set. The rate of interest is going up in this country and you have now to offer special inducements in order to sell securities. If you want to sell bonds in connection with certain propositions, you have to give a bonus of some kind, and things have reached such a pass that securities have not now the reputation they used to enjoy. The result will be to demoralize finance to the detriment of cheap money which is so essential to Canada. I may be told that the Canadian Pacific railway has set a splendid example. I say that it has set a bad example in attempting to switch away its lands from its treasury to another company and thus evading the law which enacts that the rates must be reduced when the treasury of the company can afford it.
That is pretty nearly my case. Then there is the question of regulating the capital of railway companies. That is to be my next proposition with which I propose to deal on a future motion to go into supply. I propose to argue that the capital of railways should be controlled by our railway commission just as it is controlled by the railway commission of New York state. That commission deals with municipal franchise in the State of New York. From 1907 to December last the total amounts of securities applied for in that state was $461,000,000 and the State commission approved of only $233,000,000, leaving $208,000,000 which they either disapproved or held in abeyance. In other words, wherever there is a commission regulating railway securities, the railway companies are not allowed to issue any securities, the proceeds of which are not devoted to the undertaking itself. There can be no issue in New York of securities the proceeds of which do not go into the treasury of the company. In that way the cutting of melons is prevented. It will be a crime of crimes if the Canadian Pacific railway should issue the remainder of its authorized increase of capital at less than market price. That $20,000,000 should be put on the market at the market price and the proceeds poured into the treasury and not have the profits go into the pockets of these lucky burgheTs of Holland, the descendants of the Van Tromps who swept the Zuyderzee with the broom at their mastheads. They like the game, it Mr. MACLEAN.
is fine for them and the other shareholders, but most expensive for the people of Canada, and one that will reflect no credit on this parliament if we allow it to continue, We cannot afford to have this kind of business continued in this country. We cannot afford to have the proceeds of any securities offered by any company swept into the pockets of the shareholdes instead of being used for 'the benefit of the undertaking; and if these proceeds, be used for the benefit of the undertaking, the result will be a reduction in railway rates.
I am now coming to another and a larger issue and one which has been raised before, and that in the enforcement of public rights under federal law. It was a federal law which created the Canadian Pacific railway. It was a federal law which created the Railway Commission, and it is the duty of this parliament to enforce its own laws and uphold the rights of the people as embodied in these laws. I have argued out this question with the present Attorney General, the right hon. the Prime Minister and others, and the result has not been satisfactory to me. I have been told that the principle which prevails here is different from that which holds in the United States-that the enforcement of federal laws, which devolves on the American government and Congress, devolves on the provinces in this country. Gradually, however, we have seen this happening in this House., We have seen the government of the right hon. gentleman compelled by public opinion to enforce the federal laws before the courts. My right hon. friend has instructed some one to go to the Privy Council with regard to an old clause in the organic act of the Canadian Pacific railway. We have had eminent counsel employed by him in vindicating public rights before the tribunals in connection with various organizations-such as the public rights with regards to telegraphs and telephones and express companies. But this, so far, has been done, as one of the German philosophers said of his theories, 'a3 the grasshopper jumps/ It has been a grasshopper policy, moving only as the grasshopper jumped.
Now, the day has come when the enforcement of public rights under a federal law becomes the first and greatest duty of the government. And I want to make this an issue between myself and any government of this country, between tne people and the government, and between the people and any political party opposed to the people's rights. The enforcement of public rights is a sacred duty devolving upon this parliament, and upon us as members of this parliament. In that view, I contend that it is the duty of this House to accept my motion, which is made in a non-partisan sense and without partiality. The effect of that motion is to declare that it is the

duty of parliament to take immediate steps to ascertain whether, in view of the enormous regular dividends-now 10 per cent, and this cutting of melons every few years which brings the returns of the shareholders up to 18 per cent-it is not the duty of this House to declare for immediate action to ascertain whether the people who pay these enormous dividends are not entitled to a reduction. As I have said, the Minister of Justice holds the view that our system is somewhat different from that of the United States. ' So much the worse for Canada,' is my comment on that. Let me read a few words that I have read before in this House from the Act. creating the Interstate Commerce Commission. That has proved to be the greatest public body in the world, almost. Our greatest public body, to my mind, is that commission in Ontario which is administering the Hydro-Electric power policy. We have followed the lead of the United States, and we have a good Railway Commission, and I give the government credit for appointing a good commission. But we want to widen their powers, as the farmers have said. What are the powers of the commission in the United States?
The commission is hereby authorized and required to execute and enforce the provisions of this Act

I am reading from the ' Interstate Commerce Law.'
-and, upon the request of the commission, it shall be the duty of any district attorney of the United States to whom the commission may apply to institute in the proper court and to prosecute, under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States all necessary proceedings for the enforcement of the provisions of this Act and for the punishment of all violations thereof; and the costs and expenses of such prosecution shall be paid out of the appropriation for the expenses of the courts of the United States.
Theirs is not so good an Act as. ours ; it is not so far-reaching ; but it is ten times better in that it provides for its due enforcement by the commission itself, through the employment of the deputies of the Attorney General and at the expense of the United States. Now, to show how great the reform feeling is in the United States, let me read a few words from a current review. That great republic has been on the verge of revolution, to my mind, because of high finance, in regard to railways largely, and because of disregard of public rights. But what I have here to read will show how rapidly they are changing things there. I read from the ' American Review of Reviews ' for this month. It will show what the great law officers there axe doing. And let it be remembered that we have here a Minister of Justice and an Attorney General, -and a 58
Solicitor General. The ' Review of Reviews ' says :
Not the least interesting of Mr. Taft's appointments last month was that of the Hon. Frederick W. Lehmann, of St. Louis, as Solicitor General of the United States. Mr. Lehmann is this year president of the American Bar Association, and his professional reputation is so high that if Mr. Taft had appointed him to the Supreme Bench there would have been general approval from the lawyers of the country. Mr. Taft was once Solicitor General himself, and he regards the office as of immense importance, especially at this time when great cases are to be argued before the Supreme Court. Mr. Bowers
That was his predecessor.
-had brought a great reputation from Chicago, and it wa.s supposed that Mr. Taft might sometime elevate him to the Supreme Bench. His death was a serious loss, and Mr. Taft fills the vacancy by the appointment of another lawyer of the Mississippi valley of equally high standing. Mr. Hoyt, who had been Solicitor General in the Roosevelt administration, was chosen by Secretary Knox as the counsellor of the State Department, and his death a few weeks ago marks another vacancy in the group of talented lawyers who have been giving the government their devoted service.
That is the great characteristic of the profession of law in the United States today-that the government has been able to command and the public life of the country has called forth, the services of the ablest lawyers for the defence of public right. That was not the case ten or fifteen years ago. Of all the changes, there is one so notable as to be almost a transfiguration, that of Elihu Root, once the counsel of all the raiding done in New York in connection with local transportation, counsel of the Whitneys, and of the Philadelphia exploiters of street railways, now a public servant and a defender of public rights. The government of the United States secures the services of these men, men of the highest training, to engage in the battle for public rights. I do not pass comment on our Canadian men in that respect further than to say that we have a good commission. In the United States men are training themselves to be public servants as a scientist trains himself for his business. And government to-day is a matter of science, a matter of efficiency, a matter calling for the best men for the public service. It is because they are securing such men for the bench, for public commissions, and as the heads of departments that these reforms in the United States are going on. And let me read you a paragraph about the Attorney General of the United States-the equivalent of our Minister of Justice.
It is a picture of great activity which is presented on behalf of the Judiciary Department. Never before in the history of the


BEVIBED EDITION.
[Stage Direction]
country have the law officers been so busy in so many different directions. Mr. Wicker-sham's vigilance, with the aid of many trained assistants, has ranged from great prosecutions under the Inter-State Commerce and Sherman Anti-Trust Acts to the breaking up of ' bucket shops ' and the terrifying of the scoundrels who are using the mails to sell bogus stocks to small investors.
We had in this House the other day the question about the use of the mails to defraud the public, and it was shown to be the duty of the Attorney General to protect the public against the use of the mails to defraud the people. Well, in the United States they are doing all these things in the interest of the public. Look what the Attorney General of the United States did not long ago in compelling the Union Pacific, I think it was, to restore sixty million dollars to the treasury of the United States. Somebody said: Oh, that doesn't amount to anything, let whoever likes go after it, it is not the duty of the state to do so. Now, I raise that point here, and I especially appeal to the men of the west, whether it is not the first duty of this parliament to enforce the public rights that are existant under federal law, from this moment onward. If the Canadian Pacific railway to-day has this overflowing treasury, if it has, as a matter of fact, paid its shareholders eighteen per cent last year, and is preparing to make them another bonus of that kind, is it not the duty of all men who sit in this House to join together in passing this resolution of mine, which is absolutely non-partisan, insisting, as it does, on steps being taken at once to ascertain whether the people of Canada, in view of some facts that I have set out here to-day, are entitled to some reduction in the tariffs of these railways? They are excessive, the people have a grievance against them, a grievance that has been stated in various places. The government have investigated some of them, and the finding has been against the railways. Therefore, a further investigation must be sweeping, and must include all these charges, it must include telegraph charges. Now, the Canadian Pacific railway telegraph charges in the west are excessive-so I have been told, and so I have experienced. The express charges certainly are excessive, the sleeping car charges are excessive, and we are going to get a reduction in a few days, I am told. But we are going to get that reduction because of the activity of the Inter-State Commerce Commission of the United States. They have had the Pullman Car Company before them, and the Pullman Car Company have confessed that their charges are overcharges. The Inter-State Commerce Commission has compelled the Pullman people to come into court and confess that they are delinquent in this respect, and there is to be a reduction made Mr. MACLEAN.
some day this month in the sleeping car charges in the United States, and consequently in Canada, because the Pullman Company operates in Canada. If the Pullman Car Company is compelled to reduce their charges in Canada, then the Canadian Pacific railway will have to follow the example, and it will spread probably all over the country, and the action of the United States in procuring relief there will have its effect in this country. I wish some of the decisions of the United States would also be adopted on this side of the line; perhaps the International Railway Commission will help to bring that about.
Now, it does strike me that I have made out a strong case here to-day in behalf of the people of Canada. The time has come for some active intervention in forcing a reduction of tolls on the Canadian Pacific railway. I am not attacking that company in any respect whatever; I am simply asking for the fulfilment of a contract they have made with this country, a contract that had two wings to it, one wing to protect the shareholder and the other wing to protect the public. The shareholder has reaped his reward, he is getting his eighteen per cent to-day, but the citizen of Canada has not yet come into his own in that agreement. It is in his behalf that I make this motion, and that I now submit to the House. I will go further, and say that if anybody can suggest a modification of my motion that will assist in bringing about the object I have in view, I will be glad to accept it. In the meantime, I apologize to the House for taking up so much time, although I believe the importance of the subject fully warrants it.
George Perry Graham: I will not be so modest on behalf of my hon. friend as he was on his own behalf. I would have read all that article ill the newspaper, and what he has failed to read I will supplement. I am more than Teady to compliment him on the energy, the industry and the force with which he has applied himself to all these questions that he has discussed in this House, not only to-day, but previously. I do not agree with a good many of his ideas, but his ideas may be right, nevertheless. This much I think we must admit, that the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) has accomplished something in this country in his agitation along the various lines that he thought to be in the public interest. It must be remembered that in comparing Canada with the United States we are a good deal younger than the United States. Our railways aTe scattered over as large a territory, with about one-twelfth of the population, and some of the conditions that prevail in the United States do not prevail in Canada, and remedies that might apply

in that country would possibly not be applicable in Canada. They might do good, or they might do harm.
I agree with him thoroughly that as Canadians we are all proud of the great transportation institution that bears the name of this country, the Canadian Pacific railway. That company, with all its ramifications the world over, is the greatest transportation company in the woTld. Its origin was not so roseate; in its early days it did not have such an easy task before it. But the ability exhibited by the men then in control of the affairs of that company, and the tenacity with which they adhered to the task they had undertaken, have made this transportation company very profitable to themselves, and a credit to the Dominion of Canada the world over. When the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was asking for its charter originally there was a divergence of view as to the bargain made with that company. Some people thought the terms given them were too liberal; but the country, through the then majority in parliament made that contract with this company. That they have grown immensely wealthy under that contract, I am not sorry, I am glad of it, as a Canadian, because the more successful these great undertakings are in this coun-ti'y the higher will stand the name of Canada throughout the world. The hardest blow that this country could get, and among the nardest blows it has received in the world, will be found to be the failure of the projects that have a public or semi-public name, or appearance. I take it for granted that every Canadian is proud, wherever he goes, to find the Canadian Pacific railway looked upon as one of the best managed, one of the sanest conducted, and one of the most successful transportation companies in the world.
I am proud of that. Still, the company having all this success must keep its obfi-gations with the people. There was nothing sure at all when the Canadian Pacific railway was launched, even in the minds of the most sanguine, that it would be a reasonable success and no person ever dreamt that it would be the magnificent success that it has been. It must be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that the development of this great country of which we are all proud to belong is due in not a small measure to the energy, the zeal, the courage and foresight of the men who had charge of the Canadian Pacific railway.
Now, with these things in mind, not as a condemnation of the company because they have prospered, but rather as something highly commendable, because Canada has been big enough and they have been sufficiently qualified to make this company a success, let us look at it for a few moments. The conditions when this 58i
contract was let were not the conditions of to-day. If the House will pardon me I want now just to recall what my hon. friend dealt with a moment ago to explain what I mean. Previous to 1881 the Railway Act of 1879 was passed and that Act contained a provision as follows-I will read it so that there will be no misunderstanding: section 17, subsection H:
The parliament of Canada may from time to time reduce the tolls upon the railway, hut not without consent of the company, or so as to produce less than fifteen per cent per annum profit on the capital actually expended in its construction, nor unless on an examination made by the Minister of Public Works of the amount received and expended by the company the net income from all sources for the year then last passed is found to have exceeded fifteen per cent upon the capital so actually expended.
We will take subsection 10 of the same Act.
Every by-law fixing and regulating tolls shall be subject to revision by the Governor in Council from time to time after approval thereof, and after an order in council, reducing the tolls fixed and regulated by any by-law, has been twice published in the 'Canada Gazette/ the tolls mentioned in such order in council shall be substituted for those mentioned in the by-law so long as the order in council remains unrevoked.
The contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in 1881 substituted the words ' ten per cent ' for ' fifteen per cent ' in that new Act. That is, it made the conditions five per cent more onerous on the Canadian Pacific Railway Company than they would have been under the general Railway Act.


George Eulas Foster: More than five per cent.


George Perry Graham: Yes, it would be a third practically, or 33 per cent.


George Eulas Foster: Thirty-three and a third per cent.


George Perry Graham: Yes, 33i per cent more onerous. That change became law at that time, and it must be remembered that there was no forum to regulate rates except the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council was the forum which regulated rates, and the then parliament, very wisely left the settlement of this question to the Governor in Council under the statute which formed the contract.
Now, going on a little farther, I find that provision was made in another contract made with the Canadian Pacific railway looking to the formation of the Board of Railway Commissioners. In the year 1897 an arrangement was made with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for taking over what is known as the Crowsnest Pass railway. It will be found in that contract,

or in the arrangement which forms part of the statute of 1896-7 that there was an agreement made by the company providing for a considerable reduction in freight rates which not only was to apply to the Crows-nest Pass, but generally to the Canadian Pacific railway in that territory. I will read subsection (d) section 1, chapter 5, of that Act:
That a reduction shall be made in the general rates and tolls of the company as now-charged, or as contained in its present freight tariff, wherever rates are now the lowest, for carloads or otherwise upon the classes of merchandise hereinafter mentioned, westbound, from and including Fort William and all points 6ast of Fort William on the company's railway to all points west of Fort William on the company's main line, or on any line of railway throughout Canada owned or leased by or operated on account of the company, whether the shipment is -by all rail lines or by lake and rail, such reduction to be to the extent of the following percentages, respectively, namely:-
It goes on to give a list of the reductions which were then made, of which I will give a few:
Upon all green and fresh fruits, 33J p.c.; coal oil, 20 p.c.; cordage and binder twine, 10 p.c.; agricultural implements of all kinds, set up or in parts, 10 p.c.; iron, including bar, band, can plates, galvanized, sheet, pipe, pipe fittings, nails, spikes and horseshoes, 10 p.c.; all kinds of wire, 10 p.c.; paper for building and roofing purposes, 10 p.c.; roofing felt, box and packing, 10 p.c.
It gives quite a long list.
Now, Sir, I am calling attention to this to show that the Canadian Pacific railway have had their rates reduced through government or parliamentary action before there was a Board of Railway Commissioners. In that same Act it is pointed out that there will probably be a Board of Railway Commissioners and to show that I will read subsection (c) of section 1, chapter 5:
That so soon as the said railway is opened for traffio to Kootenay Lake the local rates and tolls on the railway and on any other railway used in connection therewith and now or hereafter owned or leased by or operated on account of the company south of the company's main line in British Columbia, as well as the rates and tolls between any point on any such line or lines or railway and any point on the main line of the company throughout Canada, or any other railway owned or leased by or operated on account of the company, including its lines of steamers in British Columbia, shall be first approved by the Governor in Council or by a railway commission, if and when such commission is established by law, and shall at all times thereafter and from time to time be subject to revision and control in the manner aforesaid.
Perhaps I may read it wrongly, but it strikes me that that Act would bring Mr. GRAHAM.
the Canadian Pacific railway main line under the Board of Railway Commissioners when it was established.


William Findlay Maclean: It might.


George Perry Graham: At least that would be my contention. Perhaps it is not legally right, but it seems to me that it is fair proof that the very passage of this Act, and the acceptance of its conditions by the Canadian Pacific railway brought all their main lines and the Kootenay route under the Board of Railway Commissioners. It seems to have been the idea of parliament all the way through and it seems to be embodied in this statute that by the contract which was made with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company the Canadian Pacific railway would be brought under the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Was there any agreement executed by the company at the time of the passing of the Act such as that which the minister has just referred to?
' Mr. GRAHAM. I have not seen any such agreement.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It should be a schedule to the Act.


George Perry Graham: There must be some agreement in existence as they complied with all these rates as set out in this statute. It was a part of the contract, as I understand it, for the aiding of this line and_ the taking of it over by the Canadian Pacific railway that this statute should be passed and there must have been an agreement entered into although I have not seen it.
A little later, in 1903, the Board of Railway Commissioners was established. The Canadian Pacific railway at once raised the point that on account of their original contract with the government, made in 1881, they did not come under the Board of Railway Commissioners. I am not sure that that ground was well taken in view of the statute to which they became a party a little later. I think, perhaps, it was not well taken. I am inclined to think that the Act passed in 1879 brings them under the Board of Railway Commissioners. However that may be, the Canadian Pacific railway have contended that they weTe not under the Board of Railway Commissioners, under section' 10 of the original Act. In 1904, shortly after the establishment of the Board of Railway Commissioners, as I understand it, the Canadian Pacific railway contended that they were not compelled to come under that board. An order in council was passed to have the question settled by the Supreme Court as to the actual cost of construction of the Canadian Pacific railway. It must be borne in mind that although it is arguable that the rates should

be based on the dividend paid on the stock that that forms no part of the contract. The contract related to 10 per cent on the actual cost of construction of the ljne and it says so. If by their various steamship lines, and I submit, also, if by their sales of lands, if by the profits from the various ramifications of this great company the world over, they paid 15 per cent in profits, and they were not enabled by their profits from the railway itself to pay 10 per cent on the cost of construction, they would not be held liable under the contract if it was closely adhered to. But I do not wish to argue closely; we want to get the best rates we can for the people of Canada and this company is undoubtedly very wealthy. This case was going before the Supreme Court. It took some time, as the Minister of Justice pointed out I think a year ago in this House, it was quite an intricate case to settle on for reference to the court. Here was a road constructed 20 years ago, some of it before that, with all the various costs in connection with the construction with the rebuilding, with the rearrangement, with the change from wooden structures to steel and concrete, &c. Any person will agree with me that to go into the details of finding out the actual cost of that road would be a very long and tedious operation. When the case had been arranged for reference to the Supreme Court, Mr. Creel-man and the late Mr. Christopher Robinson, if I remember rightly, acting for the company, and Mr. Aylesworth, the present Minister of Justice, acting for the Crown, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick being Minister of Justice, an arrangement was arrived at by the then Minister of Justice and the solicitors of the company, that without any prejudice to the claim of the Canadian Pacific railway, they would raise no objection to the submission of their rates to the Board of Railway Commissioners, as was done by every other railway. In that connection Mr. Creelman wrote a letter in February, 1909, to the Minister of Justice as follows:-


RE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY STOCK.
[Stage Direction]
Sir,-Referring to what has been said in the House of Commons on this subject and to your conversation with me on Friday afternoon of last week, I beg now to confirm what I then stated with reference to the position of the question referred to the court in connection with the 10 per cent toll clause arising out of section 20 of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's charter.
Pursuant to the agreement on the part of the company at the time the order in council was made in 1902 a case was settled and has been filed in the Supreme Court.
You will remember that owing to the many difficult points which arose a very considerable time was taken in settling this case.
About the time that it could be set down
for argument a number of rate questions were pending before the Railway Commissioners, which questions involved a reduction of rates upon the company's lines affected by the section above referred to.
Our company after consideration, although not waiving the benefit of the section, decided that no question would be raised under it in connection with the application then pending.
I conveyed an intimation to this effect to the then Minister of Justice and he expressed the opinion that so long as the company did not take advantage of the section there was not much object in proceeding with the case as the argument would be a very tedious and expensive one, and the taking of the accounts after the statute had been construed would involve enormous expense and continuous work for several years.
The position then taken by our company in this respect has been continued up to the present time.
With the exception of one case where the section was pleaded several years ago, and afterwards abandoned, the company has never in any rate application to the Railway Commissioners, sought the benefit of this section, but in every instance the commissioners have dealt with the applications on their merits and have treated our company, in this respect, in precisely the same way as and on the same footing with the Grand Trunk, the Canadian Northern and other Canadian railway companies.
Although our company is quite willing to proceed with the case, yet I am unable to see what good object will be served by doing so when the country is at present practically in the same position with regard to our rates as if the case had been disposed of by the court and every point determined against the company.
I might refer my hon. friend to just one other point to show that so far as the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners is concerned, he treats the Canadian Pacific railway just as if they were another railway without any rights that they may or may not have under the contract of 1881. A question was raised in a case of the Attorney General of British Columbia against the Canadian Pacific railway and the chairman of the commission used these words:-
Request was made that the board should cause an inquiry and have an account taken to ascertain if the earnings of the railway were such that the board could reduce the rates in view of section 20 above mentioned. This inquiry is not necessary as the company admits that its rates are subject to reduction or adjustment by the board if a proper ease-is made out.
It would seem, notwithstanding all that has been said, that the company has, without prejudice, as Mr. Creelman points out_ to any rights they may have, acquiesced in the board having complete jurisdiction over their rates.
Mr. LENNOX.: If I understood the minister, the company agreed that as regards

the matters that were then pending before the Railway Board they would admit the jurisdiction of the board. Then, in the matter just referred to, they again submitted to the jurisdiction of the board and the minister will recollect that the letter also says that in the agreement that was made in 1892 the company reserved their rights under section 10 of the original Act. Does the minister understand that the company had absolutely waived and abandoned all their rights under the contract and submitted themselves unreservedly in all matters to the board, or only that in certain cases they have submitted themselves to the board, reserving the right to take any position they might see fit at a subsequent date?


George Perry Graham: As I understand it, the attitude of the company is that they are submitting to the jurisdiction of the board, but maintaining their right under section 10, if they want to act upon it again in the future.


Haughton Lennox: The minister referred to the fact that, by reason of the lapse of a very long time, it was a verv difficult matter to investigate and ascertain what was the actual cost of construction of this road. Does it not appear to him that if the company merely submitted itself from time to time and maintained the right at any time to invoke the original contract, the matter would become more and more difficult with the lapse of time, so that it would be much more difficult ten or fifteen years hence to have the position defined than it is now or than it was in 1902?


George Perry Graham: There is no doubt a great deal in what my hon. friend says. The situation would be cleared up entirely if the company said, we abandon our rights under that section if we have any. But if it came to a trial of the question whether the company had any rights under that Act, to my mind they would have a weak case. At the present moment they are raising no objection to the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission. This contract was made at a time when we had not that forum for the settlement of these rate questions, though the creation of a commission was foreshadowed, and to my mind the Canadian Pacific Railway Company are stopped in that statute from claiming to be outside the jurisdiction of the Commission.


William Findlay Maclean: But they say they do not fear, but are ready to go on with the trial now. They say that in one of those letters.


George Perry Graham: I am not sure that they are so ready as that. However, the Railway Commission has complete control of rates in Canada. I agree with my hon. friend from South York, and I disagree with him.


Haughton Lennox: I believe the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada is the best body, with the widest jurisdiction, of all such bodies in the world. I have had reason lately to make some investigation of this matter. In Germany, though the railroads are government roads, the freight rates there do not compare for one moment with the rates in Canada. They are three times as high as our rates. Their hauls are short, it is true, but their rates should be low, because their cars are all loaded. France has not approached the control of rates as we have. England has a board, but in the control of freight rates it does not compare with the Interstate Commerce Commission or with ours, and the control exercised by the Interstate Commerce Commission does not for a moment equal with the control exercised by the Canadian Commission. Our commission can take anything they like as a basis for fixing the rates of the Canadian Pacific railway; they can take the dividend paid on the stock or the actual cost of the road, or they can have the company file a tariff, which will be as they see it a fair tariff for the transportation of freight and passengers. Let me call my hon. friend's attention to another point. I am not defending the Canadian Pacific railway. But if you take the rates in the United States from the west to Duluth, and take the rates for a corresponding distance in Canada, you will find that our rates are lower in every instance. A statement which I had compiled last summer showed that the people in the United States were paying higher freight rates for the same distances than the people on our side. I have no hesitation in saying that, with all the power of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and with the great population in the United States and the great strength of their western railways, the rates to and from the west are higher than those in this country for the same distances. Being very much interested in this matter, it strikes me that whatever we are to do in this House, we ought to keep clearly in mind this fact, that we have established a board composed of able men. No part of the government of Canada does it more credit than the Board of Railway Commissioners. Their judgments are quoted as my hon. friend quoted them in the case of the express companies, and they have done a great deal of good; and I would not like to see anything done that would have a tendency to take out of their hands the complete jurisdiction we have given them, because they can exercise it better than we could and with more beneficial results to the people.


Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark).: A very few words on the very interesting subject at present before the House. Un-

der the old Railway Act, notice was given to every railway company in the country that had received a subsidy from parliament that they would not be interfered with until their earning power was suffi-cent to pay 15 per cent upon their investment. In the arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company the Tate was reduced to 10 per cent, on account of the money and land subsidies and other privileges given to the company.
However, that has been altered and what is our position at present ? That position has been pretty fairly stated by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) . By the Act of 1897 and the agreement with the Canadian Pacific railway, we entered into a totally new arrangement. One of the 'Conditions was that we would have the power of appointing a railway commission for the purpose of fixing and regulating rates. Did that Act give this government absolutely the power to deal with the question ? I think it did. I think that the powers in the matter of rates were vested in the Dominion government independent of any agreement with the Canadian Pacific railway. I have my doubts as to what extent that would apply to the other railways of the country as we have had no legislation in that direction concerning them. The question is whether the Act establishing the railway commission supersedes the statutory offers or promises made to different railways in the country. As to our power, I have not the slightest doubt. No matter how solemn an agreement we may have entered into with any railway company, the power is vested in the Dominion parliament to abrogate that agreement at any time. It would be a bad policy and a bad precedent to do so, and no government will ever do it, if it can possibly come to an arrangement with the parties. But there is power in the Dominion parliament to do it if it likes. This parliament has the power to do wrong if it likes in that matter, but it will not do wrong wittingly. It may be the interest of the country, that the government should get. out of an agreement made with a railway company, but that is a matter of negotiation. Have they got out of the agreement made with the Canadian Pacific railway. I believe they have. I have not the slightest doubt that under the Act of 1897, and our subsequent legislation, the power is vested in the Dominion parliament of dealing with rates, but we divested ourselves of that power for our own convenience and vested it ,in the railway commission. Should we interfere with that P We should not, unless there he some real solid grievance to complain of. We have divested ourselves of the power and left it to that railway commission. Let the railway commission deal with it. The government have power over the railway commission as well as over
judges. The supreme power in this country is this parliament. Is it advisable that we should exercise it in this instance ? What reason is given for asking us to interfere ? We are given talks from the newspapers, expressions of opinion by delegations of farmers here and there, talks of certain manufacturing industries who complain of not being fairly treated. Is _ this the tribunal to .deal with such a question ? Have we not properly delegated the power of dealing with it to a commission; and if the commission should do wrong,_ this parliament has the power to supervise it. To my mind the commission has done right. The hon. gentleman says:	Lower the
rates. But a railway cannot lower its rates without the consent of the commission. When the commission was appointed, that was one of the points I put to the Minister of Railways, who introduced the Bill. Fix a maximum rate, I said, and let the railways do anything they like under that. Oh, no, he said, there would be then no use for a commission, there would then be an end to the matter and to a certain extent, he was right. If a railway had that right to make lower rates than other railways, would it not do it ? Give the Canadian Pacific railway power to lower the .rates and it will lower them to-morrow 5 per cent or 10 per cent. There will then be a nice fight on with ithe different railways and the result would be that the Canadian Pacific railway would be victorious in the end. We have guarded against that in the appointment of the railway commission by enacting that they .shall see that a fair rate is charged. Any one can go before that commission and say the rate is not a fair one and argue his case; and from the decision of the commission there is an appeal to this House. This House has the right and the power to supervise that commission. But we have the statement made that the rates are .too high, and it is made without any evidence, on nothing but hearsay. On this we are asked to pass this resolution. I think that possibly the hon.- gentleman is not serious, and that his intention simply is, to draw' the attention of the country to the matter.	.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


John Graham Haggart: Until we have stranger reasons to .show that the commission have not acted in the interests of the country, the best thing we can do is to leave this matter alone.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


John Allister Currie: I do not wish to delay the House, but this question is one which is attracting considerable public attention. My hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean), represents a certain phase of public opinion and his remarks

have considerable weight throughout the country. There can be no question that on every occasion he has been a fearless advocate of public rights as opposed to the rights of the various corporations which have encroached on the rights of the public. His work in that connection is well known in Ontario. His advocacy of the Hydro-Electric Commission, his strong advocacy of the doctrine of public ownership of public utilities and the public operation of those utilities, are well known, so that whatever he says, either in this House or in the journal he controls, has considerable influence on the people, especially in the province of Ontario, and no doubt on a large number of people elsewhere.
Knowing that in many cases he has fought as the champion of public rights in this respect, I have always given a great deal of deference to his opinions on any subject he brings before the House, because I feel that it is generally something new, and that in the end something effective will be accomplished. Sometimes perhaps it is brought forward with a view to obtaining a certain amount of publicity, again sometimes for the purpose of adjusting some matters which are burdensome to the people as a whole. Now, realizing that the member fpr York is to a large extent a champion of public rights, I have taken occasion to give some study to this question of the ten per cent clause in the Canadian Pacific railway contract. We all know, Mr. Speaker, those of us who read the public press, especially the American press, and more especially the American magazines, that for several years there has been a very fierce campaign carried on by those papers against what are called the corporations of the United States. Modern social development has resulted in the growth of great corporations owning vast assets, controlling vast sums of money, and on some occasions those corporations in the United States have been shown not to conduct their business with a view of benefiting the public. The result of this campaign has been that a number of those corporations have been brought to justice. In the case of the sugar corporation, I understand, a large fine has been imposed upon them, they have been found guilty of defrauding the government. The sugar trust, the tobacco trust, the Standard Oil Company, every one of these industrial corporations from the insurance companies down, have been attacked, and recently an attack has been made upon the American railways. Now, everybody knows, who knows anything about railroads and railroad companies, that for the past eight or ten years a great change has been taking place in the physical conditions of those railroads. The roads of the United States have been virtually rebuilt, and now in this country almost every road of any con-Mr. CURRIE (Simcoej.
sequence has been rebuilt. In order to rebuild those roads in the United States vast sums of money were necessarily expended for improvements. To meet these expenditures large issues of securities chiefly bonds were sold. It is claimed, perhaps justly, that some of the securities were issued without any reason, or that there were no tangible assets behind them. However, we find this condition existing at the present time, that the government of the United States has undertaken a prosecution, on a large scale of almost every large railway in the United States. Indictments have been drawn up against them, and what is the result? The result of all this agitation, the result of- these indictments, is that the credit of these railways has been shaken, in fact the credit of these companies, their power to obtain fresh supplies of money for improvements has been destroyed, public credit and confidences generally have been shaken, and business in the United States during the past year has been virtually at a standstill. In fact, they have hard times in the United States, in the midst of plenty, and a great many large industries, especially those that were dependent on the railways for their support, are virtually dormant, and a great number of workmen are idle. Now, it seems to me that possibly this agitation in our own country against our railroads is to some extent a reflex of the agitation of a similar character in the United States. In view of the critical condition of financial affairs throughout the world, compared with the happy condition we are in at the present moment in Canada, I consider that it is a very inopportune time for us to commence rocking the boat so far as our great corporations are concerned. That is my view of this question, it is only the view of an individual. But it would seem to me that if this House made any attack upon any of the larger corporations which are to some extent joined to the credit of this country, it would not only destroy the credit of those corporations, but it might bring hardship upon the country, and possibly a certain degree of hard times.
Now the Minister of Railways has discussed the ten cent clause. We all know, who have given any attention to this matter, that the Canadian Pacific railway was chartered by the Canadian parliament in 1881. This charter contained a clause, known as clause No. 20, which has been read by the Minister of Railways, and his interpretation of that clause 20 is to my mind correct. The interpretation that has been given by him also to the clauses of Consolidated Railway Act of 1879 is correct. It has also been shown in this House that at that time we had no Railway Commission ; it has also been shown that this question has been brought to the

attention of this House, and that the hon. gentleman who is now Minister of Justice brought an action before the Supreme Court to settle this matter of the ten per cent clause, and that action was suspended in the courts because the Canadian Pacific railway had given up its rights under this clause and voluntarily surrendered its rate schedules to the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission. Now, my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) would have action taken to settle this ten per cent clause again.


William Findlay Maclean: No, I propose nothing of the kind.


John Allister Currie: Well, I presume that some action is to be taken.


William Findlay Maclean: Before the Railway Commission. I propose that the House express the opinion that steps toe taken to ascertain, under the Railway Commission probably, whether the time has not come, in view of the earnings of the company, to grant a reduction of rates.


John Allister Currie: Now, let us follow that out. Supposing that we had taken some action in this House on this ten per cent clause, supposing we had carried on a suit, as had been decided. The Canadian Pacific railway would have fought us on that ten per cent clause, and the result would have been that it would have taken ten or fifteen years for the government of this country to bring about a decision in the matter. The questions have been referred to the Privy Council, point after point ; it would have been contested at every step by the company, and no one would have got any satisfaction out of it except the lawyers. Now, what would have occurred during all this period that this fight would have been going on? The Canadian Pacific railway would have been charging any rate they pleased, and the result would have been that, instead of having their rates, as they are now, subject to the Railway Commission, they would have been arbitrarily fixed by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company themselves. My hon. friend from South York apparently, when he brought his motion before the House, did not know that the rates of the Canadian Pacific railway over the whole system were now under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, I knew that absolutely, and I said so in the House to-day.


John Allister Currie: Then what does the hon. gentleman want by his motion?


William Findlay Maclean: Let the hon. gentleman read the motion, let him pay attention to what I said.


John Allister Currie: The motion says that some action must be taken. Is not that so?


William Findlay Maclean: I will read the motion.
That before the said motion be passed this House hereby declares that steps be at once taken to ascertain the rights of the public using the Canadian Pacific railway to a reduced tariff because of the provisions in that regard contained in the Act of parliament ratifying the agreement with that company, or any other Act.


John Allister Currie: Now, the hon. gentleman says that steps must be taken, he says they must be taken under the original Act. Now, under the original Act the steps must be taken toy whom? By the Minister of Public Works? I have got the statute here, the Minister of Railways has read the clause to the House, and you will find that the statute distinctly says, in subsection 11 :
-nor unless an examination be made by the Minister of Public Works-
That is, of the books of the company.
-of the amount received and expended by the company, the net income from all sources, for the year then last passed, is found to have exceeded fifteen per cent upon the capital so actually expended.
That would have been the procedure under the original Act, quite a difference from having the Railway Commission act. And if the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) had stated, in his motion that, the Railway Commission should take action to consider whether it was not advisable that the rates of the Canadian Pacific railway should be lowered under this 10 per cent clause, we could have understood clearly what was intended. Let us see whether or not the railway has earned its 10 per cent. We know that the Canadian Pacific railway is not only a railway company, but also a hotel company, a lumber company, a mining company, a land company, a steamship company-that it carries on a great variety of industrial operations. The hon. member has shown that there is something like $36,000,000 to the credit of the land fund alone. Mr. Creelman in his statement says .that the distribution this year will include 7 per cent from the earnings of the railway company. He does not say whether that includes the earnings of branch lines or not, but I suppose that those earnings would be included. Yet clause 20 only applies to the main line, which is virtually the only line mentioned in the original charter. But, suppose that this 7 per cent were all earned by the main line, what does the other 3 per cent_ consist of? If the Canadian Pacific railway sells land, distributes some of the money

with its annual dividend, or if it cuts down timber, sells it and distributes some of that money, or if it takes coal out of the ground, sells it and distributes some of the money -should that be considered a dividend in the strict sense of the term? I do not think that any man who understands finance would consider it a dividend. To my mind it is a distribution of assets. They certainly cannot grow more coal; they cannot take back the land they have sold; they might grow a second crop of timber, but none of us who are here now would be in a position to discuss any question arising out of such dividend disbursement after it had disposed of this second crop. It is clear that, if the railway company makes a distribution of three per cent from auxiliaries, these auxiliary revenues are large from the assets. That is really a distribution of assets. It has been shown tliat the company has, very wisely, expended a large amount of money received from land sales in the extensions of its branch lines. It is unnecessary for me to point out that the Canadian Pacific Eailway Company is one of the greatest corporations in the world. If its affairs had not been carried on properly and honestly from the beginning, it could not have succeeded. Any one who has had dealings with the Canadian Pacific railway knows that the company is always ready to meet and adjust matters and to deal fairly and honourably with everybody, from its humblest employee to its highest official. And if any individual from Pile o' Bones has a complaint to make against the road as to its rates, he can go before the Railway Commission and have the matter fought out even without a lawyer to help him. And the railway company has submitted to that; they have given away their position so far as the 10 per cent is concerned, and we have had the benefit of that concession for years. That being so, is there any necessity for us to stir this matter up? Is not this an inopportune time to discuss it? This railway company is the greatest advertising agency that Canada ever had. It carries on a railway business from coast to coast, but it also carries on a steamship business on the seven seas, its house-flag is found in every important harbour, and its agents are in every important port in the world. As a manufacturer,
I have received letters from many parts of the world as a result of the operations of these commercial agents, asking if we could provide certain articles of Canadian manufacture. We have had letters from Manchuria, from Hong Kong, from Bombay, from New Zealand, from Australia, from South Africa, from Genoa, from Vienna, from Antwerp. This railway company has its diplomatic service, its commercial agents all over the world, all working for Canada. And, beyond question, if Canada is to be a Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).
great nation, not only in growing wheat, but in respect of manufacturing-and we ought to be great in manufacturing for we have the raw materials to make the greatest manufacturing nation in the world, if we only look after and conserve them-this outside service of the Canadian Pacific railway offers us the greatest commercial organizations in the world for profitably carrying on a successful foreign trade. There is no corporation in the United States or in the -world that can give you a through bill of lading to the four quarters of the earth as the Canadian Pacific railway can. The humblest shipper on the Canadian Pacific railway can get a through bill of lading to any place in the world. The company's agents will look after that shipment, and collect payment for him. While I approve of the hon. member (Mr. Maclean, York) bringing in a practical resolution calling upon the Railway Commission to investigate the rates of this road in accordance with the 10 per cent provision of its charter, I do not think the resolution he has introduced is sufficiently clear to reasonably command my support. I do not think it wise for us to start investigating unnecessarily the large corporations of Canada just now. It would be a serious matter if we carried on a campaign at this moment against all the corporations that are successful and that we have established by public credit. We have some corporations that are not acting properly and that might need investigation. But, the Canadian Pacific railway is not in that category. Under present financial conditions, a general campaign of investigation is not advisable. It may not be well for us to rock the boat when the storm is on, as at present. If we rock the boat and the Canadian Pacific railway or other corporations are injured, what would happen to the rest of the country? The hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) we know is a good business man. He has had tremendous struggles, and has always succeeded, but not greater struggles than those of the men who were at the head of the Canadian Pacific railway, in the beginning for they pledged everything they had in the world, present and future for the success of the road. There should be a fellow feeling for them on his part. And as prosperity has come to this great road, so prosperity has come to him also, and he should have a kindly fellow feeling and not try to stir up that most disagreeable feeling happily found only amongst a few small Canadians, the fear that somebody else is going to make a dollar. This parliament should avoid discussions of that kind-that is my honest and firm opinion. Now, if the country is thr at-ened with this attack on corporations and on our financial system, we know that it is because the Canadian Pacific railway

stock is selling at such a high price in the foreign market. But it is for that reason that the country is so prosperous and so many people are coming in. Looking over ' Hansard ' of the old days, I noticed the speech of the late -John Charlton who figured out that, judging by the growth of the United States, it would take thirty years for the west to have 550,000 people in it. The silver jubilee, twenty-five years, of that road is about here, and the great west has practically over a million people in it, showing the intense life energy and the rapid growth of this country.
Now, coming to the question of freight Tates, anybody who has had to do with rates knows that the freight rates of' the west, as the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) has told us, are a great deal less than those in the western states. It is very well for men to come here as members of deputations to the Prime Minister and make all kinds of charges, and assertions, but I challenge any member of this House, the member for South York (Mr. Maclean) included, to take the schedules of the western American roads, in comparison with the schedules of the roads in the Canadian west, and prove that our rates are unfair or higher. That comparison will show that the Canadian rates are from five to fifteen per cent lower than the rates for similar distances on the American roads. Then, why stir up discontent? We had the announcement made in the press that the gentleman at the head of the Railway Commission, ex-Judge Mabee has dashed wildly ofi to Washington and is going to have a treaty made right away for an international Railway Commission. Now, as a shipper, I look on that [DOT]with a great deal of distrust. As a practical man of affairs, a Canadian, I do not want an International Railway Commission, because, from experience, I know that when the foreign railways have approached our Railway Commission, they have approached them not to reduce rates but to compel the Canadian Pacific railway and the Canadian Northern railway to increase their Tates in the west.
Everybody knows that it is only a few years ago since a case of that kind occurred with regard to the hauling of coal from Fort William to Winnipeg, and if these American roads had had their way the people of the west ever since then would have been paying 25 or 50 cents a ton more for their coal. Another evidence that the Canadian Pacific railway and other Canadian roads have lower rates than the American roads is the fact that' nearly all the foreign business goes by way of Montreal. Why is business increasing via Canadian routes? Why is it that the Oriental business of the great American roads now passes through Vancouver and over Canadian lines? We are
all willing that it may continue to do so.
I wish this House to understand that it would be a most dangerous thing to establish an international tribunal with power to govern freight rates. Then the rates would be the same from the Canadian west to the seas which the Kansas farmers has to pay. The Canadian roads would not have the right to make any reduction in the rates and the people of the west whoj are now clamouring so loudly for reduced; rates would have to pay from 25 to 30 per cent increased tolls on their grain and! other produce shipped east, in order that our rates might compare with the American rates. Let that question sink deeply into the head and heart of every member of this House. The hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) is a gentleman who' gives deep thought to subjects of this kind. If he wishes he can compare the schedules and he will find out that wher-i ever the Interstate Commerce Commission of the United States has control of the rates the rates are higher than they are on this side. One question arises about reaping machines. It is said that the freight rate in the United States is less than the rate in Canada. That is quite true. The haul from 'Chicago to Winnipeg is shorter than the haul from Torontq or the east to Winnipeg, but compare it on the ton mile basis and you will find that the Canadian haul is cheaper. Let) us be just and fair and let us be Cana-' dians. We are threatened with all kinds/ of agitations in the press of this country. The press has virtually brought about a crisis in our affairs by demanding a reei-l procity treaty. I do not say whether it is right or wrong, I do not discuss it at the present moment as it may be discussed here in a few days. All I say is, let us be very careful before we undertake to make any changes in those great organizations that have accomplished so much and which were brought into being largely by the foresight of those men who sat in this House before us. Let us be very careful how we act and what we do. Let every hon. member of this House also, bear in mind that J. Pierpont Morgan said hot long ago that the man who was a bear on the success of the United States was bound to be a failure. I say here' that the man who is a bear on the future of this country is going to be a failure. We have every evidence that this country is going to be a great nation. We have more than doubled in ponulation over the percentage or ratio of increase that wasl laid down by Abraham Lincoln with reference to the United States. He issued a memorandum in which he foretold what the population of the United States should be a hundred years from then. We have beaten that ratio 100 per cent. Let us be

glad at heart because we will have more population in fifty years from now than the United States had after a hundred years of growth and development. Let us be true to Canada. Let us be contented, and happy, let us deal fairly and justly with all our great corporations, especially with this great corporation that has a reputation for dealing fairly and justly with every man, that is managed by Canadians, whose success has brought $300,000,000 of foreign money into this country in the last year and a half, to be managed not by foreigners, but by Canadians. Let us act fairly towards this corporation, let us be just to ourselves, let us bear in mind that in so far as the Canadian Pacific railway is concerned the less we attack it, especially on that most tender point on which a corporation may be attacked, that is with reference to its stock, the better it is for this country.
Now, the hon. member spoke about the stock question and he said that this rail-, way should build its branch lines with debenture stock. Everybody knows that debenture stock is really another name for a second mortgage, and that if you put a first or a second mortgage on a piece of property you have thereby established a fixed charge which you must pay or go into liquidation. He considers it wrong that in a very few years this road might' be building its branch lines out of the sale of its common stock. I wish every mile of the Canadian Pacific railway were built out of its common stock. Then there would be no fixed charges on the Canadian Pacific railway; there would be no interest to pay the bondholders, no capital to pay back. This road, it must be remembered;, has a lower fixed charge than any railway in America. Would it not be much better for this road to increase its common stock and sell its common stock, which does not give any fixed charge, or put any obligation on its propertv for the building of these branch lines than to go on issuing bonds and piling up indebtedness that must some day in the future be paid by whom?-the shippers. Apparently the hon. member for South York does not know the difference between debenture stock1 and common stock.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. gentleman will pardon me; I think I do know. When he says that I do not know', I think that if he would come to school to me for two or three minutes I w'ould takel a good deal of the nonsense out of his head.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman knows very well that I have been at school at his knee when I was a young newspaper man.


John Allister Currie: 


William Findlay Maclean: I am sorry for my pupil.


John Allister Currie: But I never learned until to-day from him that it W'as better for a company to put a mortgage on its property to build additions than to sell common stock at double its par value in order to make necessary improvements. Let us be just and fair with this road, do not let this House become stampeded on questions of this kind and let us get down' to the common sense view of things. If it is necessary, in order to clear the atmosphere, pass a resolution abolishing the ten per cent clause and leave the rates of the Canadian Pacific railway to the Railway Commission. Is it not better for this House to leave these questions alone at the present time when the bankers in Wall street are gathering and sitting up every night v'ondering whether another bank is going to go to smash or the financial world is going to come to an end. We as Canadians would be better to leave this question alone than adopt a meaningless resolution of this kind.
At six o'clock, the House took recess. After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
. SECOND READINGS.
Bill (No. 65.) respecting the British Crown Assurance Company, Limited.-Mr. Knowles.
Bill (No. 81.) to incorporate the Canadian Northern Branch Lines Gompany.-Mr. Cash.
Bill (No. 82.) respecting the Kettle River Valley Railway Company, and to change its name to the Kettle Valley Railway Company.-Mr. Burrell.
Bill (No. 84.) respecting the Southern Central Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Conmee.

['Yes. All of the Quebec items have passed except the one item for the Montreal new barracks.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Pugsley, House adjourned at 12.05 a.m. Wednesday.', 'Wednesday, January 18, 1911.']
Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, the provision of the Railway Act of 1879 to which allusion has been made, was one that had been in force for a considerable time, when the Railway Act was revised in that year. It has already been quoted, but I may quote one subsection of section 17, in order to give point to what I am about to say.
The parliament of Canada may, from time to time reduce the tolls upon the railway, but not without consent of the company, or so as to produce less than fifteen per cent per annum profit on the capital actually expended in its construction; nor unless, on an exam-

ination. made by the Minister of Public Works of the amount received and expended by the company, the net income from all sources, for the year then last passed, is found to have exceeded fifteen per cent upon the capital so actually expended.
When the Canadian Pacific railway was incorporated in 1881 a section was introduced into the Act, which I need not quote, as it has heen quoted by several hon. gentlemen. The net result of that legislation was to give the government of the country a greater control over the rates and tolls of the Canadian Pacific railway than over those of other railways in the country. That is to say, in respect of all railways incorporated up to that date the government had the power of regulating the tolls after 15 per cent had been earned upon the capital. In respect of the Canadian Pacific railway, the government under the charter, incorporating the Canadian Pacific, railway, had power to interfere and to regulate the tolls after the company should have earned 10 per cent upon the capital actually invested in the road. I am not using the exact terms of the statute, but I have fairly stated the effect of the legislation.
The Canadian Pacific railway was proceeded with, it was built under 'the charter to which I have alluded, and some time later, about 1902 I think it was, the government of the country came to the conclusion that conditions had arrived under which it would be possible for parliament, under the provisions of the charter of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to regulate the tolls to be received for passengers and freight by that company. A statement of the case was prepared by counsel acting for the government on the one hand, and for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company on the other hand. The case opened up questions of very great complexity. It opened up questions of fact which would require a very prolonged examination before officers of the Supreme Court, a very long examination of witnesses, books and accounts. The case also opened up very difficult questions of law as to the construction of that statute, as to how the word capital, was to be construed. The net result of it, as I understand from the statement of the Minister of Justice, made about two years ago, and the statement of the Minister of Railways and Canals to-day, was this: The government, on the one hand and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company on the other saw that 'that litigation would undoubtedly be very costly and very prolonged if it were to be proceeded with. The Canadian Pacific railway and the government agreed that the case should stand over in the Supreme Court of Canada without being further proceeded with at present and that in the meantime, the Canadian Pacific Railway
Company should submit itself to the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission of Canada, as thoroughly and effectively as if that ease had been proceeded with and judgment given in favour of the contention of the government and against the contention of the railway company. I think that is a fair statement of the case, as I gathered it from what was said by the Minister of Justice two years ago and from what was said by the Minister of Railways and Canals to-day.	.
The actual situation, then, for five or six years past has been this, that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, and has been subject to its jurisdiction just as thoroughly and effectively as any other railway in Canada. I would like to say one or two words about the situation in that regard. It seems to me to amount to this, that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has practically, although not technically, consented to judgment against it upon the case submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada for its adjudication. This is thoroughly satisfactory as long as it lasts; but it is perfectly plain and clear to all of us that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, for some reason, and under the advice of its counsel or otherwise, has reserved to itself the right at some future date to have that case proceeded with if it should deem it to be in its interest that that course should be pursued. That is the only criticism one can make with regard to the situation as it is at present. Now, if I might venture a suggestion in that regard, it seems to me that it ought to be the policy of the government to ask the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to make that temporary arrangement absolutely permanent and definite; and, if I might venture a word to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, I would say that in my opinion that great corporation, upon which so many well deserved eulogiums have been passed this evening, would be well advised to assent to that request without any reservation whatever, so that the Company^ would be permanently and definitely subject in every respect to the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners, just a3 every other railway corporation in this country is subject to that jurisdiction. It seems to me that the government might very well press that pretty strongly upon the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and I think it would be wise for that company, and in their interest, to pursue the course which I have ventured to suggest. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company still has a technical right to have that question fought out in the courts and determined. For my part, I do not believe that company has

185S
the Board of Railway Commissioners to proceed to thorough inquiry into these matters. And the Minister of Railways and Canals, haying regard to his duty, would be hound, it seems to me, under these condition.*, to give direction to the .board for that purpose. Does the resolution proposed by my hon, friend from South York have any such direct purpose or aim as that? It has not. It is couched in the vaguest and most indefinite language. And, the fault I have to find with it, in conclusion, is that if my hon. friend is convinced that there is any real grievance in respect of the rates charged by this great railway corporation, he has not effectively challenged that grievance, and has not taken the proper course to have it redressed.


William Findlay Maclean: If the House will pardon me for a moment, I desire opportunity for a word of explanation in view of what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has said. That hon. gentleman has asked me why I have formed the resolution as I have formed it, and also why I proceed specially against the Canadian Pacific railway. In the first place, in the original Act, there was a distinction made between the Canadian Pacific railway and other roads, and a different rule was applied to the Canadian Pacific railway from that applied to other roads. In the second place, judged by the original Act, profits were to govern the regulation of tariffs, and I think I proved this afternoon that the profits of this road were exorbitant. As to other grievances, I leave these to the western members. If they do not say there are grievances, we may assume that grievances do not exist, or it may be for me, on a future occasion, to deal with the matter ; but the opportunity is here, and these gentlemen can do what they like about it. I -agree with what the leader of the opposition said as to the enforcement of federal law. He said that I did not refer to it. That was the point of my remarks this afternoon-that federal law Should be enforced by federal authority. The hon. gentleman acknowledges that he believes this ; so, thank God,
I have made one convert in this House.


Robert Laird Borden: I am much obliged to my hon. friend for his compliment, but I think I have already expressed myself three or four times in this House in the same sense as I have done to-night. So far as he sought to make any distinction between this railway company and others in Canada, I do not appreciate that distinction. All these railways are subject to the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and it is idle to attack one unless that you show that that one is charging unjust rates or higher rates than the others. My hon. friend has not attempted to do that. Therefore, I said, that if this motion pro-Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
ceeded at all, it should proceed against every railway company in Canada, or, at all events, against the great railway systems, the Canadian Pacific railway, the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Northern, because we have not been shown that any grievance exists in respect of the Canadian Pacific railway, which does not exist in respect of the other companies. All are equally subject to the jurisdiction of the same tribunal, and the proper course would be to ask the proper tribunal, constituted for that purpose, to deal with the rates under its wide and extensive powers. It is manifest to all of us, I think, that this parliament, or any committee of this parliament, could not make an effective examination into the rates of the great railway corporations. We have not the expert officers, we have not the technical assistance, we have not the machinery generally for making such an examination. But we* have constituted a tribunal that has all these aids, and which can make that examination effectively if its attention is directed to any grievance or series of grievances from which the public are alleged to be suffering.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou).: I do not altogether agree with the reasoning of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) that the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) should not have moved his resolution asking for the rights of the public using the Canadian Pacific railway because it was directed against the Canadian Pacific railway only. Because, if there was a grievance to be investigated, or a condition of facts which warranted parliament making an inquiry, the fact that investigation was confined to one particular railway was no reason why it should not be entered upon.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald, Pictou), is misquoting me. What I said was that unless you show some special grievance arising in respect of the Canadian Pacific railway, there is no mere reason for investigating that than any other railway company.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I thought I was making myself clear, that I do not agree with the reasoning of my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) in that regard. The hon. membex for South York submitted what he thought was a good reason under the Act confirming the agreement with the Canadian Pacific railway in the first instance, why parliament should move. I say that I thmk he had the right to move that resolution if he was prepared to make any ease, and 1 do not think it was any answer to him to say : you have only moved against the Canadian Pacific railway. For, if there is ground to move against the Canadian Pacific railway the fact that other companies may be in the same position is no

reason for inaction. The hon. member for South York is to be congratulated, in some sense, for having brought this resolution before the House. But, now that he has discovered from the argument and discussion before the House this afternoon, that there is really no occasion for the House to interfere he should withdraw his motion and follow the views expressed by the leader of the opposition. One of the usually accepted theories in this country has always been that when the Canadian Pacific railway reached the point that it declared a ten per cent dividend almost automatically there was to follow a reduction of rates. That is the view that has been entertained by many people in this country, and it would almost seem as if my hon. friend from South York also entertained that view. But when one studies the Acts and statutes passed by this parliament it becomes at once apparent that the amount of dividend which may be declared from time to time by the Canadian Pacific railway is not the testing question, and it is not by reason of the fact that any such dividends may be declared that the right to deal with the rates follows. There is a great difference between the declaration of a ten per cent dividend and the right of parliament to interfere in regard to the question of rates. What does occur is that parliament can interfere when ten per cent per annum profit on the capital actually expended in the construction of the railway is obtained, not when a ten per cent dividend is declared by the company. Now, what is meant by that ten per cent per annum on the profit of the capital actually expended on the construction of the railway? That Act was passed in 1881, chapter 1, of that year. Later on in the same year an Act was passed which defined the meaning of the word ' capital,' chapter 24 of that year. An Act to amend and consolidate the Railway Act. I do not think my hon. friend from South York this afternoon was able to give the House any reason, legal or logical, according to ordinary principles, which would lead us to suppose that,..interpreting that legislation and subsequent legislation dealing with this case, the right to interfere has as yet arisen, or that parliament had any legal right under the agreement with the Canadian Pacific railway to interfere.


William Findlay Maclean: Does the hon. gentleman admit that I had a right to bring it before this House under the original Act?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What I say is that my hon. friend furnished no argument, legal or otherwise, which would lead any one who followed his argument closely, as I did, to suppose that the time had arrived when the right to interfere had arisen under this Act.


William Findlay Maclean: Not even by exorbitant profits?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is not a question of profits, it is a question of the legal construction of these Acts, and the interpretation of the various statutes bearing upon this matter. They are of the mpst involved character. My hon. friend did not deal with that question in such a way as to impress me, at least, with the idea that he had so mastered it as to justify him in calling upon parliament to interfere. But assuming that my hon. friend had made out a case of that kind, in what body would jurisdiction rest to deal with it ? He did not indicate that. I may be permitted to indicate a logical way. In the original Consolidated Railway Act of 1879, it . would appear that if the right to interfere had existed at any time, it would have to be exercised after a report of the Minister of Public Works, who had investigated the subject. I assume that at that time there was no Ministry of Railways in existence, although, I may be mistaken. But whatever rights existed under the Consolidated Railway Act as to an investigation into these questions of tariff and rates, by a Minister were swept away by the legislation of 1888, which provided for matters of that kind being dealt with by a committee of the Privy Council. Hon. gentlemen will recollect that during the years which followed from 1888 to 1903 numerous questions affecting the Canadian Pacific railway and all other railways were dealt with by that committee of the Privy Council. By section 306, chap. 29 of the Act of 1888, the Canadian Pacific railway was declared to be specially under the jurisdiction of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council in regard to the tariffs and all the numerous questions set out in detail in that statute. Then in 1903 unquestionably the right to deal with tariffs and with all matters of rates was committed to the Railway Commission, and has been exercised ever since by that body. And supplementing the statutes uipon the subject, we have the adhesion of the Canadian Pacific railway to the principle that the Railway 'Commission should deal with the questions of rates; and as pointed out by the leader of the opposition, that body can review the rates and deal with them in every respect. So there is a means at hand by which the end can be attained which the hon. member proposes to attain by this resolution. If my hon. friend wants relief in that respect for those who suffer from high rates, the Railway Commission is at hand, and the remedy is there. The grievances of which he complains can be remedied, and are being remedied, upon the application of anybody who is affected. I am sure that the House and the country have profited by this discussion, but I do not think



my hon. friend has shown that the right of this parliament to interfere depends upon the payment of a ten per cent dividend, but rather it depends upon an involved consideration as to what was a ten per cent profit upon the capital actually used in the construction of the work, and upon other considerations of that character. And now that the question of higher rates is being dealt with by a body appointed by this parliament, it seems to me that my hon. friend has no longer any reason to press his resolution, and that he ought to withdraw it.


Hon. H. E. EMMEBSON (Westmorland).: I have no desire to enter into a discussion of all the questions that have been raised during the discussion of this amendment. If I understand the argument of my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean), correctly, it is a burden of taxation of which he complains, and he would seek relief for the people from that burden. One feature of his argument was that it was a great drain out of this country to the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific railway living abroad, and that there was no way of imposing upon them any taxation, or compelling them to make any rebate of the admittedly large dividends which they received. Now I always listen attentively to my hon. friend, and I admire his zeal. It seems to me that this is the time and this is the hour when we need in this country a David Lloyd-George, and I am sure my hon. friend from South York would fill the bill. The complaint, as I understand it, in Great Britain was that there was too much money lying unused, and upon which there was no burden of taxation imposed. My hon. friend's argument here this afternoon was that we have great railway magnates, those who hold large interests in railways, and that they are not making any return, either to the federal or the provincial treasuries.
The mover of this amendment should' have devised some scheme whereby the' government should be called- upon to impose upon these shareholders a burden of taxation which would make some recompense to the country for the great ad->
vantages that were accorded to the sharer holders of that company. After all, the main point in this discussion is perhaps that it is the survival not of the fittest but of the strongest and that if we were to attempt to do what my hon. friend, would propose to do, if we were to attempt by parliamentary enactment to have rigid and fixed rates, we would be doing perhaps a wrong to some corporations which could not bear the burden. The Canadian Pacific railway, by reason of the1 past, of which none would wish to complain, bv reason of the advantages and circumstances which existed a quarter of Mr. MACDONALD.
a century ago, received from the people of this country an immense franchise not at that moment contemplated to be of the value that it is found to be to-day. But it is of immense value to-day and we must deal with conditions. I am not taking issue on the question raised as to what parliament might or might not do, or as to what parliament should or should not do, but I think my hon. friend is creative enough, constructive enough, inventive enough, to devise a scheme and embody it in a resolution whereby the people of this country could receive some return for the immense advantages they were given at a time, properly, perhaps, when we had no adequate idea of the immense wealth we were conferring. It does seem to me that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) has made a very strong point in stating that there is no particular reason why we should select the Canadian Pacific railway corporation from among the many. If there are other corporations which have received or which are receiving advantages they should be made to pay for them, and I think that I would repeat my suggestion that we have a David Lloyd-George rise up in Canadai to remedy the conditions of which thoi hon. gentleman has so strongly, so eloJ quently and so forcibly complained this afternoon.
Amendment (Mr. Maclean, York) negatived, motion agreed to and House went into Committee of Supply.
Public works chargeable to income-Public buildings, Quebec, Megantic, public building, $22,000.


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: This, Mrr Chairman, is for the purpose of providing a public building in the town of Megantic. A site has been bought, situated on Maple street, 64 by 132 feet and the proposed building is required for post office purposes, &c.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the building to cost?


William Pugsley: The total estimated cost is $29,116.87. That includes the contract, fittings, furniture, lock boxes, side-; walks, fencing, contingencies and superintendence. The building is under contract! now.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the population of Megantic?


William Pugsley: By the census of 1901 it was 1,883. Then, there is Agnes, which will be accommodated, I believe, by the same office, with about 300 people, which will make a population of about 2,200.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the revenue* from the post office?

Mr.' PUGSLEY. The postal revenue of Megantic is $2,637.78, and of Agnes $443.60 in 1909. In Megantic there was an increase last year of about $100.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What was the total of the two?


William Pugsley: The total of the two. postal revenue, was a little over $3,200; customs duties, $10,777; money orders issued, Megantic $30,864, Agnes, $5,112.88 money orders paid, Megantic $14,133, Agnes $1,598.51, making the total of money orders issued, $30,878.73, and money orders paid, $20,293.18.
Montreal, eastern postal station, $20,000.,


William Pugsley: This $20,000 is a revote to make provision for the erection of a public building to be known as postal station ' C '. The site has been purchased and the plans are now being prepared with a view to letting the contract.


Mr. AMES.: Where will it be situated?
^ Mr. PUGSLEY. At the corner of St. Catherine and Plessis streets.


Herbert Brown Ames: From whom was the lot purchased?


William Pugsley: From Mr. Napoleon Jeanett, for $33,000. The property consists of cadastral lots 353 and 354 with a frontage on St. Catherine street of 72 feet and on Plessis street of 96 feet with a depth of 81 feet on the east line. That would be an area of about 6,500 square feet.


Herbert Brown Ames: About $6 a square foot. Has the money been paid and the transaction closed?


William Pugsley: Yes.
- Mr. AMES. What steps were taken to ascertain whether the price was a proper valuation?


William Pugsley: Our usual course is to send an expert from the department to value the property, and I am satisfied that was done in this case.


Herbert Brown Ames: Who are the architects?


William Pugsley: Mr. J. Perrault, of Montreal.


Herbert Brown Ames: Was there any competition or anything of the kind?


William Pugsley: No. One reason for his employment was that there is a great deal [DOT]of work in the department, and the staff has not been able to overtake the work.


Herbert Brown Ames: On what terms is he employed, a commission basis?


William Pugsley: I have not that information here.


Herbert Brown Ames: Have the plans been checked over and passed by the architect's department?


William Pugsley: I feel quite sure that they have. I saw some plans myself and I think there is no doubt they have been approved of by the department.


Herbert Brown Ames: What is the estimated cost of the building?


William Pugsley: The instructions are that the estimated cost shall not exceed $70,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is there any penalty on the architect if they come to double that amount?


William Pugsley: No, that is a matter for the chief architect to satisfy himself upon .before letting the contract.


Herbert Brown Ames: I understand it represents about $100,000 expended.


William Pugsley: Yes, a little over $100,-
000.


Herbert Brown Ames: When does the minister expect it to be ready for occupation?
Mr. ^PUGSLEY. The contract has not been let yet. We will have to advertise for tenders, and I would suppose it would take 18 months at least to complete the building.
Montreal general post office, enlargement, additions and alterations, including fittings, furniture, &c., and alterations to old building, $140,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision for a renovation of the old portion of the Montreal post office. Members are aware that a new building has recently been completed to form part of the Montreal post office. That building extends through to Craig street crossing Fortification lane, and is connected with the old portion of the post office by closed galleries. Tt has been decided that the old building shall be renovated so as to make it as nearly fireproof as possible, and at the same time to give it an appearance in harmony with the new part.


Herbert Brown Ames: The same style of architecture that prevails in the new building will be followed?


William Pugsley: So far as it can be done.


Herbert Brown Ames: How is this work being done?


William Pugsley: The work is not under way yet. It will be done, I presume, by contract so far as work of that character can be done by contract.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is there an architect?



William Pugsley: No, these plans are being prepared by the department, and will have to be supervised by the department. Possibly a local architect will be appointed, but that has not been decided.
Montreal postal station ' E,' St. Louis do Mile End, addition to, <55,000.


William Pugsley: These are some small improvements which are being made to the post office at Mile End. The amount was voted last year, but not expended, and I am asking this $5,000 as a revote. The contract was let to Messrs. Allard & Fils, Montreal.


Herbert Brown Ames: Were there any other tenders?


William Pugsley: Yes, there were two tenders, this one at $4,600, and another, at about $6,200.
Montreal new barracks, $100,000.


William Pugsley: This is to provide for the erection of a new barracks for a unit of the permanent corps in Montreal Military District No. 5, which has been requested by the Department of Militia.


Herbert Brown Ames: Where is it proposed to build the new barracks?


William Pugsley: At Longueuil. The sum of $200,000 was received from the city of Montreal for the sale of St. Helen's island, which was owned and controlled by the Militia Department, and this amount will be used for the purpose of erecting a new barraoks; but, of course, we nave to include that amount in an appropriation, although it has been received from the sale of another property.


Herbert Brown Ames: Does that mean that the old buildings on St. Helen's island will be entirely removed?


William Pugsley: I am not sure, but I presume so, because the island has been sold to the city of Montreal.


Herbert Brown Ames: About three-fourths of the island was formerly a public park, and the northeast side was used for the old barracks, and I wanted to know whether the government, in relinquishing the island, expected that the old fortifications would be demolished so that the park might be enlarged.


William Pugsley: I presume that will be the case, because the whole island has been transferred to the city of Montreal.


Herbert Brown Ames: Has the land at Longueuil been purchased?


William Pugsley: It has been owned by the government for a great many years.


Mr. JAMESON.: How much land is available for the purposes of a park?


Herbert Brown Ames: 


William Pugsley: 190 acres.


Mr. DOHERTY.: What troops are going to occupy these barracks?


William Pugsley: It is to accommodate one unit of the permanent corps, consisting of 46 officers, 340 non-commissioned officers and men, and 114 horses.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Where has this unit of force heretofore been accommodated?


William Pugsley: I am not able to tell my hon. friend. Would my hon. friend aliow me to get that information for him and furnish it to-morrow?


Mr. WILSON (Lennox).: I think it is a great weakness that when the estimates are going through, though the minister in charge is able to give information in regard to his own department, yet when anything is asked about another department he is unable to give the information, and the minister of that department is not present. There are only two ministers here to-night. I am of opinion that the item should stand until the whole information can be given.


William Pugsley: Ordinarily speaking, that may be correct, but upon my promise to give the information the hon. member for St. Anne seems to be satisfied.


Mr. CROSBY.: If the hon. minister cannot give us the information on that item, he should let it stand until he can give it, and go on with some other item.


William Pugsley: When the hon. member for St. Anne, who is interested in this matter, acquiesced in my suggestion, I think other hon. members might concur in it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not think that is fair. Other hon. gentlemen may be interested in getting the information, and until we know what that information is we cannot judge whether the item is one that should go through or not. When the information comes down it may or may not require some criticism. The information might furnish the very best reason why the item should not carry. It might be such as to horrify even the minister himself and cause him to move to strike out the item. We want to be reasonable, but when information is asked foT I do not think the item should pass until the information is brought down.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I did not acquiesce in the item passing before the hon. minister gave us the information. I asked what forces were to occupy these barracks and where they were previously. We have had some hope that we might have a military school at some time in Montreal, and it might be a question whether the best site for it would be at Longueuil. I do not know what this building is to be occupied

for, and therefore am in no position to offer any judgment as to whether this is the test site. I think it would be only fair, before the item passes, that we should know the facts.


William Pugsley: This is to accommodate a portion of the permanent force, one unit of the permanent corps in the Montreal military district. The accommodation to be provided is for 46 officers, 340 non-commissioned officers and men and 114 horses. As regards erecting these barracks, that is a matter of good faith with the city of Montreal, because when Montreal paid to the Militia Department $200,000 for St. Helen's island, where the present barracks are situated, it was part of the understanding that the money should be utilized for the erection of new barracks in Montreal or its very near vicinity.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. minister of course understands that I am not objecting to any undertaking made with the city of Montreal being carried out, but to be told that these barracks are to be occupied by one unit of the regular force gives us very little information indeed, and puts us in no position to judge whether the erection of a barracks in Longueuil is the best way to carry out the undertaking that a barracks should be erected in Montreal. What are you going to do with that military force?


William Pugsley: I have no objection at all to letting the item stand, and no doubt 1 shall be able to get further details from the Militia Department.
Item allowed to stand.
Napierville public building, $10,000.


William Pugsley: This building is expected to cost in all not more than $15,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the population?


William Pugsley: Nine years ago it was about 800.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the revenue from the post office?


William Pugsley: 


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: What rental have you been paying?


William Pugsley: $44 per annum.


George Taylor: Would it not be better to continue at that rental than invest $15,000.


William Pugsley: The accommodation at present is inadequate. There is quite a business in money orders. Last year the money orders issued amounted to $18,776. Napierville, though not a large town, is a town where there is quite a little manufacturing industry, and it is rather a thriving place.	.	.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Does the minister not think that $15,000 is a liberal sum to give for a building in a town where the revenue is only $735?


William Pugsley: We calculate that the site will cost about $2,000, leaving $13,000 for the erection of the building, including, heating, plumbing, lighting, fitting and everything.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: What is the size of the lot?


William Pugsley: The site is not yet purchased. We have been urged very strongly by the town of Napierville to erect this building. We have been urged by petitions sent in and transmitted to my department by the Post Office Department. The probable expenditure for the site will be $2,000 but we have not yet purchased it.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: The hon. minister says that a petition was sent in. Does it influence his department to a very great extent?


William Pugsley: So far as the facts stated are concerned, it does.


Richard Blain: Will the hon. gentleman read the petition?


Mr. CROTHERS.: There seems to have been a vote of $5,000 last year and the minister says he has not bought the site yet. What has become of the $2,000?


William Pugsley: It is expected that the site will be purchased before the close of the fiscal year. That will take $2,000, leaving $3,000 to revote. We still have the $2,000.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Where is the town of Napierville?


William Pugsley: In Laprairie and Napierville.


Clarence Jameson: Is it a shire town?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Clarence Jameson: Is it incorporated?


William Pugsley: Yes, because it .has a mayor.


Uriah Wilson: Is there to be a custom house there too?


William Pugsley: No.


Richard Blain: From whom was the petition?


William Pugsley: From the mayor and other citizens of Napierville. It was sent my department by the Post Office Department as long ago as September 18, 1909.


Richard Blain: Was there no request from the sitting member?


William Pugsley: I have no memorandum of any but I know he urged it also.


Richard Blain: Any letters or correspondence from him?


William Pugsley: I have no memorandum of any?


Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).: Has the hon. minister a site in view?


William Pugsley: The deputy minister says he cannot recall any reports on the site.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is not $2,000 a most extraordinary sum for a site in a village of 700 people?


William Pugsley: It depends a good deal on the location. The place had a population, in 1901, ten years ago, of about 800. It is probably now .a place of about 1,000 people. Get a site in the .business centre of a town of that population, and I am not prepared to say that $2,000 would be out of the way. What we do in most cases is to send an expert to examine the different sites available and compare them and test the prices with recent sales, and make his report.


Richard Blain: Has that been done in this ease?


William Pugsley: No.


Richard Blain: How is the amount arrived at?


William Pugsley: We assume that the site may cost $2,000, and we ask for a revote of $3,000. If we do not use it before the close of the year, the vote will lapse.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Will the expert be heralded when he goes to the town as the man representing the Public Works Department, who has come to buy a site for $2,000?


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend has had any experience-


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Yes, I have had some experience.
Mr. PUGSLEY-he knows that this gentleman moves cautiously, and is thoroughly reliable.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Every person knows that when the Department of Public Works, with millions behind it, sends an expert to purchase a site, it is charged about three prices. Instead of sending a representative in this way, if the minister would quietly ascertain what situation would be acceptable to thle people, and purchase in tlie ordinary way, he could get a site for one-third or one-quarter of what he now pays. In the town of Whitby they paid $5,000 for a site, and they could readily purchase a better site to-day for $2,000. But, in order to placate a political follower of the hon. gentleman in charge of the department, they paid this higher price. The history of the purchase of that site will come out, no doubt, when these affairs are investigated, but the facts are Mr. BLAIN.
simply these : The gentleman who was the owner or mortgagee of the site was offended on account of Mr. Leonard Burnett being set aside ' at the instance of ' the present member (Mr. Fowke) for the riding, and to placate him and retain his political friendship they gave him $5,000 for his property.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman say the site was bought from Mr. Burnett?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: No, from Lyman Barclay, who was the mortgagee or ostensible owner-at any rate, the man who got the proceeds.


William Pugsley: That would make him more than the ostensible owner.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: It may have been put through in the name of the Sons of Scotland, but Mr. Barclay got the proceeds.


William Pugsley: If Mr. Barclay was the mortgagee, were the Sons of Scotland the owners of the equity of redemption.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: It may be that the Sons of Scotland were the mortgagees, and this gentleman the owner of the equity of redemption.


William Pugsley: Then he would be more than the ostensible owner.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: At any rate, the minister paid him nearly three prices for the site in order to get him into line and support the present member for South Ontario. And that method of purchasing a site is being followed all over the country. Hon. gentlemen opposite are utilizing the public treasury to put money into the pockets of their political followers. A representative of the department comes to the town and holds himself out as the representative of the Public Works Department, and pays from four to seven times the value of the site in order to play into the hands of the minister's political supporters. The' minister should purchase sites for the public as he would purchase them for himself, or as a railway company would purchase them. Sending a secret agent or representative of the department, they could get options on sites at reasonable prices, the prices of the open market for these properties, and would save hundreds of thousands of dollars to the country.


Mr. FOWKE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sharpe, Ontario) comes from the wilds of North Ontario, and may well be excused if he knows nothing of the values on the front or in South Ontario. The statements he has just made are absolutely misleading and quite unreliable because untrue. The gentleman from whom the site was purchased, was not a disaffected Liberal. The
18G9

time has never been when Mr. Barclay was anything hut an enthusiastic member of the Liberal party. The purchase was not made from him to placate him because of ill-feeling entertained towards the present representative of the riding, or any other Liberal, so far as I know.


Richard Blain: He was the owner of the property?


Frederick Luther Fowke: I do not know whether it was owned by him or by the Sons of Scotland, but he was interested in it. If the statement made by the hon. member for North Ontario is a fair sample of the statements hon. gentlemen opposite are making everywhere in relation to the purchase oi' sites for public buildings by this government, they are to be discounted wholly. The site was bought at a proper price. It is the most eligible site in Whitby, directly opposite the Dominion Bank, a property worth $20,000. Public bodies of the town of Whitby endorsed the purchase of the site at the price paid. I canvassed the Conservative business men of the town, as well as the Liberals, and, with one single exception, they all said that it was the only site suitable for a public building in the town and was cheap at the price. And some of them said that if they owned the lot they would not take twice the price paid for it by the government.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowke) speaks of my not knowing the value of sites in South Ontario, as 1 come from the ' wilds,' as he says, of the north end of the county. I may say that the values in the north part of the county exceed those in the south end. I am perfectly familiar with the values in the south end. As to the site that is under discussion, there was a frame building on it, and the government paid $5,000 for the land, allowing the owner to take away the building. On the opposite corner there is a site equally desirable with a solid-brick building, and the whole property can be purchased, I am told, for $2,000. That is what is told me by a reputable citizen of Whitby. The gentleman in Whitby from whom the purchase was made by the government stated publicly that he would not support the hon. member who now represents the riding. It was known all over the riding that, owing to the way the hon. gentleman made Mr. Leonard Burnett, the previous member of the rfding resign his position as nominee of the party, Mr. Barclay was disaffected, and would not support the present representative. It was up to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowke) to placate Mr. Barclay, and he went to the Public Works Department, and got that department to pay Mr. Barclay $5,000 for a property that was not worth $2,000. These are the facts.


Frederick Luther Fowke: It is too bad to have to follow such statements as the hon. gentleman has made. I wish to say with regard to the statement he has made concerning myself and Air. Leonard Burnett, that I had nothing whatever to do with Mr. Burnett's declining to be the candidate of the Liberal party in South Ontario.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: You opposed him in the convention.


Frederick Luther Fowke: I did nothing of the sort,
I did not oppose him at the convention.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: From whom did you get the nomination?


Frederick Luther Fowke: I got the nomination from the Liberal party.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Why did Mr. Burnett resign?


Frederick Luther Fowke: It was eight years ago that Mr. Burnett resigned. Air. Ross was here for four years; after that Mr. Christie was here for four years. The hon. gentleman does not know what he is talking about, and he is misrepresenting the circumstances entirely. What he says is an absolute untruth.
Some hon. AIEMBERS. Take it back.


Air. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The point of order is raised.


Frederick Luther Fowke: I submit to your ruling.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I have not ruled yet. The use of the word ' untruth ' is undesirable in the House, but the word ' untruth ' is not necessarily out of order. It will depend upon the manner in which it is used, whether it conveys the idea of an intentional untruth, and it is only in that case I rule it to be out of order. [DOT]


Frederick Luther Fowke: What I intended to say was that the reflections which the hon. gentleman cast upon me were uncalled for, and that in no instance had 1 given the slightest occasion for the representations which he made regarding myself and Mr. Leonard Burnett. I wish to say moreover that I never had an ill word with Mr. Lyman Barclay in my life, that I never spoke to him in the Public Works Department in relation to the purchase of the site.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: You are taking all the credit for it.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I wish to point out that there is an increasing custom of addressing hon. members of this House in the second person. When an hon. member wishes to address another he must do so through the Chair. The use of the pronoun * you ' is not allowed.


Mr. ARAISTRONG.: Before the item passes I would like to ask whether it is the policy of the Public Works Department that, in towns of 800 population, they

are willing to erect post offices costing $15,000. If that is the policy, then there are many towns throughout the older provinces with 800 population that are likely to have post offices showered upon them costing $15,000. I would like to hand ii to the minister the names of a number o towns of 1,200 or 1,500 that are badly in need of post offices.
Mr. PUG8LEY. There is no policy such as the hon. member mentions, of showering public buildings throughout the country In fact, a great deal of my time is taken up in considering applications, and in sifting out those which seem to be most urgent from * a public standpoint, and either rejecting or postponing other applications.
were grant all the applications which are placed before us, it would taki a great deal more money than the Minister of Finance places at the disposal of my dte-partm-ent. In the present case, Napier-ville is the shire town of the county, and is in addition a thriving place. We do feel that some distinction ought to be made in the case of a shire town, and where there is already no public building m the county. If the people of a town come to me and represent that there is no public building in the town, that it is the shire, town of the county, that it is a thriving place, that the existing accommodation is poor, I would be disposed to give careful consideration to a request of that kind. But if the people of another town came to me and, when asked as to whether there were already public buildings in another portion of the county, they answered in the affirmative, then, if the population was comparatively small. I would say:	You will have to wait for a
number of years until the population of! your town increases, and . you have three, or four thousand, or six thousand; then, you can fairly ask for a public building. In this particular case there is no other public building in the county.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the statement made by the Minister of Public Works because he has minutely described th/te condition of things in the county which I represent, in a matter that was brought to his notice a few evenings ago, I refer to the town of Milton. It is the shire town, it has a population of about 1,800, and, it is _ a thriving town. It has various industries, and there is no other public building in the whole county, no other building of any kind built by the government. It seems to _ me that every reason assigned bv the minister for the erection of a post office at Napierville, applies to the county town of my county with much greater force and I am delighted that the minister has given such strong assurances that when a case of that kind is made out, he will Mr. ARMSTRONG.
carefully consider it. The post office at Milton yields a large revenue, it is an industrial town, in the centre of a rich agricultural country, having everything in fact that^ would meet the requirements of the Minister of Public Works. I am simply drawing the minister's attention to this case, I am not asking him, as I told him the other night, I am not a beggar. I am not begging, but I am drawing this matter to his attention, so that when he reflects upon the course of his administration he will look to the town of Milton and say, There is a case where justice demands that something should be done. I am trying from time to time to make the mSnLs-1 ter's conscience feel as uncomfortable as possible. While I am not begging, I want to make him feel uncomfortably, becausej he has not done justice to this place.


William Pugsley: Would my hon. friend tell me whether delayed justice would be as satisfactory as if it were precipitate.


David Henderson: I am not talking about delayed justice, I do not know what the hon. gentleman means.


William Pugsley: Let me explain to my hon. friend. In the first place, let me assure him that I would be very sorry, when a representative of the people in this House calls my attention to the necessity of a public building in his county, to regard it as a case of begging. But my hon. friend who represents the claims of his constituency cannot be said to be begging for favours. It is his duty to present the claims of his constituency and it is my duty to take the claims into careful consideration.


David Henderson: I thought there would be no harm in using that expression, I did not want to appear in the form of one who was insisting-practically begging the minister to do something which he did not seem disposed to do, but I repeat I was very anxious to make him feel just as uncomfortable as he could over the matter, because he had not done justice to that place. I think I have succeeded; I believe I have. I hope it may not be deferred justice, that it may not be cold justice, but I have an idea that he is going to give me hot justice. I will leave it with the minister himself now to work that problem out, and in his moments of reflection I can imagine I hear the hon. gentleman saying: Well now there is a case that ought to be dealt with, and I will do it.


William Pugsley: In order that my hon. friend may not be too disheartened


David Henderson: Oh, I am not disheartened.


William Pugsley: Just let me ask him to look at the estimates and he will find that

with scarcely an exception, the items for which I am now asking the approval of the committee are revotes. There is scarcely a new item in the estimates now before the House, and under these circumstances, my hon. friend would not expect that a public building for Milton should appear in these estimates. The representations which he has made will have my careful consideration and when we come to consider the question of proceeding with new votes for the erection of public buildings, I will give the matter my best attention.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The minister has spoken about these being revotes. I would like to ask him if most of them began in the year 1907-8 just before the last election and have been carried on ever since ?


William Pugsley: I do not think so.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I think so.


William Pugsley: I do not think so.


George Taylor: They were all in then, and were withheld. I cut a clipping from a paper the other day that I think will be of interest to the Minister of Public Works, because it contains words spoken by a gentleman whom, I know, he admires and I will just read it.


William Pugsley: Is it poetry or prose ? Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds). Reading.


BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Pugsley's ' promising ' trip to the Lake Huron ports met with the enthusiastic approval of the Goderich ' Signal,' which believes that the Minister of Public Works should get in ' touch ' with the needs of the country. The suggestion of the 'News' that all wharfs and other improvements should he constructed on the recommendation of a civil rather than a political engineer stirred up the deeps of turbid wrath, in the ' Signal's ' soul, and caused them to overflow in several ' sticks ' of vituperative brevier.
President Taft, who, we may agree, is a man of some eminence in politics and in law, is inclined to join the ' News ' in violent disagreement with the ' Signal.' The president spoke on the 20th instant at Cincinnati before the Ohio River Improvement Association. One of his most telling paragraphs follows:
' The evil in the corrupt control of a Congress or a legislature by private interests is manifest and always calls for condemnation. But there is another kind of legislative abuse as dangerous to public weal in certain of its aspects as corruption, and that is the selfish combination of the representatives of the majority of the constituencies to expend the money of the government for the temporary benefit of a part or with little benefit to the whole. It is the duty of the majority and the minority to legislate always for the benefit of the whole people, and any enactments that look to the selfish exploitation of less than the whole at the expense of the whole, and
without benefit to the whole, is a species of legislative abuse that comes very near corruption in its effect, and is perhaps more dangerous than corruption, because those who support such a combination are generally bold in its defence.'
So much for the condemnation of the system which is operative in Canada under the distinguished direction of Mr. Pugsley. M . Taft's remedy is in exact accord with that suggested by the ' News.	.	.	.,
' A supervising hoard of engineers should recommend to Congress the improvements in the order of their importance, and should have the power to advise that body tliat the beginning of certain improvements should be postponed until other improvements are completely finished/
There is the recommendation of the President of the United States as to what should be done, and I presume that is the *wav it is conducted there. But here we are erecting post offices in little villages with a population of 700 or 800 people and a revenue of $400 or $500, when we could rent a suitable building for $44 a year The minister will expend $15,000 on a new built -ing in such a place after paying $2,000 for a site. Not only in Quebec, but in Ontario we will find towns of 2,000 or 3,000 people, vithout a public building in them. We 'an noint them out.
William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend allow me to ask him a question ? Suppose I were to accede to the request of my hon. friend from -Holton (Mr. Henderson) and put an amount in the Supplementary Estimates to erect a public building m the town of Milton, the shire town of the county with a population of 1,800, would my hon. friend say that was a corrupt act, an attempt to corrupt the constituency ot Halton, and would he condemn it?


George Taylor: I would say that the minister should have an engineeung staff to report on the size of the place and the revenue to be derived before he would consider the question of putting a building there and then, if the engineers recommended it, owing to the importance of the place, the tevenue to be derived and on account of its being a profitable investment to 'the country, he might go on with the erection of the building. The government are simply the trustees for the people. Would the minister, if it were his own business, conduct it in that way ? Not a bit of it, and he ought to do for the country what he would do for himself. That is the way every public man -should look at the expenditure of public money. If this were my own money would I spend it in such a place ? No, I would go to a larger place where there would be some profit on the investment. There is no profit on an investment of $15,000 where the revenue was only $400 and where you can rent
187 j

a place to do the business of the country in for $44. There are lots of other places in the country with a large revenue where they have no public accommodation whatever.


William Pugsley: Since when has my hon. friend begun to entertain these views ? I understand that my hon. friend has been in parliament for some twenty odd years. I happen to know that in my own province, some twenty odd years ago, the government of that day erected two public buildings, one in the town of Marysville, and one in the village of Sussex, neither of which places was as important as Napierville, the place where we are asking for an approbation for a public building to-night, I followed the newspapers of the day and I followed ' Hansard ' and I do not recollect that my hon. friend ever condemned the government of that day for doing it. On the contrary I know that the action of the government was very generally approved of in providing public buildings in these two places.


George Taylor: I will tell my hon. friend how it was with respect to my own town which had a population of 3,000 and no public building. I approached the government of which I was a supporter over twenty years ago, and asked them to put up a post office. The reply was that if you will provide a site we will consider the matter. A site was given in the very centre of the town and they put up a building which cost $10,000.
PUGSLEY. Does my hon. friend think it was a proper thing for the government to say to this little town of Ganano-que: This country recognizes that you ought to have a public building; we are willing to spend $10,000 there, but we will not put up a building unless you put your hands m your pockets and furnish to the government ^ of the country a free site for the building.
PANCASPER- That is what you did m St. Catharines.


William Pugsley: I did not do it, and I have refused to stipulate that if we are to put up a public building in any place a site must be furnished.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend has accepted sites?


William Pugsley: If they volunteer it well and good, but I will not stipulate.
Mr: LANCASTER. The government did insist that a site costing $6,500 should be purchased before they built a drill hall there.


William Pugsley: That was before I came here.


George Taylor: 


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I understand that the minister has at last confessed that he is not putting up these public buildings in these little places in the interests of the public, because the last reason he gave my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) was that a former government had erected public buildings in similar small places in New Brunswick, and I take it that if he had any better reasons for erecting them in these little places now he would have given them to us. It is really charming to listen to the fascinating manner in which the minister explains each appropriation by itself. The request now is for money to put up a public building in a little village in Quebec of 800 inhabitants. He lays great stress upon the fact that it is a shire town, and he says in his most fascinating manner that where a number of leading gentlemen from a constituencv come to him and represent to him that there is no public building in the constituency, and that the town is a shire town, it really appeals very strongly to him, and it is almost impossible for him to resist the request. Then the member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) tells us he represents a shire town in Halton, that he has been representing it for a great many years, that for a great many years he has been endeavouring to induce the Minister of Public Works to erect a public building in that town of 1,800 inhabitants, a town which meets all the conditions which the minister says ought to appeal to him very strongly. There is no other public building in the county, it is a shire town, it is surrounded by a prosperous district, it furnishes a large revenue, it possesses all the qualifications for a public building except the essential one of being represented by a Liberal member in this House.


William Pugsley: If it were represented by a Liberal member and I had an amount in the estimates for it, would my hon. friend condemn it?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I may condemn, before I sit down, as I did the other; day, the utter want of system in the manner in which the Minister of Public Works is distributing his favours. Here is a shire' town meeting all the conditions my hon. friend presents in favour of erecting a public building in Napierville, but .with a population of 1,800 instead of 800, and he has refused year after year to put up such a building. A few days ago in the case of the little village of Hartland, in New Brunswick, the minister advanced exactly opposite arguments, just as fascinating as these. In a great many of these cases we are revoting sums that were placed in the estimates in 1907-8, just before an election, and nothing has been done towards erecting buildings. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were thus put in the estimates in

1907-8 which have not been spent. The revenue was falling off or there were other reasons for not spending the money, and I predict that many of these will be revoted until the next general election. Then the people will be told in each province that the government are going to build a public building here, a breakwater there and to buy a harbour in another constituency. As I said the other day, this is a corrupt and degrading system, which has a demoralizing effect upon the whole population of the country.


William Pugsley: That does not speak well for the country.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Every man is beginning to say: They are squandering millions at Ottawa, get all you can while you are there, why don't you get $7,000? We should at once adopt a system establishing definite rules and conditions upon which public buildings will b.e erected, conditions as to population, revenue, &c., with the understanding that when these conditions are met a building will necessarily go up if the finances of the country will permit. That would do away with all the log-rolling we see to-day. Under the present system rather an utter want of system, members are almost forced to go to the Minister of Public Works on their knees and beg of him to spend $15,000 or $20,000 in their particular constituencies. Looking over these little places I think that without exception the little places which are receiving $10,000 and $20,000 and $25,000 buildings are represented by supporters of the hon. minister. It is very strange that it happens so in practically all these cases. Why is it? There must be some reason. Is it because these constituencies send supporters of this government? It is said 'that a very prominent gentleman on that side of the House made a declaration to that effect in Lethbridge some time ago: ' You are very much in need of a proper building, but I want to say that you will never get a public building so long as you elect a supporter of the opposition.'


William Pugsley: That statement having been expressly denied by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), I think it is not within the rules of this parliament to repeat the statement.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: If the hon. member for Pictou were here and denied that he had made that statement, I would accept his denial at once; I would be bound to; but I am not bound to accept it coming to me second-hand.


William Pugsley: It appears in 'Hansard.'


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think it would perhaps be better for the hon. member not to insist on the statement, as it has been denied.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: I am in a position to say that I have heard it at first-hand from many who heard the hon. member for Pictou make the statement.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. member is not in order in repeating the statement.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: It would be just as well for the hon. minister to save the time of the House by admitting openly and frankly, as he has impliedly, in answer to the hon. member for Leeds, that these buildings are not put up in the interest of the public, but that public moneys are being so expended in the interest, of the party.


Mr. STRATTON.: Hon. gentlemen opposite have evidently one code of ethics when in power and another when in opposition.
I can remember when the late member for North Oxford, the late Hon. Mr. Sutherland, for years asked for an appropriation for a post office in the town of Woodstock, and when the member for Lambton asked for a custom house for the town of Sarnia, and the gentlemen who were in power for 18 years did not for a moment consider the interests of these important towns, but small places like Walkerton represented by a Conservative could get a public building costing $45,000.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Assuming that all that my hon. friend says is true as to what occurred 15 or 20 years ago, is it any justification for a continuation of that now?


James Robert Stratton: I do not say that it is any justification for a policy of that description; but hon. gentlemen opposite all seem to be of the same opinion, that if an application is for a constituency represented by one of themselves, it is a proper expenditure, but if it happens to be for a constituency represented by a Liberal, it is a corrupt expenditure made from base motives, the public interest not being considered. I think hon. gentlemen ought to adopt a different policy. I can quite understand that the Minister of Public Works has applications from various towns and cities throughout this broad Dominion, and I can understand that when the government requires a site for a public building, just as in the case of a bank, the price goes up.


Mr. ARTHURS.: I think the hon. member is mistaken as to the attitude of the opposition. Our objections are largely on the ground that the towns favoured with public buildings will not compare with other towns which are left out and which have the misfortune or the good fortune to be represented by members of the opposition. In this connection I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Public Works to a case even stronger than that brought to his attention by the hon. member for Hal-

ton. I have in previous sessions presented the claims of Parry Sound. It is a shire town, thus fulfilling one condition laid down by the minister, it has a population of 4,000 or 5,000, an annual postal revenue of $8,000 or $10,000, an annual customs revenue of $53,000, and a money order business _ of $243,000, and there is no other public building in the constituency. The opposition are only asking for simple justice. We are asking that towns having a larger population and ten times the postal revenue and which in every way comply with the conditions laid down by the minister, should be treated as well as towns in other provinces even though they have the misfortune or good fortune to be represented by a supporter of the opposition. The Postmaster General has a fixed rule for determining what places shall have free delivery; they must have a population of, I think.
10,000,	their streets must be numbered in a certain way, and so on. The conditions are fixed, and any town that possesses these conditions, whether represented by a Liberal or a Conservative, is entitled to free delivery. I think we could very well come together and adopt some fixed conditions which would determine what places should have public buildings without having to beg for them as favours from any minister.


William Pugsley: I may say with regard to Parry Sound, that I had the pleasure of visiting that very charming town during the last season.


James Arthurs: Does it fulfil all the conditions?


William Pugsley: I think it does, but we cannot do all these things at once. I have had a communication from the town clerk, on behalf of the town council, asking for a public building. They make out a very strong claim, which will have my consideration when we come to deal with the additional public buildings beyond those for which provision has already been made.


Mr. EDWARDS.: I would like to ask the minister this question: is he not asking for appropriations for places which do not fulfil those conditions?


Mr. ROCH LANCTOT (Laprairie and Napierville).: (Translation). Mr. Speaker, I have some reason to be surprised at the stand taken by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) and at the statements he proferred. The hon. member has occupied a seat in this House since 1882, I believe; at any rate he was surely here in 1894, when the county of Laprairie, which I have the honour of representing to-day, had for its representative in this House Mr. Conrad Pelletier. The then Minister of Public Works came down with^ an item towards the construction of a public building at Laprairie, and if I had the time, I would like to go through Mr. ARTHURS.
the report of Hansard to ascertain what was the position taken by the member for Leeds and whether it differed from that he took to-day.
I am glad that there should have been so much discussion in connection with the vote required for the erection of a public building at Napierville. It goes to show the importance of that locality. If, in 1894, it was found necessary to erect a public building at Laprairie, whose population at the time was not any larger than that of Napierville to-day, I fail to see why any objection should be raised against the voting of this amount for Napierville. Napierville is the county town for the county of Napierville, in the same way that Laprairie is the county town for Laprairie. They are both in exactly the same position in that respect. If the member for Leeds opposes to-day the proposal of such a vote in favour of Napierville. after taking in 1894 a favourable view of the proposal on behalf of Laprairie, it is owing to the fact that he was a friend of Mr. Pelletier, while he is not on the same terms with the present representative of the county. I wish to point out that hon. members occupying seats on the opposition side, and who were then sitting on the government side, supported Mr. Pelletier's proposal and granted his request.
I may add that the post office built by the Conservatives cost twice too much, and I trust that the building we are to put up at a cost of $15,000 will be worth the money.
Mr. Speaker, I may be allowed to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Cro'thers). He spoke in regard to bribery. Let me tell him that bribery is out of the question in the county of Napierville, the electors in that constituency being above such temptations.
What is it that prompts the opposition to thus work against the interests of the farming community whenever there is a proposal on hand for the erection of some small public building in the country? Are there not sufficient numbers of these great public buildings put up in large centres at the expense of the government? The farming community is worthy of every consideration on the part of the government, and I am glad to see that the latter are willing to do justice to that class, which I have the honour of representing here.


James Arthurs: The answers given me to-night are on a par with those which the hon. minister gave me on other occasions last year, and the year before regarding the situation at Parry Sound. He then told us that the difficultv was. not of lack of willingness on the part of the government, but. the lack of a sufficiency of funds. In that connection I would call attention to a vote for the town of Port Perry. If my recollec-

tion serves me right, this vote was not in the estimates, neither the new vote nor the revote, at the time I called the minister's attention to the necessity which existed for erecting a public building in Parry Sound. Port Perry is not a county town, and it is in a district which has a public building already-the building at Whitby. Yet we find $5,000 voted last year and $15,000 asked this year for a building there. How does that accord with the statement of the hon. minister that the reason why he did not grant a public building to an important town such as Parry Sound, where one is badly needed, was because of the insufficiency of funds. Yet in spite of that insufficiency he can give a building to a much smaller place such as Port Perry where it is much less needed.


William Pugsley: So far as Port Perry is concerned, there was a vote for a building there of $5,000 last year, and I expect to spend some $3,200 during the present fiscal year. The $1,800 is a revote. Therefore it comes entirely within the statement I made to the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) that nearly all of these are revotes.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: PoTt Perry was a new item last year.


William Pugsley: Of course, but I am speaking of this year. I think it was in the supplementaries oi last year. My hon. friend, I suppose, would not be greatly surprised or disappointed if there should be some provision-I am not making any promise-for a building at Parry Sound in the supplementary estimates. All I say is that these main estimates contain nearly all amounts for which there already have been votes. With regard to Port Perry, I am told it is a very thriving town though it does not come within the condition of being a shire town.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: What is its population and postal revenue?


William Pugsley: We will come to that when we come to the Ontario estimates. I said there were exceptions here as there are to all rules.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: 1,200 is the population.


William Pugsley: It is a very progressive town.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What my hon. friend from Parry Sound says is that the excuse the minister gave for not voting money for a building in a place like Parry Sound with a population of four or five thousand was that there was not money enough to go around, and my hon. friend asked why not pick out those places where the public interest demands public expenditure and not spend the public money in places where it is much less needed. Why
pick out two or three places in South Ontario to be especially favoured and then give no buildings at all where the public interest requires them?


Richard Blain: How does the minister advertise for tenders?


William Pugsley: In the newspapers.


Richard Blain: What newspapers?


William Pugsley: I cannot say at present but in a sufficient number to give ample publicity.


Richard Blain: All supporters of the government?


William Pugsley: If we can secure ample publicity, I think I am safe in saying they would be all on one side in politics.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend is more frank this year than last. We have his statement now that if he can find a sufficient number of newspapers in that district supporting his government, they will have his advertisements.


William Pugsley: A sufficient number to give ample publicity.


Richard Blain: But that no Conservative need apply. That is a frank statement, but it savours a little of that partisanship which the minister rather suggested should not be imported into public works or discussions of this kind.


William Pugsley: I hope my hon. friend will not suggest that I learned that years ago.


Richard Blain: Well, the minister is a little more frank this year than last. I might remind him that in the province of Ontario, when a public building was being erected a year or two ago, his department expended a little over $600 in advertising for tenders. Does he not think that it is a 'pretty large sum?


William Pugsley: Quite large, but if the advertisement had been published in the papers on both sides it would have been larger.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman took good care not to advertise in papers on both sides. What I stated last year is equally applicable now. I pointed out that the minister selected the papers in this district giving the least publicity, that is, the newspapers having the very largest circulation in that district were not used, but, in the papers having a much less circulation the advertisement was printed. I am glad to have this frank admission from the minister. I suppose I must not press it too strongly. He has laid down the policy that, whatever may have been done in the past, for the future advertisements will be published only in newspapers supporting the

government and Liberal Conservative newspapers need not apply. That is a frank statement of the policy of the government and of the present minister.


James Robert Stratton: Just like the Ontario government.


Richard Blain: No doubt the hon. gentleman (Mr. Stratton) refers to the Ontario government of which he was a member, and so he knows all about it. I am sorry that I have to differ with my hon. friend from North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe). We do not often differ. This government has other ways of selecting sites than by sending a man to select them. Here is an announcement in a newspaper:
A public meeting of local Liberals was held last night for the purpose of recommending to the government a site for the proposed post office. Four sites were decided on. The final vote gave the Murray property a majority of six over the Watt property.
That is another way of selecting a site, and my hon. friend (Mr. Sharpe, Ontario) must add that to the one to which he has referred. Now, if the Minister of Public Works would devise as clear cut a policy in deciding what towns should have post offices as he has in respect to advertising, the opposition would know where he stands on this question.


James Robert Stratton: Was not the property purchased in the case referred to the one that the committee did not recommend?


Richard Blain: I am not discussing that. I am pointing out that there is another way of selecting sites than that previously referred to. Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Stratton) suggest that the Liberals were not called together to discuss the matter?


James Robert Stratton: I understand that the citizens of Fergus-that being the case referred to, I believe-were asked to vote, not particularly upon the site, but upon the locality in which the public building should be erected.


Richard Blain: I have read the exact words of the newspaper. I am not saying whether the site selected was the proper one or not, nor am I discussing the question whether the government selected the site recommended, or another. I am saying that this is one of the so called non-political ways of selecting the sites for public buildings. There is no suggestion that in this case any Liberal Conservative was consulted. There is nothing to show that the town council or the board of trade was consulted. But the Liberals were called together to tell the government what sites should be selected for a post office. What we complain of is that we cannot find out the policy of the


Richard Blain: government in this matter. These hon. gentlemen are constantly telling us that they have reformed the departments, that now there are no patronage lists, and the departments are administered without reference to politics. And the hon. gentleman knows that that is not the case. As I have said, if the government would have a policy with respect to public buildings and selection of towns in which they are to be constructed, then if members on this side asked for buildings in towns that did not measure up to the government standard and they were refused, there would be no complaint. But the minister does not lay down any fixed policy. Sometimes it is a matbqr of population, sometimes of growing revenue, sometimes of a shire town, sometimes of a great outlook for the future. All these are policies, and each of them is used as the interests of hon. gentlemen opposite decide. We have a right to expect an hon. gentleman occupying a foremost position in the government, as does the Minister of Public Works, to teach the Canadian people a new lesson of how the department should be administered. Our complaint is not that a building should be erected here or there; our complaint is the lack of policy on the part of the government in the erection of public buildings.


Mr. PERLEY.: I wish to refer to a matter
of expenditure, which, were there an item in the estimates, would come in at this point. In the minister's report, referring to Nominingue, we are told that repairs were made in the public building there, and there is a' second item with reference to the immigration building. Are there two public buildings in this village of Nominingue, and if so what possible reason can there be for erecting them?


William Pugsley: I see from the report which- the hon. gentleman (Mr. Perley) kindly sent me that there are two items referring to Nominingue. I suppose that there were two items for work done, but my deputy tells me that there is only one public building in Nominingue.


George Halsey Perley: What possible reason can there have been for providing a public building in the small village of Nominingue, in the northern part of the county of Labelle? And especially, what has the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Pugsley's) department to do with an immigration building in a place of that kind?


William Pugsley: It is altogether for the purpose of an immigration building I think this was bought before I became minister, and therefore I am not personally aware of the facts. But, as I understand it, there are large numbers of people immigrating into the Lake St. John and Roberval dis-

trict, and it was thought desirable by the government at that time, I suppose, to erect a building where immigrants could be accommodated pending their being distributed to different parts of the district for settlement.	_


George Halsey Perley: I would like to correct the hon. minister. This is not in the Lake St. oJhn district at all, it is hundreds of miles away.


William Pugsley: It is in Labelle district, is it not? I call all that district of northern Quebec for one or two hundred miles the Lake St. John district. I understam that Lake Nominingue is west of Lake St John, perhaps a hundred or a hundrec and fifty miles west. At all events, it it a section of country into which immigrant? were going in considerable numbers. Thert is another immigration building at Rober val, which is right in the Lake St. Join district.


George Halsey Perley: The minister is arguinc on a false premise. Lake St. John emptie into the Saguenay river, and I believe a good many immigrants have gone up inti that country. But Nominingue is north . the town of Hawkesbury.


William Pugsley: Has not the Canadh; Pacific railway been extended in recent years up towards Lake Nominingue.


George Halsey Perley: The Canadian Pacific railway has a branch to Lake Nominingue, but it does not go where any immigrants have gone in, that is, people who come from outside the country. Many people have gone in there from other parts of the province of Quebec. But I cannot see what the Dominion government has to di with any building for immigration, or an other purpose in a place like Nominingue


William Pugsley: That was put up som years ago.
Quebec custom house, $70,000.


William Pugsley: This is for the purposi of rebuilding the custom house in the eit' of Quebec, which was injured in the fir which took place there in October 190' it was found upon examination that a considerable part of the walls were in good condition, and could be utilized, and a good deal of money would be saved thereby. The attic and part of the first flooi were destroyed by the fire, and we are now proposing to rebuild, and add an ad ditional story, so as to give the increased accommodation that is very much needed for the officials of the government in the different departments.


George Halsey Perley: It is not the intention of the government to erect a new building?


William Pugsley: No.


George Halsey Perley: This vote was up over a year ago. Has anything been done in the meantime to remedy the difficulties there?


William Pugsley: Plans have been prepared, and tenders are being called for. In the meantime, temporary accommodation was given in the examining warehouse in the city of Quebec. I may say that there was a good deal of pressure brought to bear upon the department to sell the site of the present custom house, and buy land in another place for the purpose of erecting a new building altogether. After careful examination into the situation we concluded that it would be better to rebuild the present building, which is a very fine structure, and lends itself to good architecture, although some prominent people in Quebec objected to the present site and desired to see it changed.


George Halsey Perley: Last year the word ' repairs ' was added to this item for the purpose of showing that it was not the intention to ask money to begin the erection of a new custom house. This year I notice the word ' repairs 5 has not been put in the estimates.


William Pugsley: It was in answer to a question by the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). I stated that the question of building upon a new site was under consideration, but if we built upon a new site we should ask for a special vote in the supplementaries, and this word * repairs * was added at the instance of the member for North Toronto, and we are proposing to use this vote for repairs.


George Halsey Perley: Why is the word ' repairs ' left out of the estimates this year?


William Pugsley: Because we are rebuilding and adding another story.
Quebec drill hall extension, $50,000.


William Pugsley: This amount is to make provision for raising the roof of the armoury, and toward the extension of the drill hall at Quebec. This is urged by the Militia Department as being greatly needed. It has been before the department for a considerable time. I put the Minister of Militia off as long as I could, but the Militia Department are very insistent upon it.
Quebec, new detention building in Savard Park, $50,000.


William Pugsley: This is asked for by the Department of the Interior. It is a new building.


George Halsey Perley: Is the old building out of date?


William Pugsley: This is for the purpose of providing for immigrants who have to be temporarily detained, pending arrangements for passing them on largely to points

in the United States. It is necessary to separate the immigrants, and the Department of the Interior is subject to great inconvenience at the present time. This is asked for also by the shipping companies.


Richard Blain: What about the site?


William Pugsley: The government owns the site.
Quebec-immigration building on Louise embankment, $80,000.


Richard Blain: How much was expended on that last year?


William Pugsley: Only $1,000. The vote was $50,000, and we are asking for a revote of $49,000.
Kigaud public building, $18,000.


William Pugsley: This is for the purpose of erecting a public building at Eigaud. This is a revote of $4,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How much is it to cost?


William Pugsley: In the vicinity of $16,000 or $17,000 without fittings. Eighteen thousand dollars will be required for it altogether.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the population?


William Pugsley: Nine years ago the population of the town and village was about 2,300. There has been, I am told, a good deal of improvement in Eigaud since then. The river has been dredged out, a wharf has been built, a college has been established and Eigaud is improving very considerably.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the revenue?


William Pugsley: $1,134 ; money orders issued $14,002, and money orders paid $10,117.17. There is at Eigaud Bourget college, Ste. Ann's convent, the sanctuary of Notre Dame de Lourdes, where many people go in summer, stores, foundry, bank, grist, carding and fulling mills.
Roberval public building, $14,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is this going to cost?


William Pugsley: The total estimated cost of this building, including heating and lighting, is $17,000.


George Halsey Perley: Has the contract been let?


William Pugsley: The tenders have been invited for this building, but the contract has not yet been awarded.
Mr. LANCASTEE, What is the population?


William Pugsley: Eoberval and Charlevoix, both of which will be served by this Mr. PUGSLEY.
building had a population of 2,600 nine, years ago.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What is the population of Eoberval alone?


William Pugsley: Nine years ago it was 1,345, and that of the other village 1,248. I think Eoberval is improving very much.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the revenue there?


William Pugsley: It was $3,330 last year, money orders issued, $33,604.25, and money orders paid $31,777.41. In Eoberval there are 21 stores, three flour mills which gives a very good idea of the business being done, and it is a very great centre for tourists in the summer season.


Richard Blain: How much did the site cost?


William Pugsley: $4,000. It is a lot having a frontage of 70 feet by a depth of 170.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Had it any buildings when it was purchased?
Mr. ruijSLiiX. mere were buildings upon it but they had to be moved off.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Were the owners allowed to move them off?


William Pugsley: Yes, they were allowed to take the buildings off, and that was taken into consideration when fixing the price.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Who recommended the purchase of that site?


William Pugsley: Mr. Gingras and Mr Tache, both employees of the department.


George Halsey Perley: The minister said that there was an immigration building at Eoberval. This will make a second building?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: Or would you be able to get on with one building?


William Pugsley: We could not use the immigration building for the post office and custom house.


George Halsey Perley: The immigration business up there cannot be very large. Does the government own the immigration building or is it simply rented?


William Pugsley: The government own it. It is a cheap wooden building.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Where has the post office been up to now?


William Pugsley: In a rented building.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How much rent have you been paying?


William Pugsley: $175 a year.

Rock Island public building, $15,000.


William Pugsley: This is to erect a public building in the town of Rock Island. The land has been purchased.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: How much?


William Pugsley: $2,500 for the land.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How much is the building to cost?


William Pugsley: The building is estimated to cost between $15,000 and $20,000. It will not exceed $20,000. We hope to keep it down to $15,000 or $16,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You are more likely to keep it up.


William Pugsley: We are keeping it down now.


George Halsey Perley: What is the population and revenue?


William Pugsley: The population is not Very large, or -was not, in 1901. It was only between 600 and 700 in 1901, but I am told that Rock Island has improved very much in the last few years.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Pugsley: There is no doubt about that. It has two hotels, a grist mill and ten different factories-


Edward Arthur Lancaster: There must be a lot of people employed there.
Mr. PUGSLEY-making shirts, overalls, blankets and whips, and also a machine shop.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How many people are employed in these factories when the population is what the hon. gentleman stated ?


William Pugsley: I was speaking of the population in 1901.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is it now?


William Pugsley: I do not know, but I was told that it was about 2,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: By whom?


William Pugsley: By the hon. member who represents the constituency (Mr. Lovell), who is not here at the present moment. But, I am told that there are about 2,000 people. There are gentlemen behind me who know Rock Island well enough to say that it has over 2,000 population.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the revenue of the post office?


William Pugsley: In 1909-10 it was $3,601.70, money orders issued $11,958, money orders paid $17,640.75. Then, this building is to be used for custom house purposes, it is an outport of Beebe Junction, and customs revenue is $11,626.53.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I understood the minister last year to lay down the-principle that no place with a population1 of 2,000 or 3,000 inhabitants, or somewhere around that figure, was to get a public building that would cost more than $10,000 or $15,000. Now, we have him asking us to vote $20,000 for a small placet that had a population of 700 in 1901, while in Uxbridge, in the province of Ontario, and which has 2,000 inhabitants, he is only spending about $15,000. Here is a, very small village in the province of Quebec and he is asking a vote of $20,000. How does he justify it? I understood the minister was going to have his architects in the department modify the plans in order to reduce the cost of these public buildings.


William Pugsley: Here the difference is that it is a nort of entry. It is right on the border, it is to be used for customs purposes and there is a very large customs business carried on. With regard to Uxbridge, it is true, I made the statement last year with respect to public buildings in the smaller towns that I hoped to keep the cost down to not exceeding $15,000. In many cases we have done that. I gave very strict instructions to the chief architect and I am glad td know he is endeavouring to follow those instructions. In the case of small towns like Fergus and Elora, I think the cost will not exceed $13,000 complete. That is the result of the effort we are making to keep the cost of these buildings down to a lower figure.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What have you been paying in rent at Rock Island?


William Pugsley: $175 a year.
Shawinigan public building, $15,000.


William Pugsley: This 'is at Shawinigan Falls, where, as hon. gentlemen know, there is a great water-power. The proposed building is for post office, customs and inland revenue purposes. The estimated cost of the building is from $30,000 to $35,-
000.	The population was nearly 4,000 in 1901, and has grown rapidly since then. They have there the aluminium works and other important factories.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What is the cost of the site?


William Pugsley: The site was donated by the Shawinigan Water & Power Company through the town council, and it is costing us $800 to fix it up.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What rent do you pay there now?


William Pugsley: $293 per year.
St. Jacques de l'Achigan public building, $15,000.


William Pugsley: It is estimated that this will cost $17,000 in addition to the site. It is a revote of $15,000. The site cost $3,000. It has a frontage of 53 feet on the Main street and a depth of 123 feet.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the population?


William Pugsley: In 1901 it was 2,580, but new it is probably at least 4,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What has been the revenue from the post office?


William Pugsley: It has not been as large as one would expect, only $755.


George Halsey Perley: Where is this place?


William Pugsley: In the county of Montcalm on the Canadian Northern railway.


George Halsey Perley: How much is now paid for rent of post office?


William Pugsley: 


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: How does the minister justify paying $3,000 for the site when he can rent a site and building for $44 a year?


William Pugsley: Because the present building is quite unsuitable for a rising town like this.


George Halsey Perley: When was this first voted?


William Pugsley: A petition was presented by the citizens and municipal council on March 18, 1908.


George Halsey Perley: I do not intend to oppose this vote particularly, but this is one of the items that have been voted in election year and nothing has been done. The minister must give some better excuse than he has given for having this vote taken in 1908 and for carrying it without doing anything from year to year. Either the accommodation is reasonable or it is no use at all. If the present office is not suitable why has it been left all these years? What possible excuse can the minister give for passing a vote like this and letting it go on from year to year, at the same time saying that the building is needed because the accommodation is so bad? The minister ought to revise his mode of doing business and the size of the buildings he puts in different places. I know nothing about the place, but we will suppose for the sake of argument that what he says is correct, and that the accommodation is not sufficient. Let him build a building, but why is it necessary to spend as much money as that in a place where he is now getting accommodation for $44 a year? It looks as though it was done for political purposes.


Mr. GEOFFRION.: This is one of the most thriving towns we have in Quebec, and the fact that the accommodation has been costing $44 a year is another reason Mr. PUGSLEY.
for accommodating the population which is increasing very fast. The next census will show that this town has a population of probably 5,000. There is a great trade in tobacco there, it is a very important and thriving town.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: Did the town just start to thrive in 1908?


Victor Geoffrion: No, it has been thriving for many years past.


Arthur Meighen: Has it continued to increase since 1908?


Victor Geoffrion: In the last years it has been thriving and increasing very fast.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is the present post office centrally situated?


Victor Geoffrion: Yes.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: And rents for $44?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have been trying to understand where the thriving part of the town comes in. I am inclined to think it must be in the anticipation that this $17,000 is to be spent and that $3,000 has been spent for the site. That is why it is thriving. A place cannot be very thriving which has 2,500 population and which only spent $755 in postal revenue in a year. We would consider a place like that absolutely dead in Ontario.


William Pugsley: I am informed that until a comparatively short time ago they had no railway accommodation at all; but the Canadian Northern has come in, and people are coming in and building up industries. In the last two or three years it has grown rapidly.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why not bring up the whole town and put it in the museum as a curiosity-$17,000 spent on a building, $3,000 on the site, for a post office where we have been getting on very well in a building rented for $44 a year-a thriving place of 2,500 population where the post office, in postage, money orders and everything, has yielded the extraordinary revenue of $755 a year. I think the size of the name in print is the reason, and no other, why this building is being erected.


Mr.  D. A. T. A FORTUNE@Montcalm: (Translation). I notice that the hon. gentlemen of the opposition ar^ not acquainted with Saint-Jacques de l'Achigan, because if they were acquainted with that important place they would certainly not speak as they do. I am surprised to hear them speak in such a manner.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Speak English!


Mr. LAFORTUNE.: No, I am anxious to speak French, you will perhaps understand less, but I will enjoy it more.

Saint-Jacques de l'Achigan was progressing rapidly until lately, there was no means of communication with the interior, but now the place is served by three railways recently constructed. Therefore it is a very important railway centre. It will also be the main stopping place of the branch line which connects Montreal with the Transcontinental railway. The Great Northern runs through Saint-Jacques de l'Achigan, besides we have the Rawdon railway. I ask these gentlemen to come and visit the place; they would have the advantage of seeing a very nice country.
There is at Saint-Jacques a college, a convent, an experimental farm created by the federal government with the consent of this parliament; it is a very nice little farm which we intend to enlarge some. Saint-Jacques de l'Achigan is also the principal meeting place of the association of tobacco growers of this district. I ask the hon. members to call at- that place in order to acquire a knowledge of what is going on in this country. Do they know that last year three million pounds of tobacco were exported from that district. And in face of all that, they would oppose this appropriation! No, you cannot refuse to give us a convenient post office.
I excuse what you say and what you do, because you are not acquainted with the place.
I have just tendered to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) an invitation to attend, on the ninth of February next, the great tobacco exhibition which will be held in that county, and I would like the hon. gentlemen of the opposition to attend themselves, because they would see nice things.
I hope I havfc said enough to convince you and induce you to grant this post office at Saint-Jacques de l'Achigan.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: From whom was the site purchased?


William Pugsley: From Mr. Damase Marion.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Who is he?


David Arthur Lafortune: He is dead now.


Richard Blain: In the preceding year the revenue of this post office was $779 and the hon. minister states that last year it was $755, $24 less than in the preceding year. Will my hon. friend state how that happens in a growing town?


William Pugsley: Some of the people probably did not buy the same number of postage stamps last year- that they did before.


Mr. THOBURN.: In order to get at the cost of these new post offices compared with the cost of the post offices which the same places have had up to the present time, can the minister tell us what would be tbe probable cost of maintaining one of 604
these post offices after it is built, that is, a rough estimate of the interest on the investment, the cost of the caretaker, the salary of the postmaster and any other incidental expenses?


William Pugsley: The question of salary does not rest with my department. The postmaster gets the same whether he occupies rented premises or a building owned by the government, depending on the revenue of the office. But with regard to the expenses connected witn the building, there would be the salary of the caretaker, which varies from $300 to $500 per year according to the importance of the building and the duties he has to perform, and there would be heating, and lighting, and interest on the cost, which we might put at 3i per cent. If my hon. friend added these items together, he could tell about what the average cost would be.


David Arthur Lafortune: I wish to add that the Hochelaga Bank is now opening a branch at Saint-Jacques de l'Achigan, which fact goes to prove that the business there is rapidly increasing. That bank never settles in small places; on the contrary, I can assure you that the directors expect to transact a large business at Saint-Jacques. You ought to be liberal enough to .grant us that post office. It is a needed improvement which must be carried on.


Mr.   S.@: SHARPE Ontario). Who recommended the purchase of the site?


William Pugsley: I think Mr. Gingras, an official of the department. We sent him to examine and report upon it.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Were there any other recommendations from any one else outside the department ?


William Pugsley: There was a petition from the municipal council and a considerable number of citizens.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Recommending this particular site ?


William Pugsley: Not this particular site.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Any other site ?


William Pugsley: Not that I am aware of.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Have you the petition ?


William Pugsley: No, not here. Then we sent our own official to- examine the various sites and ascertain what was the most suitable and what would be a fair price.
St. Lambert public building, $20,000.


William Pugsley: The plans have not yet been completed, but the estimate of the chief architect is that this will cost between $15,000 and $20,000. *


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the papulation ?


William Pugsley: About 3,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the postal revenue ?


William Pugsley: $2,627; money orders issued $11,626.51.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Where is the site ?


William Pugsley: We bought a very nice lot with a frontage of 230 feet on the public square and 100 feet on both Marcille avenue and Notre Dame street. We paid $4,140, and we bought the lot from Mr. Noel Marcille.


Glenlyon Campbell: What are his politics ?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend behind me says he is a Conservative.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What rent are you paying now ?	.


William Pugsley: $150.	_


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Why do you buy such a large site ? Aire you making a public park for the citizens ?


William Pugsley: St. Lambert is a growing place and we have to look to the future. There is no use putting up a building which would not suit the requirements 25 or 30 years hence. All the suburbs of Montreal are growing with great rapidity and St. Lambert is one of the rnost inviting suburbs.


Richard Blain: The hon. minister says he paid this year $150 rent. The rent has gone up $50 since last year. What is his explanation?


William Pugsley: I suppose the landlord required an increased rental and we had to pay it.


Richard Blain: That is a pretty large increase.


Victor Geoffrion: St. Lambert is really a very rapidly increasing town. We have several factories there and the town is divided into five wards. It also contains public schools and convents. Quite lately we have had two banks established there and a Waterman fountain pen factory. The postal accommodation is so poor that these companies were really obliged to go to Montreal for postal accommodation. We have now an electric railway there and it has become a great railway centre. The town council by resolution unanimously recommended this site; and I may say that, so far as politics are concerned, the town council is opposed to me. It is a magnificent site on a public square opposite the Mr. PUGSLEY.
public school, and I have not found one citizen of the place who was opposed to its purchase.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Certainly not, nor to the purchase of several sites at that price.


Victor Geoffrion: Property in the towns along the south shore opposite Montreal is rapidly increasing in value, particularly in St. Lambert's. You could not buy today the same site for the same price.


Richard Blain: Who fixed the price ?


William Pugsley: We sent our own official.


Victor Geoffrion: I, myself, invited the town council to give their opinion as to the best site to be chosen and they unanimously selected this.


Richard Blain: That was before the purchase ?


Victor Geoffrion: Certainly.


Richard Blain: Does the hon. gentleman not think that was a good way to suggest to the owner that he should ask a high price ?


Victor Geoffrion: The owner did not know anything about it.


Richard Blain: Although the council passed a resolution ?


Victor Geoffrion: There were several sites in question, but this wa3 the choice and we had an option on it previously.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: When was the option secured ?


Victor Geoffrion: Long before the selection by the council.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I understand this vote by the council took place before the election and that the option was got on the eve of the election.


Victor Geoffrion: We did not care about the election. We do not need to use those small means to win an election. What we wanted was to please the citizens of St. Lambert.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: When the hon. gentleman speaks of ' we ' does he mean the government or the citizens of St. Lambert ?


Victor Geoffrion: The citizens of St. Lambert.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then they secured the site for the government ?


Victor Geoffrion: They unanimously declared it was the best site to be got.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Was it acquired by the citizens of St. Lambert for a post office ?


Victor Geoffrion: No, but it was considered by the citizens of St. Lambert as the best site to be got. It was the cheapest and most convenient.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: And because of that, the government purchased that site?


Victor Geoffrion: Of course.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I suppose the man who sold the site knew what the citizens of St. Lambert were doing as well as the government did? Or was he out of the country, or in jail, that he did not know?


Mr GEOFFRION.: It was talked about, and this was thought the most proper site.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: And I understand the hon. gentleman to tell us that when that information was obtained the government purchased the site because it was recommended by the citizens of St. Lambert, and by the town council.


William Pugsley: That is right.


Mr. LANCASTER  .@: Do not they see, as my hon. friend has said, that the very action they waited for would make them pay two or three times the value?


Victor Geoffrion: To prove that the proprietor did not take advantage of that in fixing his price, I may say that the lot adjoining could not be bought for the same price ; I doubt if it could be bought for double. Everybody familiar with the values of property there will say that this site was purchased very cheaply.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I, think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Geoffrion) has thrown a great light on the operations of the Department of Public Works in regard to this building. How many options were secured with the option relating to this particular lot?


William Pugsley: I shall be glad to give my hon. friend that information a little later on before the House is asked to concur in these estimates or, indeed, while they are under consideration of the committee, because we are leaving one item for the purpose of discussion.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The hon. gentleman surely must have that information!


William Pugsley: No, I have not it here.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Give us what you have.


William Pugsley: The only information I have is that the minister was authorized by order in council, dated 8th June, 1910, to purchase from Noel Mareille at $4,140 property in St. Lambert. Lots 113, 114, 115, 116 and having a frontage of 230 feet on the the public square and 100 feet on Mareille
avenue and Notre Dame street, the property being required as a site for the proposed public building at that place. My deputy tells me that when we were informed-I do not know how informed, but I suppose by letter-that this site could be purchased for a certain amount, we sent, as we always do, one of the officials of the department to examine it.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: When was he sent?


William Pugsley: That would be before the order in council was passed, which was 8th June, 1910.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Has not the minister the date?


William Pugsley: No. But the expert would be sent in ordinary course, a short time before June 8, 1910. And if, after examining other properties and learning when this property had changed hands and at what price, and what it was assessed for, if he reported it was a fair price we would make the purchase. And whatever else hon. members may criticise let me ask them what criticism they have to offer of a payment of $4,140 for a site in a growing suburb of the great city of Montreal which has been connected with the city by electric railway and has already a population of 3,000. Will they say that for a lot in a central 'situation, with a frontage of 230 feet on the public square and frontages of 100 feet on each of two other streets a price of a little over $4,000 is unreasonable? I say, on the face of it, it is a reasonable price, and we were absolutely justified in acting upon the reports of our inspector who made the examination.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) is asking what we think of it. I will tell him what I think of it. When he was getting his postal accommodation in St. Lambert at $150 a year, he had no right whatever to spend more than three times as much for a site for a public building, as the building he was using must have been worth. A rent of $150 a year would pay a good fair return on a building of $1,500. And this government paid more than three times that much for the bare land on which they would put a $20,000 building. I think that is the greatest extravagance. If he had any accommodation whatever in the building for which he was paying $150 a year, in this place which he has so highly eulogized, these expenditures of his were not justified.


William Pugsley: It was very inadequate accommodation.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why, it could not have been any accommodation at all if these expenditures are justified. His building at $150 a year could not have been, by comparison, a place fit for the accommoda-

tion of the post office coal scuttles. The largest sum he had a right to expend was, perhaps, $800, possibly $1,000, for a site, and $8,000 for a building. But to propose a site at over $4,000 and a building at $20,000 in a place where accommodation is now had at $150 a year is wholly unjustified.


William Pugsley: The Public Works Department does not rent buildings occupied by the post office; the Post Office Department makes an allowance to the postmaster of a certain amount for rent, and he makes it go as far as he can. Sometimes he has to pay more rent than he is allowed. It does not follow that there is a whole building rented in St. Lambert. The accommodation is simply wretched and wholly inadequate to meet the wants of the people.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The post office accommodation in many places is inadequate.


William Pugsley: This is one of them.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: As we said last session, the proper way for the minister would be, instead of spending $20,000 in one place, to provide more accommodation than is needed, $5,000 apiece should be spent in each of four places giving accommodation that is very much needed. If he would take $100,000 and divide It by 20 instead of dividing it by 4, and give 20 places an accommodation at $4,000 or $5,000 each, he would be doing something that we could all approve of. There can be no justification for expending $25,000 for the building and site in this little town. Now the minister says they bought an enormous piece of land. What right had they to buy a piece of land the size of a park? What right have you to help any town to beautify itself? If you want to build a post office you should not buy one inch of land more than you need to put your post office upon. Do you want to make a free park for the town of St. Lambert? Now the hon, gentleman is going to erect his post office, on a big space of land so as to leave a vacant space on all sides of the building, merely because, as he says, the land is now cheap and will shortly become dear. It is absolutely ridiculous, besides improper, for the minister to come here and attempt to justify this expenditure, because, forsooth, it is a beautiful site. Now we are sick and tired of having attempted justifications for large expenditures by the Minister of Public Works, with no other object than to spend as much money as possible.


Victor Geoffrion: There was no accommodation in the old post office for all who wished to use it, and spine people were obliged to go to Montreal to do their postal business. So far as I am concerned, I do not care about the opposition of these hon. gentlemen opposite. It will show their friends what kind of men they are, because Mr. LANCASTER.
the town of St. Lambert is Tory, and the conduct of the opposition in this House will show how much sympathy they have for their friends in St. Lambert. The people _ of St. Lambert will see the spirit of their friends when I tell them what was said in the House. My constituents in St. Lambert know that the site which was bought was the cheapest and best that could be got, and no other could be got. The town is growing very fast, and this site was recommended by my Tory friends in St. Lambert, who insisted that it should be purchased.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman has made himself cheap, but he is not going to make me cheap. The hon. gentleman has no right to suppose that we on this side of the House care whether it is Conservative or Liberal who want a post office, so long as it is needed. Is the Minister of Public Works going to put up public buildings because Conservatives ask for them ? The hon. member for Chariibly (Mr. Geof-frion) got up to make an argument to help the minister out, and all he could say was that the Conservatives of the town .of St. Lambert had asked for this expenditure, and now he tries to frighten us by saying that he will tell them what we did. I hope he will tell 'them, because the Conservatives in St. Lambert are like the Conservatives everywhere else, reasonable and honest men, who do not wish to see the money of the country wasted.


Mr. MILLER.: I think this government, in providing for public buildings, either in the Conservative city of Toronto, or the largely Conservative city of Winnipeg, or the city of Montreal, ought to remember, in the public interest, that these cities are growing rapidly, and that the price of real estate is rising rapidly. The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), says that nobody can make him cheap. I do not think anybody can make him cheaper than he makes himself, and I think it is fortunate that he is not Minister of Public Works. St. Lambert, as we know, is a suburb of Montreal, its population is bound to grow rapidly as the population of Montreal increases. There were two courses open to the government. They could continue that inadequate accommodation, and pay a very small rent for a post office, and delay purchasing the site, it may be for ten years. I venture to say that at the end of ten years, instead of buying this site for a little over $4,000, they would have to pay $20,000. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that I can show him a property in the city of Montreal that, two or three years ago, sold for $18,000, and that a little while ago it sold for $50,000. I think that the government acted wisely in buying when they did and in buying property larger than is re-

quired for the present purpose. The hon. member for Lincoln is exceedingly funny, but I do not think that he is businesslike or that he shows good, judgment


Richard Blain: I was asking the hon. gentleman a question as to the increase in the revenue?


William Pugsley: That would be an allowance by the Postmaster General. I do not know the circumstances which led to the increase.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman said that last year he was paying $100 and that now he is paying $150. Perhaps the hon. gentleman who represents the county can explain it.


Victor Geoffrion: The only reason is that the Tents over there have increased immensely just as they have in Montreal.


Richard Blain: Did the hon. gentleman suggest that rents should be advanced?


Victor Geoffrion: No, I did not recommend anything of the kind.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I would like to ask if it is the intention of the minister to give us the number of options that were secured, the dates of the options, the prices and all the particulars before the Quebec items pass.


William Pugsley: Yes, before the Quebec items pass I will get all the information the department has as to the purchase of the site.


Adam Brown Crosby: The item of $100,000 has not been passed and before that item passes this information can be got?


William Pugsley: Very well.


Richard Blain: Is there to be a clock in this building?


William Pugsley: No, as far as I am at present advised there is no clock provided for.	.


Richard Blain: Has my hon. friend information about that other clock that he was to give us the other night?


William Pugsley: I will have that when we come to deal with the $100,000 item.
Three Rivers, new public building to replace buildings destroyed by fire June 23, 1908, $75,000.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


Glenlyon Campbell: Is this item passed?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It is open to discuss if the hon. gentleman wishes to speak on it.


Glenlyon Campbell: When the item of clocks comes before the House I would like to ask who is in charge of the clock that
advises the members of this House when they should attend here? Is it the Minister of Public Works? He is very anxious about clocks down in Lunenburg and other Grit ridings all through Canada, but he is very religiously forgetful that the members have a clock on the tower of the House of parliament that is not at present running. On certain occasions the clock has pointed to ten minutes to ten and judging by the attendance on the side of the House that the hon. minister is leading at present one would conclude that the members think it is ten minutes to ten in the morning instead of ten minutes to ten in the evening when they should be here. The clock is at present pointing to ten minutes after eight. If there is any attention paid by his department or by himself to the requisites of the people of Canada he should have the clock that is to guide us as members representing the people running in proper order instead of standing still as it is at present.


William Pugsley: I shall have much pleasure in having the matter which the hon. gentleman complains of inquired into.


Glenlyon Campbell: It is not a matter of inquiry now; it is a matter of history.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Is the item for Three Rivers carried?


William Pugsley: That is carried.


Glenlyon Campbell: What is carried? There is nothing carried.


George Halsey Perley: As there is one item in Quebec to stand we might allow these three items to stand.


William Pugsley: No, let us put them all through, and we will leave the large one. Three Rivers, as hon. gentlemen know, was perhaps not almost completely, but very largely destroyed by fire in June, 1908. The public buildings were burned and this is for the purpose of erecting a new public building. Three Rivers is a very important place as will be seen from the fact that we had a postal revenue last year of $13,156; customs duties $180,947.89; excise $63,707.71; weights and measures $1,682.05; electric light inspection $157.50; money orders issued $49,173.80; money orders paid $112,378.52; imports $1,792,394.


George Halsey Perley: Is this under contract now?


William Pugsley: No, but the plans are substantially ready.


George Halsey Perley: How much is it to. cost?


William Pugsley: In the vicinity of $125,-
000.


Richard Blain: I see an expenditure last year in the Auditor General's Report of $8,000.


William Pugsley: That was tor a temporary building necessiated by the fire.


Richard Blain: Was it done by contract?


William Pugsley: A retaining wall was built by contract after public tender.


Richard Blain: Who had the contract?


William Pugsley: Messrs. J. A. McLaughlin and T. P. Oharleson of Ottawa.
Westmount public building, $50,000.


William Pugsley: This is for the purpose of erecting a public building in West-mount which is a very important municipality immediately adjoining the city of Montreal, for all practical purposes being part of Montreal. We propose erecting a public building which will cost in the vicinity of $70,000. It is to be used as a postal station. The site has been purchased for $14,632.80.


George Halsey Perley: Is this under contract now?


Mr PUGSLEY.: Not yet. The plans have not yet been prepared, but they are being prepared.


George Halsey Perley: I suppose this will be one of the postal stations of Montreal?


William Pugsley: Yes. All of the Quebec items have passed except the one item for the Montreal new barracks.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Mr. Pugsley, House adjourned at 12.05 a.m. Wednesday.

Wednesday, January 18, 1911.