1914-06-04

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Board of Grain Commissioners for	Canada.-Hon. George E.
Foster.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. BELAND:: 1.	Was the Government made aware that the Insurance Company Rimouski Mutuelle had, before its winding up, as alleged, given up a certain proportion of its policies to the York Fire Insurance Company of Toronto and to the Midland Fire Insurance Company of Brandon, Manitoba?
2.	Did the Government inspector report on these alleged facts?
3.	Is the Government aware that the Company Rimouski Mutuelle is said to have received certain amounts paid by the above mentioned companies and intended to indemnify policyholders who had sustained losses through Are, and that these amounts have been retained by said company for two months at least previous to its being wound up?
4.	Is not inspection by the Government intended to prevent such irregularities?
5.	Is it the intention of the Government to appoint within a short time, a special inspector with instructions to investigate the management of the Companies Rimouski Mutuelle and Ontario Mutual?
This question was answered yesterday, but I should like to ask the Minister of Finance to look into this matter a little more carefully. Although he said that he was going to appoint a-special inspector, this is a special case and from the public point of view as well as from the point of view of those who sustained losses, I think that an inspector should be appointed. As the Postmaster General 303i
knows, this is a very serious matter from the public point of view in the province of Quebec.


Hon. W. T. WHITE:: At present I see no necessity for an investigation on the part of the Government. I understand that in respect of at least one of the companies tuere is a provision under the Winding Up Act for any investigation of irregularities. I shall be glad, however, to take what my hon. friend has said into consideration.


QUEBEC JUDGES.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. GAUVREAU:: I desire to ask the
Minister of Justice, first, whether or not there is any truth in the report that Judge Cimon has sent in his resignation; second, if it is true that Judge Belleau will be transferred from the district of Kamou-raska to the district of Beauce; third, if when the minister appoints a new judge for the district of Kamouraska he will insist that the judge shall reside at Fraserville.


Mr. DOHERTY:: With regard to the first question, I have not as yet received the resignation of Mr. Justice Cimon. As to the second question, is Mr. Justice Belleau to be transferred, it is a good rule not to get on with the new love until you are off with the old, and Mr. Justice Cimon has not resigned.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: The newspaper says that Judge Cimon has resigned.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have not yet received his resignation.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Not even his resignation in blank ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Most assuredly I have no resignation in blank. As regards the last question, I might point out that the residence of the judges is determined by the legislation of the provinces.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: The Minister of Justice in making the appointment will see that the law is strictly observed?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall certainly do all the law says the Minister of Justice should do to see that the law is observed.


BRITISH NATIONALITY NATURALIZATION.
[Stage Direction]
Consideration in Committee of Bill No. 173, respecting British Nationality naturalization and aliens, Mr. Doherty-resumed from May 30; Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
[Stage Direction]
On new section 19-procedure and evidence in different provinces:
Charles Joseph Doherty: I have given consideration to the observations made the other day in connection with the procedure that should be adopted. It was pointed out to ane that the provision with regard to what courts should deal with this matter in Hew Brunswick, being the provision reproduced from the old Act, was not suitable at the present day in view of changes that have been made in the constitution of the courts of that province. The observation of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Car veil) I find on inquiry to be justified by the changes that have been made, and 1 therefore desire to move to amend subsection b of section 19 by substituting for the present provision:
In New Brunswick, to the circuit court in the county in which the alien resides or to the county court having jurisdiction in such county.
Subsection as amended agreed to.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I -also desire to amend subsection h. I move that it be struck out and the following substituted:
In Saskatchewan and Alberta, to the Supreme Court sitting in the judicial district in which the alien resides or to the district court in such district.
That is to meet the objection that whereas in all other provinces this matter is submitted to the court, in Alberta and Saskatchewan, under the Act as first drafted, it was submitted to the judge who might sit in chambers. There were probably good reasons for that at the time the old law was enacted, as the courts were less numerous and sat less often in those provinces; but in the present condition of affairs there seems no good reason to continue a difference between those two provinces and the others.


Mr. OLIVER:: I think the minister is in error in saying that the change in conditions in those provinces to-day rendered it unnecessary that there should be an opportunity of hearing these applications in chambers. Three years ago, although the area of territory was of the same size, the area occupied by population was much less. Now, with population scattered practically all over those provinces, the points at which courts sit naturally represent convenience for only a comparatively small part of the population. But there still remains a large part of the population who would be inconvenienced, and I think unnecessarily, if they were compelled to attend at the sit-

ings of the court. Unless there is some very serious reason I would very strongly urge that the matter be left as it is.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As the law stands they were bound to send these applications to the officers of the court and they had to be posted in the offices of the court. In that respect there is no substantial change, they still have to merely send their applications. The only difference is that instead, as under the old system, of these applications being forwarded on to the judge who dealt with them in chambers with no publicity and with no very easy opportunity for parties to be heard, we propose that in these provinces as in the other provinces the matter shall be dealt with by the court. The hon. member suggests that there will be difficulties about parties attending. I propose to amend section 21 so that the parties shall attend for examination except in cases where it is established to the satisfaction of the court or judge that there are good and sufficient causes preventing their being there. I think that with this combination we shall reduce to a minimum the inconvenience that will result, and we will have the advantage of not making differences between different provinces as to the tribunal which is to administer this law.


Mr. MACDONALD:: The Minister of Justice, by this Bill, is going to make it about as hard for a man of foreign nationality to become a British subject as for the ordinary common sinner to obtain a passport to to the kingdom of Heaven. If any one who knows anything about circuit courts, even in the eastern provinces, were to be told that if any special number of men, eight or nine or ten even, wanted to be naturalized they would have to go through the complicated procedure which my hon. friend prescribes; that they would have to attend on the opening day of the court and obtain counsel to consult with the judge as to whether their applications for naturalization can be considered, and upon what day; that they would have to wait until the criminal proceedings, which are usually the first initiated in any circuit court, are disposed of, he would consider the procedure impossible. My hon. friend is not inclined to trust the judgment of the judge to the extent of permitting him to hear these cases in chambers. It is impossible for one engaged in active practice to appreciate what my hon. friend means by all this even as regards eastern Canada, but when we consider that in the West whole colonies of aliens at a time want to obtain British citizenship, and that

under this Act these men are not to be given the opportunity of coming before a judge in chambers but have to depend on the sittings of the criminal court in the district, my hon. friend is simply intimating to every man of foreign blood in this country that he must not think of attempting to get British citizenship. My hon. friend will not allow a judge sitting in chambers to pass upon the evidence as to the man's qualifications. Counsel has to be employed . and all these technical difficulties overcome. Under these circumstances, I say that no man can be naturalized in this country in less than six months or a year.


Charles Joseph Doherty: So far as the hon. gentleman has dealt with the procedure before the courts, I would like to point out that there is no additional complication.


William John Macdonald: Oh yes, there is.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As the law stands at present in every province, excepting Alberta and Saskatchewan, the first thing a man has to do is to give notice to the clerk of the court of his intention to apply for naturalization. The clerk of the court has to post that for three weeks, and at the end of that time the court deals with the application. The difference that is made as to the tribunal is simply to assimilate the law of Alberta and Saskatchewan to that of the rest of the provinces. We are adding nothing to the complications or to the difficulties. The only other difference is this, that a man must make evidence to the satisfaction of the judge of the facts on which he relies, instead of 'as at present merely making an affidavit before a commissioner or a justice of the peace, which affidavit, if it satisfies the commissioner or justice of the peace, is sent to the court, which passes it. I have difficulty in seeing what is the great additional complication that is created. Under this Bill a man, instead of giving notice to the clerk of the court, sends his application to the clerk. Surely the one is no more difficult than the other. The application is dealt with just as the notice is dealt with under the law as it stands to-day, which prescribes that that application must be made in open court on the first day of the court. In this legislation we have not made that specific requirement. We have provided simply that the application shall be heard before the court three weeks after it has been filed with the clerk. Any man can now file his application by sending it by mail; and that,
with all respect, I think is a great improvement. The thing we do require is-that this matter shall be dealt with before the court and evidence given to the satisfaction of the judge, instead of the casebeing made to entirely rest upon an affidavit taken outside the court by an officer having, in the large majority of cases at all events, very little judicial qualifications. Under the present law he alone requires to be satisfied in the event of there being no opposition. I think the hon. member is unduly apprehensive of difficulties in this connection. As against such difficulties as' may arise, we have the protection resulting from the fact that these men coming forward to be naturalized will pass before the judge and will be subjected to examination. In that way we will have a guarantee of the genuineness of their application, and of the perfect truthfulness of what they say. I think the hon. member has experience enough to know that affidavits are not a satisfactory sort of proof of any fact that it is important to verify. Without casting any reflection upon the good faith of people that make-them, it is very possible that an affidavit may be erroneous or misleading, and there is much greater possibility of that when it comes to dealing with a class of people who are not perfectly familiar with the language in which these affidavits aTe drawn up. 'I must confess that I do not, see that w-e are making any additional' complications. I think that practically without additional complications we are getting a guarantee of the truthfulness of the statements on which the naturalization is granted.


William John Macdonald: Suppose a hundred
Galicians in a district in the Northwest desire to become naturalized-and that is e very small proportion of the- very large colonies in the Northwest-according to my hon. friend's difficult practice, those hundred men who want to become British subjects and who have complied with the residential regulations, must appear at court, and there will be a hundred applications entered upon the docket of the court sitting in that district. In that term of the court there will doubtless be criminal and civil cases to be heard at which the attendance of jurors and witnesses and all that is involved. My hon. friend undertakes to say to that judge who is sitting in term: You must not venture to take up this matter of naturalization in chambers; that will never do at all.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Does the hon. gentleman realize that except in Alberta and Saskatchewan the judge cannot do it today?


William John Macdonald: Excepting in those
provinces we do not find an abnormal number of people applying at once for naturalization. Under my hon. friend's legislation these men, who may be of the working class, are kept hanging round the court until the judge permits them to present their cases. I am giving a case that has arisen and will he sure to arise again in the Northwest.


Mr. BORDEN:: Are there terms in
Saskatchewan?


William John Macdonald: I am so advised.


Robert Laird Borden: Cannot the judge sit in court?	*


William John Macdonald: Not in our province, except by consent, and on the dates named.


Robert Laird Borden: He can in the city of
Halifax. When he is on circuit I think he can sit in court wherever he sees fit for certain purposes.


William John Macdonald: I have been in practice in my county for twenty-five years and I never remember any judge of the Supreme or county court attempting to sit out of term or not in accordance with the conditions imposed by the statute. I' fancy that in the Northwest provinces you would have that same condition. When the right hon. gentleman suggests that a judge could sit in term and try a particular case-


Robert Laird Borden: I did not say sit in term; I said sit in court.


William John Macdonald: How is the foreignborn gentleman who lives some distance away from the court to know the time at which the judge may make up his mind to sit?


Robert Laird Borden: There is a (very simple
remedy. When these applications are to be made, I suppose, they will be made by some person having a knowledge of )the law, and he will ask the judge to sit in court for the purpose of disposing of them. There may be provincial statutes permitting that to (be done.


William John Macdonald: The question of what a judge may or may not do is something which my right hon. friend knows very well is not a matter to be settled by the mere whim of Parliament or of the party who wants to be naturalized. I am deal-

ing with the ordinary conditions that must exist under the statute, and I am taking the case of, say, a hundred Galicians out in the Northwest who want to become naturalized. They know that according to the law of the land the judge will come to the chief town in their vicinity at a certain time. They proceed to give notice, the notice is given to the clerk of the court, it is posted and the term opened for the disposal of criminal and civil business, jury and nonjury cases. What is the judge going to do who sits in term, and who is compelled to sit in term, in these cases? There may be a man charged with murder, or there may be men charged with grave crimes awaiting trial, and, under these circumstances, is the judge going to say: They must stay here until I have gone into all these cases, heard the evidence of all the witnesses and reached the conclusion as to whether I shall issue a certificate or not? Is he going to do that as a matter of practice? No judge will do that. First, the judge will take up the criminal cases, then he will take up the civil jury cases, then he will take up the non-jury cases in which parties on both sides are interested and he will say to Mr. Galician:	You will have
to wait until these cases are disposed of, and the result is that the unfortunate man who wants to become a British citizen is told that he has to sit around the courthouse and pay for his board and all that sort of thing until the judge sees fit to take up these matters.


Mr. BURNHAM:: What would you suggest?


William John Macdonald: I would suggest that there should be no change in the law, that the judge should be permitted to take these matters up in chambers without waiting for the term of the court.


Mr. CARROLL:: The objection I had to
section 19 was that in Alberta and Saskatchewan you can go before the judge in chambers while in other provinces you have to go to open court and that, whereas, in these provinces you are permitted to make your -case by affidavit, in other places you have to do it by viva voce evidence.


William John Macdonald: The remedy is to
permit a- party who wants to be naturalized to go before the judge in chambers after he has given notice anywhere in the Dominion. Why should he not? The judge is going to make a thorough investigation sitting in chambers without being hampered

by other parties and other proceedings, and he is going to give a certificate to he sent to the Secretary of State in quite as impartial a manner as if he were sitting in open court. The limitation is not only confined to Alberta and Saskatchewan biit in the east it is the same. Why should not Parliament trust a judge to hear these cases with the same fairness with his gown off as with his gown on more particularly as there is the extra check of requiring the judge to send the certificate to the Secretary of State? This law, instead of permitting and encouraging men to be British citizens, is going to throw every possible difficulty and impediment in their way.


Mr. McKENZIE:: This point was up the other day and at page 4698 of ' Hansard ' the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) is reported as having said:
That suggestion is very deserving of consideration.
I do not think the minister has given it, as far as Nova Scotia is concerned, any consideration at all. I would like to know what the answer is to the argument put forward by my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) on that point. I pointed out the other day that the reason we had to go to court before was that we got the certificate from the court naturalizing the applicant. We have to get the seal of the court on the order of the judge and it was therefore essential that the court should be sitting as a court. Now the judge	is	not to give us
an order at all, the seal of the court is not used, and it is not in any way essential that the court be sitting as a court. We have to present the facts to the judge, and he gives us a certificate signed by him. There is nothing to say that it shall be sealed, and why we should be obliged to wait until the court is sitting to get that certificate from a judge I do not understand. In the county of Cape Breton the convenient thing would be to allow the county court judge to deal with this matter, and, as he is empowered to deal with it in the court, why should he not be empowered to deal with it in chambers? Most of this business is done with us in the county court judge's court. I think the fact that the judge is sitting as a court does not give him any more capacity to deal with a mere finding of fact. I agree that the law should be continued as it is, with whatever other safeguards the minister wants to throw around it. When we get the certificate why should we not get it in the easiest, simplest and most convenient way?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am sorry that my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) should think that I have not given sufficient consideration to what he said the other day. I can only deal with one thing at a time and express my opinion upon the representations which have been made to me one after the other. That is the reason why I have not reached the stage of giving to the hon. member who has just sat down the results of the serious consideration which I said his observations deserved, and which I have given to them. I must confess that the more I considered it the more I am convinced that much advantage will result from the fact that the question of establishing the qualification for naturalization is treated as other matters of importance are, and that is in a public, open court. There are many good reasons that lie behind the fundamental rule that the proceedings of a court must be public. Here, we are dealing with a matter that not only the man who wants to get naturalized is interested in, but one in which the country is also interested. I think it is of great advantage that the transaction should go on in open court where the public, who know the facts concerning the individual applying for naturalization, may be present and where the proceedings will be treated as a matter of importance. While I regret to differ from the hon. gentleman, the more consideration I have given to this matter the more firmly am I convinced that the court should deal with it. I am supported in that view 'by the past legislation. The legislation as it stands today required that, save in the exceptional case of provinces in which at that time it was considered that conditions differed from those of the more settled provinces, and therefore in which it was desirable that the matter should be dealt with in a different way. With all respect to the hon. member for Edmonton, I may say that it is from those provinces in particular that it has been most strongly urged that this change should be made. I have had representations from numbers of people, not speaking from any party point of view, that it was very desirable that this should be done, and that the evil which had to be guarded against there was, not too great difficulty in people people becoming naturalized, but too great facility in people becoming naturalized, without proper precaution.


William John Macdonald: So my hon. friend
swung the pendulum to the other extreme. If it was formerly pretty easy for a person to become naturalized, it is now going to

be almost impossible. Many people in this country are always preaching about what should be done in regard to this, that and the other question, just as in the old country you will find from the newspapers that the souls of a good many people are worried over the danger of western Canada becoming Americanized, whereas people on this side do not take the matter into consideration at all. A great many <rood people, quite as impractical, will dilate with long specious theories about the desirability of hedging round the rights of citizenship in this country with extra precautions. My hon. friend should realize that this is a practical question; that it is of no importance to Canada whether a judge sits with his gown on or off, when he has to determine, merely as a preliminary investigation, whether a man has resided in this country, can speak either English or French, and is not a criminal. My hon. friend, in the working out of this legislation, is going to prevent the ordinary man from getting naturalized at all. How is a judge going to dispose of a hundred applications in a term, when he cannot adjourn them to chambers and take them up, as he can now, on a reference? Many a county court judge, sitting as a referee in chambers in many cases where nobody but the parties and the witnesses hear anything about it, will determine whether a man shall lose everything he has in the world in a financial way, will settle rights of the most important character involving hundreds of thousands of dollars. All that can be done in chambers. The procedure of all the provinces permits it to be done. My hon. friend says that, when a man is ambitious td become a Canadian citizen, he must not be permitted to prove these simple facts in any other wray than in open court, after every possible barrier of a legal character has been put in front of him and at an expense which in some cases will be not only onerous but prohibitive. This is not a political question; it is a question of a common-sense working-out of a law; and those of us who have to do with active practice .at the bar, and who know how these things are dealt with in court, know that under such circumstances practically no one in the West will be able to get naturalized.


Frank Oliver: I wish to support what
the hon. member for Pictou has said with regard to the conditions in the West, and to say in reply to the minister, (although

it may seem over-assertiveness on my part, that while similarity of the law is no doubt desirable, yet, when there is serious dissimilarity of conditions, it is only reasonable that the law should be varied to meet those conditions. The law is for the people, not the people for the law. The conditions in those western provinces are to-day as they were five years ago, so far as accessibility to the procedure of courts is concerned by a large number of the people. The courts have been carried out to places where there were no courts -before, but the people have gone beyond that again. I believe there are moire people inconveniently situated !as regards the situation of the courts to-day than there were five years ago, because, although there are more courts, there are more people and they axe further scattered abroad. There is that condition prevailing especially in the two larger prairie provinces, which does not prevail anywhere else in- the Dominion, and I think it- is fair to take that into consideration.
The other feature has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Pictou, namely, that it is in those provinces where the largest number of naturalizations will necessarily take place. Therefore, what would be a minor inconvenience in one of the other provinces, becomes a major inconvenience in those provinces owing to the larger number of people affected. As to the actual working of the law, a man's application is sent in. That does not involve any difficulty. If the judge sees fit to deal with the application on affidavit, there is still no difficulty. But I take it that my hon. friend contemplates that the judge, in dealing with the application, shall take actual- evidence from the person. That may involve taking evidence also from neighbours of the person, who are familiar with his life and condition. Where the applicant and his witnesses may have to travel a distance of 50 or 100 miles in order to reach the court-and I want to assure the hon. minister that that is a very prevalent condition- it is a serious matter if there is delay that can reasonably be avoided after they have reached the court. The hon. member for Pictou has pointed out the difficulty of fitting in a large number of naturalization applications into the ordinary proceedings of the court. The hon. minister said dt was desirable to have personal evidence in open court, so that the neighbours and

acquaintances of the parties interested would have knowledge of the character of the evidence submitted; but I am dealing with the cases where the applicant is situated so far from the seat of the court that there is no possibility of the people living in the neighbourhood of the court having knowledge of the facts of the case. It is a matter of knowledge of the people in the locality in which the applicant resides, which knowledge is brought to the *court by the applicant and his witnesses, but it is not a mattter of knowledge of the people who live in the vicinity of the place where the court is held. I do not wish to press unduly; but I think in view of the statement made by the minister that he has received representations from people in those provinces advising practically the procedure that he now undertakes to provide, it is only fair that I should place before the country the facts as- I understand them, so that, whatever may occur, I certainly will not be responsible for not having brought the matter, as I understood it, fully to the attention of the minister and of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: As I understand the matter, there is no probability of delay from having these applications disposed of in a formal way. The Legislature of Saskatchewan or Alberta could make a slight amendment to the law, which would prevent such delay. My own view is that no undue obstacle should be placed in the way of any person desiring to become naturalized as a British subject in this country, but on the other hand naturalization should not be given on the penny-in-the-slot principle. There should be a certain formality about it, and the proceedings should be of a character to impress the person seeking naturalization with the fact that inquiry is being made and that an important matter is under consideration-no undue obstacle, but, on the other hand, a certain formality which should be impressive to the party.


Frank Oliver: Would the Prime Minister, for my own information, say what action taken by the local legislature would meet the case?


Robert Laird Borden: Subject to the opinion of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) who is more familiar with the matter than I am, an Act of the Legislature of Saskatchewan providing that judges may sit in court either generally or for this particular purpose, at any time and at any
place, would remove any possible difficulty. I think naturalization proceedings should be attended with the formality of the court and not carried on in the somewhat informal manner in which these matters are dealt with in chambers.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In the province of
Quebec-I would not say throughout the province or in every district, but certainly in the district of Montreal-the Legislature has enacted that it is always term. This makes it possible for the judge to sit as a court at any time. That is one method which would meet the objections that have been made to the requirement that the proceeding be before the court and not in Chambers. As the Prime Minister has suggested, it is only necessary for the
12 noon legislature to provide for certain additional terms, or to enable the judge to fix the time when he will sit in court and hear these cases. The performance of the duties of the judge of the court, as prescribed either by the law of this Dominion or other laws, is a matter to be regulated by the provincial authorities; and if there comes a considerable addition of work as a result of the present measure, I should anticipate that any provincial authority would make provision to meet the public convenience in that regard by providing additional terms or otherwise. While it is true there are more peo-' pie in the western provinces than there were, it is also true that the Dominion is being called upon to provide, and is providing, a very considerable number of additional judges. In the province of Saskatchewan, for instance, the year before last we provided for one additional judge, last year for four, and this year for four additional district court judges. These j adges will have jurisdiction, and the province has been divided into additional districts where these judges will sit. And we have provided for three additional high court judges in Alberta. If the population has increased, the number of judges also has increased. Under the law as it stood, while the judge in chambers could deal with these matters, he could deal with them only in the judicial district in which the alien to be naturalized resided. And he could not do it in more than one place in the district. So if the attendance of witnesses were made necessary those witnesses would have to attend at one particular place in the district. There was no provision for the judge to travel about to every man's

door to take his certificate. Under section 21, I propose to provide that the party shall attend before the judge for examination, unless it is established to his satisfaction that there are good and sufficient causes to prevent it. I have no doubt that any court would consider that a journey of a couple of hundred miles, if other satisfactory evidence were offered, would justify the non-attendance of the individual. No doubt, with the requirement that evidence be given in court., somebody wi'l have to go to court to give the evidence. But, so far as that requirement is concerned, I confess that the more I have considered the matter the more it does seem to me a most desirable thing that evidence should be so given, that it is a matter to be dealt with before the tribunal. I do not think it is disputable that as things stand to-day there must be large numbers of people who are naturalized who, without any perjury whatever on their part-I am not suggesting that-do not meet the requirements. We have been talking about the West. But take it in the big cities of the East. Men are naturalized upon their affidavits. As it happens, the larger proportion of people seeking naturalization are people new to the country, in many instances very unfamiliar with the language in which affidavits have to be drawn up, and still less familiar with the meaning of any term that the law may use which has special significance. Large numbers of people are . naturalized together and through the efforts of persons who take an interest in getting them naturalized, for one cause or another.
I do not suppose that I shall be making a revelation or shocking anybody when I say it does happen that more people are naturalized at the instance of persons interested in them-through the desire of obtaining the advantage of their votes or otherwise-after they become naturalized, than at the instance of the aliens themselves. The sole requirements of the present law are that each individual should make an affidavit before a commissioner or justice of the peace -whose connection with the case ends there and then-and that affidavit is simply taken to the court and left for three weeks, and when that time has gone by,-if nobody has made opposition, the judge is simply called upon to issue the certificate.


Mr. GERMAN:: Without the attendance of the party?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As the law stands at present, there is absolutely no requirement

of the attendance of the party. We propose to tequire that, under the new law, save where it is shown to be impossible.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Is it the idea that the judge shall see the applicant and make up his mind whether he is fit to be a citizen or not?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It has not been suggested that the judge should make a physical examination to determine his qualifications. But under section 21 it is required that the party should attend for examination unless it is established to the court that there are good reasons why he should not. It has not seemed unreasonable to us to ask a man, where it is conveniently possible, to submit himself for examination. A judge is in a better position to decide as to the truthfulness of what a' man says if 'he [DOT]asks him questions than he is upon the mere production of a document. I have no doubt that the hon. member is lawyer enough to know just what an affidavit can be made to say without constituting perjury, though at the same time going quite beyond the limits of exact truthfulness.


William Manley German: Up to the present time the process of naturalization of aliens has been very simple. The person desiring naturalization made the affidavit and declaration prescribed by the statute; these were handed to the crown attorney or to the registrar of the high court and at the sitting of the Court of Sessions or of the High Court of Justice the certificate of the magistrate was read in open court. No objection being taken, that constituted naturalization of the alien. This simple and entirely inexpensive procedure has aided materially in the naturalization of desirable aliens. The hon. Minister of Justice is now establishing a court before which a man has to go to establish his right to be naturalized and this will entail on the alien who desires to be naturalized very considerable expense. Most aliens under these circumstances would deem it necessary to retain the services of a-solicitor and instead of obtaining naturalization, as they can now, at the cost of say one dollar at the outside, the expense entailed will be $15 or $20. It seems to me that the hon. member is going far beyond the requirements of necessity when he proposes to establish a tribunal before which these men must appear to demonstrate their rights to citizenship in Canada. What we desire in Canada is to get an additional population as rapidly as possible so long as it is composed of persons who are suit-

able eitizens. Foreigners are continually being naturalized throughout the western portion of the province of Ontario, particularly in the Niagara district. At every session of- the court large numbers are being naturalized and they become good citizens. I think that the passing of this Act, as outlined by the Minister of Justice will debar a large number of persons from 'becoming naturalized, because they will not go to the trouble which is thereby entailed upon them; at any rate, I apprehend that this provision will entail more expense than the necessities of the circumstance warrant.


Frank Oliver: Will there be any practical or necessary difference between the cost of application heard before the judge in chambers and the cost of application heard before the judge in court?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The only fee that I can think of will be a fee to the clerk for the service that he renders. We certainly will not providte for any additional expense simply because the matter conies before the court.


Mr MORPHY:: I have already referred
to the fact that this Bill, in providing undei subsection b of section 2 that the applicant shall have an adequate knowledge of either the English or the French language, appears to be in a measure discriminatory, apparently without intention, against the very principle which underlies our Canadian immigration policy. I was in Regina the other day, and having voiced in this House an objection to the narrowness of this section I was rather surprised to find that a petition had been presented to a large body of men meeting there in convention, on behalf of a German section of the population of Saskatchewan protesting against that provision on certain grounds. It is alleged that these people live in sections which are in the nature of colonies in parts of the country that are sparsely populated. Coming in families from portions of Germany or Austria and being in a new country, they frequently live far removed from neighbours and the only social intercourse they have is with themselves. Because ot the vast territory which is embraced in the West, in many cases these persons have no neighbours, or, indeed, no neighbourhood, for many, many miles, and are forced by the newness of conditions in the West to live within themselves and by themselves. It seems unfair that a section should be put in which would work a hardship to these persons, who are worthy citizens of this country and
who, through no desire to avoid learning the English language and through no desire to be particularly restrictive in respect of their own, are forced of necessity to have only one language, their own. Whether they be Germans or of any other race, I think it is extending the restrictions too far to prevent these people by this section from assuming through naturalization the full status and rights of Canadian citizenship.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: What was the tenor of the petition to which my hon. friend has referred?


Mr. MORPHY:: It protested against subsection b of section 2 of this Bill.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was it from the Germans?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: From the Germans of a certain section of the province of Saskatchewan to the Grand Lodge of British America which met in Regina last week. I happened to be on the floor of the convention room at the time and felt it my duty to rise from my seat to say that I had protested against this section on the floor of the House. I was not called upon to speak for these people, nor do I hold any brief for them. I simply voice the protest I saw made against the Act, which I felt it my duty to do as a British subject and as a Canadian who is anxious to see that all immigrants in this country shall live under such circumstances and be invested with such powers as will make Canadian citizens and British -subjects in the best possible manner and in the shortest possible time.
For instance those people may live in that district for twenty years bringing up their children, talking at their firesides the German language, hearing no English of any account and they are therefore unable, under that Act to naturalize themselves and become British subjects or to have a vote, although they are paying taxes, contributing to the revenues of the country, developing our western prairies. They are debarred from the right of the franchise as well as other rights which they might reasonably claim.


Mr. BRADBURY:: How many citizens
will you find whose children are not able to speak English?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I confine my remarks to conditions that apparently exist and which have been protested against in the West. I do not desire to be discourteous to my hon. friend in urging these objections, but

the petition complained that Germans an the West, in Saskatchewan and Alberta, who live together in colonies, are deprived, by that section of the Act, from becoming naturalized. ,	.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: What is the conclusion of my hon. friend? Does he think that there should be no language test?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not know that I
have really formed an opinion upon it. I have not given the question proper study. I think there should be a language test but I do not see any objection, where we have hundreds of thousands of Germans in this country, all over the new provinces and in the old provinces, in business of all kinds, to extending this Act and making official, for the purposes of this Act, the German language.


William F. Carroll: Then you would extend it to all languages?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Very well, if the feeling of the House is that that would be a crime I would not share that opinion.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is no language test in the existing Act and it is going all right.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: But there is in this Act. I do not know why any test should be put in here particularly, and I must confess that I am not in a position from that point of view to criticise the minister, because I have not given it any study. I merely rose to voice a protest that I saw in writing.


William F. Carroll: I protested against this very section on the same ground on the second reading.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As to extending the
language qualifications so as to include other languages, I must confess that it seems to me to be exceedingly difficult to do that. Then we certainly would be open to the suggestion of discrimination. If it is desirable to have a language test, I submit that it is not possible to suggest that there is any discrimination because we prescribe the requirement that a person should be familiar with one or other of the two official languages of the country. If we begin to declare other languages official for this particular purpose, I do not know how we will be able /to draw the line without giving rise to justified complaints that any one language is preferred to another. This is not a matter of

preference but a matter of what is officially determined by the constitution. As to their being a language requirement at all, there are two things to be borne in mind. In the first place, so far as this is intended to produce an empire-wide naturalization, the requirement of the language test came originally from the home country and was acquiesced in by all the dominions and was so asquiesced in before this Government acquiesced. That in itself was a very strong reason why we should be willing to accept something that was so generally desired as a condition of arriving at a naturalization to be effective throughout the whole empire. From the point of view of our own Canadian naturalization laws, I quite appreciate that there may be instances where it may operate with some harshness in particular cases; but, after all, I would venture to hope that that is a passing condition of affairs. We are going to get together sometime I hope. 1 do not think that the communities the hon. member refers to desire to maintain themselves indefinitely as separate communities, speaking only the language of the countries from which they came. Unless they desire to segregate themselves, and I am sure they do not, the condition which may exist to-day is a condition that, with time, will improve and I would hope gradually disappear. I am not expressing any hope that these people should not preserve their language. My own idea is that the more languages a man knows the more man he is, and the better qualified he is to be a good citizen. I hope they will preserve their languages but at the same time I hope they will come to familiarize themselves, in the West more particularly, with the English language, but at all events with an official language of this country. That would be a great help in our getting together, and anything that does not work too harshly and may prove an incentive to our people to acquire language, one of the two recognized is, I think, a goode thing in the interests of our country.
After what the hon. member and some others said on the subject I gave the matter consideration and it has occurred to me that perhaps it would be fair, or at least would eliminate the suggestion of unfairness in this change if we added a clause to this law which would prevent absolutely its depriving any person who is in Canada before the coming into force of this Act of any right that he has to-day or at the time of the coming into force of the Act. I propose to add a clause to the Bill, when we come to

43i7
the end of it, making provision that every alien resident in Canada before or at the time of the coming into force of the Act, shall be entitled, if he chooses, to become naturalized under the present existing law, getting, of course, the naturalization that that law gives, -and for the purpose of enabling such persons to 'become naturalized under the existing law, the existing law shall continue in force for a period of three years after the coming into force of this Act, after which that existing law will stand repealed. So we will get this situation that as regards any man resident in Canada at the time this Act comes into force, he will remain absolutely with all the rights that the present legislation gives him to be entitled to be naturalized under that legislation, that naturalization of course, continuing as it is now, a naturalization effective in Canada only. In that way, every man in Canada before this Bill becomes law will be entitled to become a British subject in Canada just as he is to-day without regard to any language test and wdthout the five years' requirement* The new requirements will apply exclusively to people who come into Canada after the new law is in force. Nobody will have a condition imposed upon him after he comes into the country. In order that there could be any grievance in this change of the law, it would have to be assumed that the man came iinto the country counting on the existing law. Every man who does that will not be disappointed. Every man who comes in counting on the existing law will get the benefit of that existing law: but people who come in after this Act is in force will come in under the then existing law and will get the rights given by the then existing law. The practical result of that will be that nobody to-day resident in Canada will be asked for the language qualification provided he is satisfied with purely Canadian naturalization and obtains it within the three years following the coming into force of this Act; that is to say, in the period in which under the existing law he would be entitled to obtain naturalization. Those who come dn after this Act is in force will be the only ones to whom its provisions will apply, but they, on the other hand, will get as compensation for compliance with the conditions, in. some respects .more severe, a wider and more effective naturalization. I trust that this course on our part will be found at all
events to be evidence of a desire to absolutely avoid by this legislation depriving any man of any existing right, or of any opportunity he has to-day of later on acquiring any right. On the other hand,, it will start us with a law applying to those coming into the country in the future, which, with all respect to those who differ from me, will be a valuable law not only in so far as it is going to give a wider and more effective naturalization, but in so far as the conditions it prescribes will really be to the advantage of the incoming settler and the people of Canada as a whole. I think that anything that holds forth an incentive to the newcomers to this country to place themselves in a position where they may more easily come to appreciate and share the views of the people already in the country, is an immense advantage from the point of view of the welfare of this country; and after all this requirement that within a period of five years a man coming into this country should acquire sufficient knowledge of our language to be able to make himself understood in it and to understand it, is not a very severe requirement. I can understand that there may be difficulties in the particular conditions pointed out by the hon. member who spoke last, but surely we all hope that those are passing conditions. Every day that goes by helps to bring about a change in those conditions, and surely it is not a great deal to hope that within five years from the coming into force of this Act those conditions will be much less prevalent than they are to-day. I think we are perhaps asking a little sacrifice of the new man who is coming in, but on the other hand for that sacrifice he will reap an immense advantage for himself, and that sacrifice on his part will tend to further the common understanding between the peoples of this country and to place us in a position where our mutual understanding of each other will be at least very greatly facilitated. Surely a new man who is looking for naturalization and the privileges of a British subject, will realize that that comparatively trifling sacrifice on his part is not too high a price to pay, and I am satisfied that the country generally will reap a very great benefit from this requirement.


John Howard Sinclair: I regret that my hon. friend has not seen fit to adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) as I think there is a good deal

in his contention. We are inviting Germans to this country; we are giving them free land in the West; we want these immigrants and there is no good reason so far as I can see why they should not be admitted to the rights of citizenship without a language test. The minister, to my mind, has not given any good reason for this very drastic change in a law which has worked out very well in the past and of which, so far as I know, there has been no abuse. To some extent I would be inclined to agree to an educational test. We want the voters of this country to be intelligent men who can decide on the questions that are submitted to the electors, and there might be a case for the proposal that an educated German should receive the rights of citizenship whereas the ignorant man unable to read or understand the language should not be entitled to those rights. I fail to see why we should pass a law that would exclude an educated German or Swede from the rights of citizenship in Canada just because he could not pass the language test, especially as they are coming in here by the thousand every year and many of them, especially the older ones, will never be able to comply with the statutory requirements in regard to language. If the minister must have some test, let it be an educational test rather than one of language.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 19-posting of application;
Charles Joseph Doherty: So as to make the intention of the section more clear, I move that for the section as it now stands there be substituted the following:
The application shall be delivered at the office of the clerk or other proper officer of the court during office hours, and such application shall he posted by such clerk or other proper officer in a conspicuous place in his office for at least three weeks before the application is heard by the court.
The change is to make it clear that the application may be made by delivering it at the office.


Mr. BOULAY:: (Translation.) I would
like to have from the minister an explanation regarding children born of Canadian parents in the United States. We have often considerable difficulty, especially at election times, in regard to such persons. Having returned to live in Canada, they claim all the rights of Canadian citizens,
and at certain polling places they are allowed to vote, while at others they are refused. I would like to know if this Bill makesi it clear whether or not these people have really the right to vote.


Charles Joseph Doherty: (Translation.) Children born under the conditions stated are really British subjects, and have a right to take part in all our elections, as fully as children iborn in Canada, provided that their father has not lost his nationality by naturalization in the United States. At present the law goes further, saying that even the grandchildren are British subjects, but by this bill that privilege is withdrawn. The law remains the same, however, with regard to children, provided their father is a British subject.
, Mr. BOULAY:	(Translation.) Can a
child born under these conditions come to Canada without being subject to the immigration laws'? That is to say, if he has not attained the age of 21 years, can he come into the country as a Canadian citizen, with all the privileges of a British subject?


Charles Joseph Doherty: (Translation). The immigration laws are distinct from the present naturalization law. They make a distinction between the British subject and the Canadian citizen. Under them, to be a Canadian citizen one must not only be a British subject, but have resided in Canada a certain length of time.
On section 21-proof of qualification:


Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg to move that this section be struck out, and that the following be substituted:
The applicant shall produce to the court such evidence that he is qualified and fit to he naturalized under the provisions of this Act as the court may require and shall also personally appear before the court for examination unless it is established to the satisfaction of the court that he is prevented from so appearing by some good and sufficient cause.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In the event of his not being able to appear, what can the judge
do?


Charles Joseph Doherty: 
John Hampden Burnham: Does 'unable' mean simply that he has to do something else? If it is simply that he has to do something else, the provision is of no use.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think that any court would decide that simply because a man for his own convenience wants to do something else it would exempt him from attending before the judge. The requirement is that it should be established to the satisfaction of the court that he is prevented by some good and sufficient cause, by something outside of his own action.
On section 22-order for naturalization:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Under the old Act there were forms provided for every step taken in the case, but there are no forms provided for here. It may be a question between the judge and the Secretary of State as to what shape this certificate shall take and that difficulty would be removed if there was a proper form of certificate to be put in by the judge which would be satisfactory to the Secretary of State.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It did not occur to me that there would be any judge who would not be able to write a decision that a man had the necessary qualifications which would be satisfactory to the Secretary of State. In dealing with the judge of a court, does the hon. gentleman think it is necessary for us to provide a form in order that he may be able to say in an intelligible way that a man had proved his case ? In section 24 there is a provision to enable the Governor in Council to make regulations about forms. I should think that, in so far as forms are necessary, the Governor in Council could be trusted to provide for them, but I did not think that it would be
necessary that we should hand the form to a judge. The certificate sent to the Secretary of State will be the judge's decision.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The judges have been-just as intelligent and capable during the last twenty years as they are to-day. I do not know about the judges with whom my hon. friend has had experience, but our experience is that a judge will not write anything for us. We have to hand him any orders that we want him to issue and if they are proper he will initial them. Under the old law, with judges quite as intelligent as they are to-day, a form was provided, and that is the form which the judge signs to-day. Before going to the court to-day to ask for an order of naturalization for a person entitled to be naturalized, you have the form copied from the statute book, which you hand in to the judge for his signature, and which then receives the seal of the court. Why should we not know exactly what would be acceptable to the Secretary of State so that we could present the order and get the judge to sign it. At all events it would be a universal form that would be used by judges all over the country.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I think the hon. gentleman is forgetting that this ;s an interim part of the procedure.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I 'quite jugiderstand
that.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It is something which will be settled by the judge having the papers before him, writing the word * granted ' on the application and signing his name.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is quite right but you must present the proper form.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The Act provides for the form which must be brought before him.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But there is no special form.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Section 26 provides the form that the citizen subject will get. That is to be issued by the Secretary of State.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If there was a fixed
form then, my hon. friend, who is a practising barrister, could buy these forms just as he buys other forms and have them in his desk or among his papers and he would thus have the convenience of having a printed form to present to the judge. If every judge is to have his own idea of what the form should be there will be a great many forms in use.

Oil section 23-issue of certificate of naturalization by the Secretary of State:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I -wish to place on record any protest against any autocracy in this matter. This is a democratic country; it is a country in which we do not want any feudalism or overlordism or autocracy introduced that will in any way interfere with the freedom which we at present enjoy.
For my part I wisih to protest against such high-handed authority being given to any person. I have not the slightest reference to the hon. gentleman who is at present occupying the position of Secretary of State, but I do not want the power placed within the scope of any person to prevent perhaps hundreds of people from voting at an election, if they want to do so. The party in power might have a thousand people ready to exercise the franchise if the Secretary of State would issue tne certificates; but if the Secretary of State were advised that it was of advantage to his party to withhold the certificates for a week until the election was over, under this section he has the power to do so. I do not wish to have such temptation placed in the way of any one, and such an obstacle to the right of any man to exercise his franchise. If the Secretary of State is advised by some one in a constituency that it is of advantage to prevent fifty, sixty or a hundred people from voting by withholding their certificates, he can do so, and he is not bound to give any reason for his action; but he can just play fast and loose with the people, if he is inclined so to do. We cannot get saints or angels to become Secretaries of State, any more than we can get them to become other ministers, and I do not think any such power as this should he given to any man. I suppose this section of the Bill will pass, but I want to state my unqualified' objection to the giving of any such power.


William F. Carroll: I do not wish to obstruct the legislation; but the minister will remember that I moved that subsection 3 of section 2 be struck out, and my amendment was lost on division. In order to be consistent in regard to this legislation, I would make the same motion in connection with this section. I therefore move that section 23 be struck out.
Amendment negatived on division, and section agreed to.
On section 24-regulation by Secretary of State:


Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg to move:
That the following section be added after section 24 :
24a. The Governor in Council shall have power to appoint commissioners to take oaths under this Act.	[DOT]
This is a provision taken from the old Act merely to provide for cases where there shall not be officers available.


William F. Carroll: I presume the Governor in Council would not make any regulations which would prohibit the ordinary commissioner or justice tof the peace from taking affidavits?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 31-definitions:
William F. Carroll: Paragraph f of subsection 1 reads as follows:
The expression ' Secretary of State ' means one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State for the time being.
I presume that is taken from the British Act where they have more than one Secretary of State?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is the British
Interpretation Act, and in section 8 of the present Act we provide for the power of the Secretary of State, that is the British Secretary of State, to issue -certificates under their Act, which we recognize by section 9.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 32-repeal, short title, and commencement:
Charles Joseph Doherty: I move to amend subsection 1 of section 32 by striking out the section as it now stands and substituting the following:
1.	Sections 17, 18 and 19 of chapter 77 of the Revised Statutes of Canada of 1906 are amended by striking out the words ' except the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta ' at the beginning of each said section, and section 20 of the said chapter 77 is repealed.
This is merely to make the present existing law, which is to continue in force as affecting people already residing in Canada, similar in Alberta and Saskatchewan to what it is in other provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
iMr. DOHERTY: I move that the following he added as subsection 2 of section 32:
2. At any time within three years from the date of the coming into force of his Act, any alien who is resident in Canada on certain dates
[Stage Direction]
may be naturalized under the provisions of the Acts mentioned in the third schedule to this Act upon complying with the requirements of the said Acts, but no other person shall be so naturalized, and after the expiration of three years from the said date the said Act shall be repealed to the extent specified in the second column of the said schedule.
There are four Acts in the third schedule, three of which have to do with naturalization, and they will be absolutely repeated after three years.
Mr. GRAHAM:: Is that January, 1918?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. It is to give an
opportunity to every man in Canada, or who will be in Canada when this Bill comes into force, of being naturalized under the present system. Therefore the new system will apply only to people who come into this country after the new system has become law.
Section as amended agreed to.
On third schedule:


Charles Joseph Doherty: I move to amend the
third schedule by striking out of the title of it the words ' enactments repealed.'
Third schedule as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.
At one o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at three o'clock.


DOMINION LANDS ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Doherty, Bill No. 213, to amend the Dominion Lands Act, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 1:
Charles Joseph Doherty: The object of this Bill is to make it possible for an alien, who, by reason of the passage of the Naturalization Act, will complete the period of holding a homestead before he becomes qualified for naturalization, to obtain bis homestead on declaring his intention to become a citizen as soon as he is qualified to do so. The wording of the section appears to lack clearness in some respects, and I beg to move that the section be amended so as to read as follows:
1. Notwithstanding anything in the Dominion Lands Act, chapter 20 of the Statutes of 1908, or any other statute, any alien who has not resided in the British dominions or been in the service of the Crown for a period necessary for naturalization shall be entitled to obtain letters patent for a homestead in the 304
same manner as if he were a British subject, provided that he satisfy the Minister of the Interior that in all respects save such period of residence or service he is qualified to be naturalized, and declare upon oath his intention to be so naturalized as soon as he has completed such period of residence or service.
I propose also a second section to read:
This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, 1915.


Frank Oliver: On reading this Bill, I thought there was something lacking in it. The minister's amendment, it seems to me, covers the point I thought lacking in the original Bill. I will point out that by this Bill-a position we cannot avoid-we are doing something now entirely contrary to our original land policy. It was fundamental to our policy that no person should be given a title to a free homestead unless and until he became a British subject. Now we are foregoing that important provision. I recognize that something must be done- either we must be satisfied with the three years' residence for naturalization, or we must extend the requirements for a homestead, or give patent to a man who is not a homesteader. I would merely suggest that the looseness of the provision under which the man acquires the title to his homestead without being naturalized, as contained in the minister's amendment, is open to the same objections, if those objections are considered valid, as the naturalization law was under the former Act. And I would say, with all respect and without urging the matter too strongly, that I should think that the right to a free patent on the part of an alien should be made the subject of some more definite considerations than are contained in the amendment put before the House. The patent for the homestead is what the alien wants. That is why he is wi'ling to become a British subject-in order to get a patent. And when we give him a patent without requiring him to become a British subject, we remove a very large part of the consideration that would under ordinary circumstances induce him to complete his British citizenship. I think, perhaps, that side of the question has not been considered as fully with regard to its very great importance as bearing on the question of naturalization, as it should have been. I do not wish to delay the legislation or the House, but it is a very grave question if we are not losing as much by allowing a free homestead patent to issue to an alien as we are gaining in insisting on the five years' residence. In fact I am not sure that we are not losing more; I am afraid we are.'


Charles Joseph Doherty: This legislation is intended really to cover what must be a period of transition from the one system to the other. This provision, in view of the amendment which we made this morning to the Naturalization Act enabling everybody now in Canada to obtain naturalization under the old system, will apply only to persons coming in after the Naturalization Act was passed. For the first three years anybody who has been three years in the country-and this is necessary in order to enable him to get his patent-will be in a position to be naturalized under the . old Act. This legislation, therefore, will begin to have practical application only after the lapse of these three years and if its operation is found to be attended with objection, we will be able to remedy it without being subject to the suggestion that by this legislation we discouraged any one from coming into Canada. The argument that was made-and I must say that it carried weight with it

was that if we change this law absolutely and at once and leave standing the absolute requirement that a man must be a British subject we may in the future be open to the suggestion that people came in here under the belief that they could get their patents Mter three years' residence and that that belief was being disappointed by our action. That contingency, of course, has been obviated by the amendment to the Naturalization Act. But it was further suggested that if we said that everybody coming in in future must necessarily stay five years before they can get their patents, that might operate to discourage people from coming in and taking homesteads, and that it might be a lesser evil to allow a man from whom we required that he establish t-o the satisfaction of the Minister of the Interior that he has every qualification for naturalization excepting complete period of residence, upon his making oath that he intends to be naturalized as soon ae the period is completed, to take his homestead in the meantime. It seems to me that we might without .very great risk venture to give a trial to that system and if its operation discourages people from being naturalized, we will have to consider what should foe done. But in order to have that effect the desire of a homestead must operate so strongly that persons will be willing to take a false oath with regard to their intentions. I think that a man who comes to Canada and lives

here for three years, fulfilling all the requirements necessary to enable him to get his homestead, establishing that he is a man of good character and fully qualified to be naturalized, and adding his sworn declaration that he intends to reside here and become naturalized, is . one whose patents we might freely endorse and whom we might safely trust not to make a false oath with regard to his intentions in order to get his patent. As I say, however, the law will not come into practical effective operation for some little time and perhaps our experience between now and then may throw more light on the desirability of maintaining it in force. In the meantime it will serve the purpose that our Naturalization Act will not operate to discourage immigration merely upon the ground that a longer period of residence will be required before patent may be obtained.


Frank Oliver: I do not see quite clearly whether in fact a man who is now in the country must naturalize in order to get his patent.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Must naturalize under the old system. This Act applies only to persons who have not resided in British dominions or been in the service of the Crown for the period necessary for naturalization. For the coming three years the only period necessary for naturalization will be the period of three years after which a man may become naturalized under the old system, so that no man to whom that case is open will meet the requirements of this provision.


Frank Oliver: He cannot get a patent unless he naturalizes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, because the minister would say to him: you are not a man who cannot be naturalized because you have not done the proper period; on the face of it you have done three years on your homestead and under the law as it stands you are entitled to become naturalized under the old system.


Frank Oliver: That is satisfactory so far as it goes. The minister says that naturalization is something that an alien naturally desires, that to withhold it from him is our privilege and our right, and that we are thereby compelling him to come up to a certain standard. That is one side of the question; the other side is this: that the alien, having come to our country for a certain definite and material advantage and having been able to achieve that advantage without rendering himself liable to the re-

sponsibilities of citizenship, is satisfied and does not want to render himself liable to those responsibilities. The idea of the Governments of former days-and I do not mean to say the Liberal Government particularly- was that in consideration of the materia] advantage that we were allowing the alien to acquire freely in our country, we must have his allegiance and citizenship and the full responsibilities of them. We furnish the one material side; 'he must furnish the other. 1 am sure that it is not necessary for the Government to await experience in regard to the matter. I am satisfied that the facts that have manifested themselves .from day to day during many years past, have justified the wisdom of former governments in making assumption of the full responsibilities of Canadian citizenship a condition of the requirement of free lands from the Canadian Government. It is not necessary to wait to try that question out, and, without any desire unduly to criticise, I take this opportunity of saying that the Government is not well advised in waiting for that experience. I am well assured that the experience will not be to the benefit of the country and that it will create a situation of difficulty for the Government that, I think, had better be avoided. I repeat that it would be better to hold this Bill until the questions that naturally and necessarily arise under it are considered more fully than they have been considered. I am sure that the consideration of this matter that has taken place in Parliament has brought to the mind of the minister points of view which did not occur to him in the original consideration of the question. I am sure that if the matter is held over he will see that this question is touched on so many points and from so many angles that it would be the part of wisdom to revise the Bill in many particulars before it becomes law. It will create confusion if it is put in force before the many different and interweaving results are understood.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As I said, I quite
recognize that there is a great deal of force in what the hon. gentleman says *and it may also be said that since the Bill has been introduced the position has been altered by the amendment made this morning to the Naturalization Act. The effect of that legislation, of course, is to postpone the necessity of legislation of this kind because anybody who 'becomes qualified to get a patent during the next three years will also have become qualified to 3041
become naturalized under the old system; and it may therefore be a proper subject, for consideration whether the Bill might not be allowed to stand over. I would dike to consider the matter from this new point of view, and for that purpose I beg to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to and progress reported.


BRITISH NATIONALITY NATURALIZATION.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. DOHERTY moved.
That the Order of the House of this day that the Bill, No. 173, respecting British Nationality Naturalization and Aliens, be ordered for a third reading at the next sitting: of the House be discharged, and that the said Bill be now read a third time.
Mr. PUGSLEY:: I desire to say a few
words in opposition to the third reading of this Bill. First, I think it ought not to be read a third time, it ought not to come into force, until we know what the Imperial Parliament is doing in the matter of naturalization. I am told that the Bill has not yet passed the Imperial Parliament.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Bill has passed the House of Lords and stands for third reading in the 'House of Commons. It has been passed as submitted without amendment in committee, and it is expected it will receive its third reading as soon as our Bill does. This Bill only comes into force on the 1st of January next so that if anything should happen to prevent the-passage of the Imperial Bill this would not come into force before we could deal with the matter if action is called for.


William Pugsley: I have a copy of the
Imperial Bill and I notice that when at was introduced there was very strong criticism of some of its provisions, and the-Government promised to consider the representations which were made. One strong objection was taken in the Imperial House of Commons, which I also take to this Bill. That is with reference to the status of a woman who is a British subject. This Bill provides, as the Imperial Bill also provides, that the moment a woman who is a British subject marries an alien she thereby ceases to he a British subject and becomes an alien. As stated in the Imperial House of Commons, that is manifestly unfair to-the woman, and I think in these days when

the law recognizes that a married woman ought to have the same status as a married man, it is entirely wrong to provide that if she happens to marry an alien she thereby ceases to be a British subject, even although she continues to reside in the British Empire. This will be the position of the married woman the moment this Bill comes into effect; although the woman may continue to reside in Canada, the very moment she marries an alien she ceases to be a British subject, and when her husband dies she continues to be an alien.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is the present law.


William Pugsley: Suppose it is, we ought not to observe for all time the antediluvian laws that may have been in force many years ago. It used to be the law of this country that a married woman could not hold property, that when she died all her personal property went to her hsuband, that her children had no right whatever in her property. All that has been changed, and from time to time Parliament has recognized that the status of a married woman ought to !be improved, and in most other respects that status has been improved. But it remains for this oanadian Parliament to declare in the year 1914 that if a widow, born a British subject, who may have children by her first husband who are British subjects, shall lose her status as a British subject the moment she marries an alien. Her children by the former husband, if he was a British subject, are British subjects and remain so, but she loses her status as a British subject and thereby becomes an alien; and even when her second husband dies her British citizenship is not restored to her. I submit that is not proper legislation. I submit it was properly criticised in the Imperial House of Commons when the Government promised to consider the representations and criticism made, and it is a provision which ought not to be passed.
There is another objection. This Bill is an Act respecting British nationality, naturalization and aliens, and yet it deals with the right to hold property in different provinces. I do not see what right this Parliament has to declare that an alien shall have the same right to hold property in the different provinces of Canada as a British subject. That is a matter which, in my judgment, pertains to the legislatures of the different provinces to deal with. Under the British North America Act, the provincial legislatures and they alone have

the power to deal with civil rights. Under the British North America Act, it is true that this Parliament has the right to deal with naturalization and aliens. That is by section 91. But by section 92, property and civil rights are placed among the subjects which are vested exclusively in the provincial legislatures.
I do not think there can be any doubt that in the provincial legislatures and in them alone is vested by the British North America Act the right to declare as to who shall and shall not hold property, and that this Parliament has no right to fake away from the legislatures of the various provinces of Canada the exclusive power which is vested in them under the terms of the British North America Act. It may well be that the legislatures of the different provinces may take an entirely different view, and that they may desire to declare that no one excepting a British subject shall be entitled to hold property within the province. Yet if this legislation passes, if it has the authority of law-which I hold it would not have-it would deprive the legislatures of the different provinces of the right to declare as to whether or not a person holding real estate must be a British subject. The question of the right to hold property has nothing whatever to do with naturalization. There is inserted in this Bill a section which is entirely foreign to the question of naturalization, declaring that aliens shall have the right to hold property within the different provinces. What has that to do with naturalization? I take it that the clause in the British North America Act providing that naturalization of aliens shall be within the powers of the Canadian Parliament, means as to the mode by which aliens may become naturalized, and that that is all it does mean. Under the British North America Act the exclusive right to legislate >as to civil rights is vested in the provincial legislatures. The Minister of Justice may say that we are simply reinserting a clause which was in the previous statute dealing with this subject. I am not quite sure whether the language is exactly the same or not, but I am rather inclined to think it is. Is there any reason for having it continued in this statute? We know that shortly after Confederation statesmen in charge of the affairs of this country held a very different view as to the powers of this Parliament and the legislatures of the different provinces from the views we are now compelled to hold as the result of the litigation which has taken place and the deci-

sions given by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The powers of the provincial legislatures have been enlarged by the court far beyond what many public men considered that the British North America Act provided. It does seem to me that if there is one thing clear as a result of the decisions which [DOT]have been given from time to time, it is that the exclusive right to declare as to who shall or shall not have the right to hold property in this Dominion belongs to the legislatures of the different provinces, and that this Parliament has no right to declare that an alien shall be entitled to hold real estate just the same as a British subject may hold it. I have a strong objection to this provision of the Bill, and I do not think it should be inserted. When we are dealing simply with the subject of naturalization, this Parliament ought not to declare, no matter what it may have declared in the past, that aliens shall be entitled to hold real estate in the provinces the same as naturalized British subjects. That is a matter which Parliament ought to leave to the legislatures of the different provinces. I had not an opportunity of being present when this Bill was being discussed in committee, and I felt it my duty on this occasion to express the views I hold in reference to the two points I have mentioned.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I need not say that any expression of opinion on a question of law falling from the lips of the hon. member for St. John has my most profound respect. I may say, however, that I did not introduce this Bill without giving consideration to all its clauses, including the particular clauses that have been referred to. As regards the hon. member's first suggestion that we should modify our law and make a new departure involving the creation of a situation where a married man and his wife would have different nationalities, I confess I do not see any call for legislation of that kind. I recognize that the hon. member for St. John does not consider that because things are old they are venerable, but still we have all been taught to admire the lady in the Scriptures who declared that 'Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.' I do not think there is any wrong done to a woman who, when she consents to marry an individual, is asked to accept his nationality. Whatever may be the conditions in the old country, I think I am safe in saying that there is no demand
in this country on behalf of the women for a change in the law in that respect. As regards the second objection, namely, that we are going beyond the scope of our legislative competency or jurisdiction in providing as to what capacity aliens [DOT]shall have as to the holding of property, I do not find it possible to accept the view of the hon. member. Although I do not pretend that it is conclusive, there is this to be said in support of the view that we have power to determine the capacity of aliens, that that view has been accepted ever since the British North America Act and there has been upon our statute-book ever since 1870 a provision not in the identical words but exactly the same in substance.


William Pugsley: Does my hon. friend
know whether this question has come up in the courts at all? I am not quite sure- the Minister of Marine will probably know whether I am right or not-but I think the Legislature of New Brunswick has dealt with this very subject of aliens holding property.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No doubt that is correct. I cannot speak positively but I did ask the Deputy Minister of Justice and I understood from him that the question had arisen and had been decided. I shall be glad to look it up and if I find a case will communicate it to the hon. member. But even in the absence of a decision in the question there is enough within the express terms of the British North America Act to make it quite clear that the power is with us. In the first place we have the general power conferred by the British North America Act and the enumeration of subjects that is contained in section 91 of that Act is not intended to limit these general powers at all. The enumeration is only there to make it beyond all possible doubt that these subjects are included within the general terms of that clause that gives this Parliament power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces. The enumeration is only for greater certainty, but does not limit our powers. It is quite true that in the enumeration of subjects placed within the legislative competency of legislatures is property and civil rights within the provinces.


William Pugsley: Exclusively?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Exclusively. What is involved in the question whether an alien may hold real property? It involves the [DOT]question of the capacity of the alien; it involves also the question of the control of property and civil rights within the provinces. And what is the provision of the law governing such a situation? It is to be found in the closing paragraph of section 91:
And any matter coming within any of the [DOT]classes of subjects enumerated in this section shall not be deemed to come within the class [DOT]of matters of a local or private nature comprised in the enumeration of the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces.
When you come to have a situation where a certain matter, looked at from one side, is within the legislative competency of this Parliament and, looked at from the other, is within the legislative 'competency of the province, I take it that this section makes it clear that by the mere fact that it does come within this enumeration it shall not be deemed to come within the enumeration of powers attributed to the legislature. We are given control over aliens apd naturalization. I have difficulty in seeing how that [DOT]can be interpreted as meaning that we can only deal with the naturalization of aliens. The Parliament that enacted this law dealt with these two things as two distinct things. The same suggestion has been made in regard to the power that is given to this Parliament over marriage and divorce and it has been urged that this right meant that we had power over marriage only as far as divorce was concerned. That is an idea that has not succeeded in making its way and being recognized, and the evidence of it is that this Parliament has legislated with regard to serious questions raised concerning marriage absolutely unconnected with divorce. I entirely fail to see why we should assume that when an Act gives us control over two subject matters we only have control over one iij its relation to the other. If we have power to legislate in regard to aliens, and if legislation can be enacted in regard to aliens outside of making provision for their ceasing to be aliens, what legislation can we enact in regard to aliens as such if we are not allowed to say one word about their capacity?
This Parliament has exclusive power to deal with banks. Would the hon. gentleman suggest that because the provinces have power to deal with property and civil rights within the provinces, we cannot confer
[Mr. Pugsley.j
upon a bank which we have created the power to hold property in a province? In dealing with other matters entirely within the competence of this Parliament we necessarily deal with the question of property and civil rights in the province. When we incorporate a railway company we give it powers of expropriation. Surely there is no legislation more directly affecting the question of property and civil rights in the province and yet that legislation is not questioned. There are judgments holding that our power goes so far that, because the subject matter of the railway company is within our legislative jurisdiction, we can give it power to expropriate even the property of the province. There are numerous subjects just like this subject of aliens confided to us that you cannot deal with unless you touch the question of property and civil rights in the province. Take, for instance, the subject of bankruptcy and insolvency; there are numerous decisions upholding legislation affecting property and civil rights in the provinces because these Acts are incidental to the question of bankruptcy.
I think the suggestion in reference to provincial rights comes from a misapprehension of what is meant by dealing with aliens and giving capacity to aliens. It does not at all mean that because a man is an alien the province cannot look at the question from some other point of view and pass legislation in regard to his capacity. For instance, our enactment that aliens can hold property in the same way as British subjects goes no farther than to say that the fact alone that the man is an alien does not render him incapable but it does not go so far as to say that, if the province thinks it desirable that a class of persons who are aliens but who, besides being aliens, are of some particular class, should be excluded from the right to hold property in the province because t-hey were of that particular class it cannot so legislate. For instance, the fact that we say that an alien shall have the same power to hold property as a British subject, does not prevent the legislature, if it thought proper to do so, from saying that no coloured man shall hold real property. That coloured man would not be entitled to come forward, simply because in addition to being a coloured man he was an alien, and say, although you have legislated against a coloured man holding property, because I am an alien, I have the right to hold it. There you have thA

exercise of the right of the province to g( verr. the right of everybody within it to hold real property. The only restriction you attach to it is that they shall not say that purely and simply, because a man is an alien, he shall not hold property. But they are not precluded from dealing in any way they like with the property of people who are aliens. All we declare is that an alien shall have the same right to hold property as a British subject. Every British subject holds property in the province subject to the legislative authority of the province to say what particular classes shall hold property and our legislation does not give to the alien any mort right than the British subject but it simply puts him in the province just as absolutely under the 'Control of the province as is the British subject. It precludes the province from saying explicitly that because an individual is an alien he shall not have the right to hold- property. Unless the hon. gentleman is prepared to stand behind the proposition that we can give no right to hold property to a bank or a railway company or to any other company that we create, although the property may be absolutely necessary to its purposes, I fail to see how he can sustain his contention that we have no right to deal with the subject of aliens and that we have no right to say what their capacity shall be in so far as simply that they are aliens. The only effect upon the province is that the alien stands subject to their laws in the same way that the British subject does and they can make such laws as they deem proper with regard to his right to hold real property, to the same extent as they can with regard to Britsh subjects. The only thing they cannot do is to step in and deal specifically' with the capacity of the alien as an alien. Every British subject is under the control of the provincial legislature as regardsi property and civil rights in the province and under our provision so is every alien.


William Pugsley: The minister has referred to legislation in regard to the building Of railways and in regard to insolvency, but I think he will agree with me that the right to take property by expropriation for the building of railways, and also the right to deal with property in the case of bankruptcy and insolvency, is necessarily incident to the subject with which Parliament was dealing in those instances.
In the case of railways, the Judicial Committee, when the question came before them, put the right to take property by expropriation entirely upon this ground that it would not be possible to carry out the intention of Parliament unless power was given to expropriate. Therefore it was necessary or reasonably incidental to the legislation upon the subject of railways. But it can hardly be necessary or incidental to this legislation dealing with aliens, that Parliament should have the power to say that an alien shall have the same rights in all the provinces of Canada to hold real and personal property of every description in the same manner as a British subject. I do not see that it is reasonable or incidental to legislation upon this subject at all. Section 17 of this Bill provides that:
Real and personal property of every description may be taken, acquired, held and disposed of by an alien in the same manner in all respects as by a natural-born British subject, and a title to real and personal property of every description may be derived through, from or in succession to an alien in the same manner in all respects as through, from or in succession to a natural-born British subject.
I am not able to agree with the minister that, even if this section should become law, a provincial legislature could determine that certain classes of aliens should not be allowed to hold real estate. If Parliament has the right to declare that all aliens shall have the right to hold real and personal property and to derive title to it in the same manner in all respects as a British subject, it seems to me it will take away absolutely the right of a provincial legislature to declare whether or not aliens generally or any class of aliens should be entitled to hold real or personal property. I cannot help thinking that it interferes with section 92 of the British North America Act, which vests civil rights and the rights of property exclusively within the powers of the provincial legislatures.


Wilfrid Laurier: When this Bill was under discussion in Committee of the Whole, I called the attention of the Minister of Justice to the abnormal powers given to the Secretary of State under subsections 2, 3 and 5 of section 2. Subsection 3 reads as follows:
The grant of a certificate of naturalization to any such alien shall be in the absolute discretion of the Secretary of State of Canada, and he may, with or without assigning any reason, give or withhold the certificate as he thinks most conducive to the public good, and no appeal shall lie from his decision.
Subsection 5 reads in a similar way:

The Secretary of State of Canada may in any special case, if he thinks fit, grant a certificate of naturalization, although the four years' residence or five years' service has not Keen within the last eight years before the application.
In other words it is another part of the Bill we are providing for special machinery to determine who should and who should not be admitted to naturalization. We have given the courts of law the power to determine that question, and we have provided that the applicant must come before the court and give evidence of his character; that the judge may, if not satisfied with the proof placed before him, ask for further evidence, and that there may be a trial before the judge as to whether or not the applicant is a fit and proper person to be a British subject. The only qualification required is that the applicant shall be of good character. The moment he has satisfied the judge that he is of good character, he is qualified to become a British subject. The judge determines the question, and then the matter is not finally disposed of, but is referred to the Secretary of State who, purely arbitrarily, without giving any reasons, but simply of his own will, may or may not grant a certificate. Such a disposition is absolutely repugnant to the spirit of our institutions. We cannot see why an officer of the Government or a minister himself should.be given such arbitrary powers. The only reason given by my hon. friend in justification of the introduction of this section is that such legislation has been in force in Great Britain ever since there was a law of naturalization there. The law in this respect has been absolutely different in Canada. When we adopted the law of naturalization, we did not copy the British precedent. We did not provide that the Secretary of State should arbitrarily have the power which is given to the home office in Great Britain; but we provided that the decision of the judge should be final and should not be revised by any one. I have not heard that any complication has arisen; or that it has ever been felt that there was in Canada any necessity, as there appears to be in Great Britain, for the Secretary of State to be given such power as this. What may be the reason why in Great Britain such an arbitrary power should be given to a minister of the Crown is something upon which I have not been able to satisfy myself. Although I must say that my searches have not been very extensive, I have failed to find any reason why the Secretary of State in Great Britain should be given such an [Sir Wilfrid J,aurier 1
abnormal power. It is absolutely contrary to the spirit of our institution, when a judicial matter has been decided by a court of law, that any one should have the power over that court to nullify its 4 p.m. decision without giving any reason at all. If there is reason for such legislation, it must be that the Government of Great Britain have found it necessary, in order to avoid diplomatic complications to reserve that power. It is a matter of history that, during the thirties, forties and fifties of the last century, the conditions in Europe were very uncertain; that there were civil wars in many countries, and threats of war and insurrection in others. In Poland, Italy, Austria and other European countries, there were constantly political refugees seeking homes and shelter in Great Britain. It is a matter of history that many times the Government of Great Britain have had representations made to them by the diplomatic agents of foreign powers against the presence of a particular political refugee who was plotting in Great Britain to disturb the peace of the country from which he was banished. It is a matter of history that some of these men often sought naturalization and were naturalized; and it is possible to conceive that, under these circumstances, the foreign representative of one of those countries at the Court of St. James might have thought it advisable to ask the Home authorities that a political refugee from such country should not be admitted to naturalization. If that is not the object, it is impossible to conceive of one; but it is an abnormal power, as every one will admit. We have not thought it advisable in Canada to take that power so far; nothing has arisen to show that we have not acted wisely, and I repeat that no good reasons have been or can be adduced why, at this stage *when we are revising our naturalization law	with the very laudable purpose
of	extending	its	scope, we shouldput	such	an	abnormal power into
the hands of the Secretary of State. Suppose that three, or five, or ten, or twenty men are passed upon by the courts as fit for naturalization in any part of the Dominion, you give power to the Secretary of State, for any reason-for political let us suppose, and on the complaint or representation of anybody who may have given him advice-to annul the proceedings of the courts of law, to make useless the expense incurred by the men in their efforts to become Canadians, and to set aside all the rights pertaining thereto; the

Secretary of State may do so merely of his own will and without being accountable to anybody. In the course of the discussion the hon. minister stated, and stated quite properly, that we are anxious to extend naturalization, so that those who come to this country to make it their home should, as early as possible, have the advantages that we confer upon them in the enjoyment of our institutions, the primary condition of which is naturalization. But after having provided all the machinery by which they may acquire these rights, we then appoint some one with power to take those rights away from them. I do not wish to prolong the discussion, but the provision is so dangerous and so unusual that I beg to move:
That this Bill be not now read the third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House with instructions that they have power to amend it by striking out subsections 3 and 5 of section 2.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would like to first
point out that this discretionary power is one of the five provisions which, at the Conference in 1911, it was decided were essential to legislation of this kind. That was agreed to by the conference at which the right hon. gentleman himself (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was present representing Canada. Mr. Churchill, for instance, repeats these conditions a number of times. At page 187 of the printed report he says:
The grant of nationality is in every case discretionary and this discretion should be exercised by those responsible in the area in which the applicant has spent the last twelve months.
That is repeated several times. For instance, at page 194 Sir John Simon says:
It is essential to the scheme which the Home Secretary has referred to, that the grant of an Imperial certificate should be a matter of discretion, and that that discretion should be exercised, not in all cases by the Home Government, of course, but by the authority which has the local opportunity of judging of the man's personal qualities and credentials during the last year of his five years. That seems to me to be essential to the scheme.
That is again repeated at pages 196 or 199 by Mr. Churchill, and stands in that fonn until it is finally agreed to by the conference as a whole.
Now, may I point out what seems to me a very good reason for the reservation of that discretion. It was a question then of making a law prescribing conditions for naturalization, which by a method to be subsequently devised, and which we have devised, was to be made similar in all
British possessions, including, of course, the home country. The requirements laid down as being the means without which a man was not to be entitled to this naturalization, were to apply to all the British possessions, but it was not intended to bind any to give naturalization even to those who met those requirements. The right hon. gentleman says the proposition is that the Secretary of State shall have power to override the decision of the courts. In saying that he misapprehends the purpose of the Bill. What the court does is to decide that the particular individual meets those requirements of this legislation of general application, without which he cannot be naturalized. But the court cannot go any further and declare that the party has a right to be naturalized. It still rests with the country, through its responsible	government-'after all, the
Secretary of State is only one of a government that is responsible for what he does

to determine whether or not it will grant to that individual his naturalization. If you take that clause out, then you create a situation where each one of the dominions will be absolutely bound, because a man meets certain requirements which are agreed to be essential, to give him naturalization, even though, for reasons outside of the possession of these particular qualifications, the government of that particular dominion or possession might consider that it was not in the public interest for that man or that class of men to be naturalized. In reality the idea was, as far as the dominions are concerned, to reserve to them freedom of action, even when a man met those requirements which the mother country and the dominions generally agreed were essential-but not necessarily sufficient- to fit a man for naturalization. The purpose is to keep within the hands of each of the dominions control even over people who may meet these requirements, to place these dominions in a position where they may be enabled, for reasons that they may consider sufficient, to declare that a person, though meeting these requirements, is not a desirable subject, in their judgment, and to exclude him. While it is true that the Secretary of State is not called upon to give reasons why he takes a certain course under this provision, it should be remembered that he always acts as a member of a responsible Government, and the circumstances under which he acts, if he does act in the exercise of that power,

will always be before the public either for condemnation or for approval. He will act upon his responsibility and the responsibility of the Government behind him, and I think that that is sufficient protection against arbitrary action on his part. As I look at it, this is a power that will seldom, if ever, be exercised; but it is a power held in reserve which may prove most invaluable to this country. I should look upon it as a matter for grave regret if this Parliament should put itself on record as of the opinion that a discretion which may properly be vested by the Parliament of the home country in the responsible advisors of His Majesty in the imperial Cabinet, should not, through lack of confidence, Qe vested in the responsible advisors whom His Majesty through 'his representatives in this country may call to his councils from time to time. It seems to me that we may take the very slight risk that is involved. I know it is quite easy to use words which make this look odious; it is easy to talk about it as being arbitrary and as being liable to be abused. It is quite true that the power may be abused, but, after all, we ought to have confidence enough in our men not to refuse them any power merely because it can be abused. As to its being arbitrarily exercised, permit me to point out that it will have to be exercised under the eye of the Parliament and of the public of Canada, who are anxious that no unnecessary obstruction shall be placed in the way of naturalization. I venture to say that it will be a very bold Secretary of State indeed who will take upon himself the exercising of this reserve power in any arbitrary way. This provision is here because it was agreed that it should be here. It was put in in order that all the dominions might realize that by this legislation they were not depriving themselves of the discretionary power to deal with any particular case as they might see fit. The home Government considers that the discretionary power is essential; that it should be held out as an additional protection to each one of the dominions against the suggestion that its liberty was in any way restricted and that by agreeing to this legislation it was compelled to grant naturalization to any particular individual. I think it is well for us to bear in mind that this clause was inserted in execution of an agreement in which the discretionary power of each one of the dominions was recognized as an essential part of the scheme, and that we may expose the whole scheme to failure simply by reason of our own dis-
trust of our own public men. The fact that we would by eliminating this clause leave the Government of the day absolutely powerless in respect of the granting of naturalization would not be compensation, in my judgment, for the loss that the country itself would sustain through its being deprived of this valuable reserve power, and if what has been so long sought for should be defeated simply by reason of our lack of confidence in our own public men.
Amendment (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) negatived on division.
Main motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time and passed.


INDIAN ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. J. ROCHE (Minister of the Interior) moved that the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 114, to amend the Indian Act, be read the second time and agreed to. He said:
Section 6, amending the Act of 1911 and providing that a reference may be made to the Exchequer Court of cases in respect of lands that are not surrendered by the Indians, was struck out by the Senate. The only other amendment made by the Senate was that of including in the section referring to Indian dances the province of British Columbia, which had been inadvertently omitted.
Frank Oliver: Is the whole of section 6 struck out?


Mr. ROCHE:: Yes.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Hazen (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) Bill No. 221, to amend the Montreal Harbour Commissioners Act, 1894, was read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in the chair.
William Pugsley: I suppose the object of the Bill is to relieve the property of the Harbour Commissioners from taxation? That is why it 13 being vested in His Majesty?


Mr. HAZEN:: That is the reason.


William Pugsley: The sole object of the
Bill?


John Douglas Hazen: The sole object.

Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of the Right Hon. R. L. Borden (Prime Minister), the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Blondin in the Chair:
Whereas His Majesty the King (hereinafter called 'the Government,') and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, (hereinafter called 'The Company,') entered into certain agreements which were confirmed by and set out in schedules to Statutes of Canada, viz.:
Date of Agreement. Statute confirming.
1.	29th July, 1903.	Chapter 71, Statutes of
Canada, 1903.
2.	18th February, 1904. Chapter 24, Statutes of
Canada, 1904.
And whereas pursuant to said agreements and to a trust deed, dated 10th June, 1905, confirmed by chapter 98 of the Statutes of Canada, 1905, the company issued and the Government guaranteed certain bonds of the company and has duly implemented its guarantee to the extent required by said agreements;
' And whereas the company alleges that the proceeds of such bonds so implemented have proved insufficient to pay the proportion of the cost of construction of the western division as hereinafter defined, which the company alleges the Government by said agreements and under said trust deed became bound to provide, and the company claims that the Government is obliged to pay without recourse three-fourths of the amount required to complete the mountain section as hereinafter defined ;
And whereas the Government does not admit such allegations or claims and has offered to refer the questions in dispute to the decision of the courts;
And whereas to enable the company to continue its works without delay the company has requested the Government by way of compromise and in full settlement as below mentioned to guarantee a further issue of bonds to the amount below mentioned ;
And whereas it is in the public interest that such guarantee should be authorized upon the terms and subject to the conditions hereinafter set out;
It is therefore resolved that it is expedient to provide as follows :
1.	Unless the context otherwise requires, 4 western division ' means that portion of the line of railway mentioned in clause 2 of the said agreement of the 29th of#July, 1903, extending from the city of Winnipeg to the Pacific ocean ; ' mountain section ' means that portion of the western division extending from the east bank of the Wolf river to the Pacific ocean ; 4 prairie section ' means the remaining portion of the western division ; 4 guaranteed securities ' means the bonds hereby authorized to be guaranteed.
2.	That upon the company establishing to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council that the moneys available therefor and the resources of the company are insufficient to enable the company to complete the western division and that any moneys necessary for that purpose over and above the proceeds of the guaranteed securities will be provided, His
Majesty on behalf of the Dominion of Canada, may, for the purpose of aiding the company to provide the balance required for the completion of the mountain section including the expenditures mentioned in the proviso to section 4 hereof, and upon and subject to the conditions hereinafter set out, guarantee payment of the principal and interest of an issue of bonds, to be made by the company for a principal amount sufficient in the opinion of the Governor in Council, to provide for the expenditures set out in said proviso, not exceeding $16,000,000, such bonds to be payable on the 1st day of January, 1962, and to bear interest at the rate of four per cent per annum payable half yearly.
3.	That the said bonds shall be secured by a deed or deeds of trust (hereinafter referred to as the 'new trust deed') made to a trustee or trustees to be named therein (herein referred to as 'the trustee') granting fixed and floating mortgages or charges upon the present and future undertakings and properties of the company of every kind, tolls and revenues, rights, franchises and powers, subject only to.
(a)	the mortgage and charges heretofore created and the securities heretofore or hereafter issued under existing trust deeds or mortgages securing same or under or by virtue of any existing statute of Canada;
(b)	Such priority in favour of other mortgages and charges hereafter created by the company as the Governor in Council may expressly approve of as being in the interests of the company and of Canada.
4.	The kind of securities to be guaranteed hereunder and the forms thereof, and the forms and terms of the new trust deed, and the trustee, and the times and manner of the issue of the guaranteed securities, and the disposition of the moneys to be raised thereon, by sale, pledge or otherwise, and the forms and manner of guarantee or guarantees shall be such as the Governor in Council approves and such terms, provisions and conditions as the Governor in Council may consider expedient or necessary shall be included in the new trust deed.
Provided that no part of said moneys shall be used other than for expenditure approved by or under the authority of the Governor in Council for three-rourths of cost of construction work as defined in the said trust deed of 10th June, 19^5, in respect of the mountain section, inclusive of all interest until completion of the mountain section on bonds heretofore or hereafter issued in respect of same under the deeds of trust by way of mortgage dated 10th June, 1905, and 15th March, 1905, set forth in schedules (A) and (B) to chapter 98 of the Statutes of Canada, 1905, and interest upon advances made in respect of the mountain section under the Grand Trunk Pacific Loan Act, 1913, and for interest upon the guaranteed securities until the expiration of three years from the date of completion of the western division as hereinafter fixed.
5.	The said guarantee shall be deposited with the trustee, signed by the Minister of Finance or such officer as is designated by the Governor in Council, and upon being signed and deposited as aforesaid, His Majesty shall become liable as guarantor for the payment of principal and interest of the guaranteed securities according to the tenor thereof and the said payment shall form a charge upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and the guarantee so signed and deposited shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Act respecting the guaranteed securities and the new trust deed
4*
[Stage Direction]
and all matters relating thereto, have been complied with.	t
6.	Subject to the provisions of this Act, any moneys paid by His Majesty under any guarantee given hereunder shall be held to be paid in discharge of the liability of His Majesty, and not in discharge of the liability of the company, under the guaranteed securities, or under the new trust deed, and the moneys so paid shall be held to be still secured by the guaranteed securities and the new trust deed, and His Majesty shall be subrogated in and to all the rights of the holders of the guaranteed securities, the interest or the principal of which has been paid by His Majesty, and His Majesty shall, with respect to the moneys so paid, be in all respects, in the position of a security holder with respect to whose securities default shall have been made in payment to the extent of the moneys paid by His Majesty.
7.	That nothing herein contained shall be held to limit or affect the obligation of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, under the agreement with His Majesty entered into in pursuance of section eight of chapter 24 of the Statutes of Canada 1904, or under said section.
8.	That before a guarantee is given a release by the company and by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall be executed, which release shall be in form and terms satisfactory to the Governor in Council and shall constitute an acceptance of the guarantee provided for herein as a full, final and satisfactory settlement, and as a complete satisfaction and discharge of all rights that either the company or the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada now has or may claim to have or may hereafter have or claim to have against the Government to any further guarantee, payment, or aid of any description in respect of the construction of the western division under and in virtue of the said agreements of the 29th July, 1903, and 18th February, 1904, and of the said trust deed of 10th June, 1905, or under any statute now in force.
9.	That the company is hereby empowered to do whatever is necessary in order to give full effect to the provisions hereof.
10.	That notwithstanding anything contained in the said trust deed of 10th June, 1905, or in any Act or Order in Council heretofore passed, the date for completion of the western division shall be 31st December, 1915.
On the preamble:
Robert Laird Borden: ment bad put forward, or if the company were disposed to accept that view as to the legal rights of both parties in the premises, then we would be prepared to consider an application by the company for further *assistance in carrying out the enterprise. We considered that only reasonable, for the reason that whatever might be the legal effect of the arrangement of 1905, it -was perfectly apparent that there was a distinct agreement by the contracts of 1903 and 1904 that the Government would guarantee the bonds of the company to the extent of three-quarters of the cost of the mountain section, whatever that might he, and that the Government would implement these bonds and pay tne interest on them for seven years without recourse. The company pointed out that, in case the matter should be referred to the courte, a delay of eighteen months or two years would be involved, and they represented to us-and we have no reason to doubt the truth and accuracy of their representations -that if aid were not forthcoming in the meantime, they would have to stop the work, the plant which had been gathered together would have to he disbanded, and that in the end the cost of completing the road would be very much greater than it otherwise would have been. After a great deal of negotiation, it was finally arranged that the Government should give a guarantee of bonds, not at three per cent but at four per cent, because in the meantime the rate of interest had considerably increased beyond that which prevailed in 1903 and 1904, When the agreement was first entered into. It was provided that the Government should not be called upon to implement those bonds, that is, to make good the difference between the realized value and the par value, and that the Government should not be called upon to pay the interest on those bonds for seven years without recourse, but that there should be included in the amount of the bonds to be guaranteed, a sum sufficient t-o pay interest thereon for three years after completion of the road. The reason put forward by the company in that regard was thai when the road was completed and in operation it would be at least three years before they could gather up traffic-to use the expression which was put forward to us-and put the road in thoroughly good running order for the purposes of securing and carrying traffic.
We thought under the circumstances that the arrangement was a reasonable one. The

faith of the country has been pledged to the enterprise, and it ought to be carried through. While we felt that the Government, so far as the legal aspect of the question is concerned, had a good case, we nevertheless could not fail to be impressed by the fact that the contention of the company was supported by the opinion of very eminent counsel. It seemed therefore that under the circumstances it was a matter for compromise rather than for litigation, inasmuch as litigation would postpone for a very long period the completion of the enterprise, must add materially to the cost, and would render useless and unproductive for a period of perhaps two years $300,000,000 or $350,000,000 already invested in the enterprise by the company and the Government. As the company expressed it to us, the capital invested in the road would remain dead and useless until this additional amount was provided and the road completed to the coast. That, of course, is not absolutely true of the prairie section because that is in operation now. 'But the company have put forward the contention that, until the line is constructed in the prairie provinces, and connected on the one hand with the Pacific, and, on the other hand with Ontario, Quebec and Maritime provinces, and with the lines of the Grand Trunk in. the East, it cannot be expected that these roads in western Canada can be operated with anything like the profit which they eventually will earn when the line is completed from Moncton to Prince Rupert.
The explanation which I have given sets forth in a brief way, and I hope in a clear way, the reasons which have induced the Government to place the proposals before the House. I shall be prepared to go into the matter more fully on the second reading and, this evening, I hope to lay upon the table of the House some documents which relate to the subject and which perhaps will explain more clearly to hon. members the contentroiv on one side or other with regard to the matter which has just been' under negotiation.


Wilfrid Laurier: The claim of
the Grand Trunk Railway Company for further assistance, as based upon the contracts of 1903 and 1904, does not seem to me to have any legal basis. But the fact remains that the anticipations as to the cost of the road which were entertained in 1903 and 1904 have not been realized and that the construction has cost much more

than, could have 'been expected at that time. The Grand Trunk Pacific may well be supposed to have constructed the line with the greatest economy possible but they had to pay more than was expected at that time for labour and material. Therefore, whilst their claim could not be entertained as a legal claim, and I think the Government was right in that respect, on the other hand, as stated by my right hon. friend (Mr. Borden) the enterprise has to be carried out. At the present time I shall say no more than that we will expect to have this evening all the information possible upon this matter in regard to the application of the Grand Trunk Pacific and more especially as to whether it is expected that the money which is to be expended will be sufficient to complete the road.


William Pugsley: I would like to ask my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) whether or not, now that the Government is about granting whatever all hope to be the last measure of assistance for the Grand Trunk Pacific, an arranger ment has been made to close up all matters which are outstanding between the Government and the company and which might operate in any way to prevent the Grand Trunk Pacific from immediately taking-hold of the sections which are now completed and those which may be completed in the near future, and finally taking over the whole line from Prince Bupert to Moncton. A good many rumours have had widespread circulation in tlie newspapers that the Grand Trunk Pacific had made certain objections in respect to the construction of the eastern division. We do know what has [DOT] been stated in the House, that changes have been made in the plans and specifications since this Government came into office, that in many cases velocity grades have been provided for by the commission, that wooden trestles have been erected where the specifications provided for steel, that in some cases wooden bridges have been erected where steel should have been, and that all these changes which have made the road inferior have been made without the consent of the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific, as the contract provides. It has been stated in the newspapers-I do not know whether by authority of the Grand Trunk Pacific or not-that in consequence of these changes the Grand Trunk Pacific will not feel bound to enter into a lease for the operation of the eastern
section of the Toad. I speak from the standpoint of the Maritime provinces especially, and I desire to say that in my judgment, unless the Grand Trunk Pacific is to operate the whole line right through to the city of Moncton and thence, either by building independent lines or by using the Intercolonial, to the ports of St. John, Halifax and other eastern cities in the Maritime provinces, the whole national object of this great undertaking will be defeated. We know very well that the Grand Trunk Pacific were desirous in 1903 of only building to North Bay. They had in their mind that when they got to !North Bay they could utilize the Grand Trunk system through Ontario down to Montreal in the summer season, and in the winter they might carry their traffic to Portland in the State of Maine, which has been for many years the winter terminus of the Grand Trunk railway. The late Government was determined that this should not be allowed, and that the road should be carried right through to the port of Quebec, across the St. Lawrence and down to Moncton, so that in bpth summer and winter, as far as possible, this great transcontinental railway should be used for the carriage of traffic through Canadian channels. If the Grand Trunk Pacific has any legal excuse it may decline to enter into a lease for the operation of that portion of the road which is east of Cochrane, and in that event the national object of the undertaking would be defeated.
It does seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that before the Government now enters into an agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific for a guarantee of $16,000,000, all these outstanding questions ought to be settled. I know that the matter came up when the late Government was in power; there were some outstanding questions and they were brought up and were under consideration just shortly before the election took place in 1911. This is the time for the Government to ascertain what are the questions outstanding, if any; what the objections are, if any, to the Grand Trunk Pacific entering into a lease of those sections which are already completed and having it clearly and distinctly understood that as these sections are completed the Grand Trunk Pacific will take hold of them and operate them and they will enter into a lease, as provided for by the agreement of 1903, to operate the whole line from the Pacific to the Atlantic. I think the Government ought to be able to assure this House, before asking its assent to the Bill, that all

these outstanding questions are settled and that the Grand Trunk Pacific have assured the Government that they will raise no question whatever in regard to entering into a lease. I am particularly impressed with the desirability of bringing the matter before the committee because I find an extraordinary state of affairs existing in regard to the completed section in the province of New Brunswick. This Government has been in office for nearly three years and before the late Government went out of office the Grand Trunk Pacific expressed its willingness to enter into a lease for the operation of the completed section in New Brunswick upon the most reasonable terms which could be imagined. They agreed to operate the road with the necessary train service, with trains running not merely to Moncton, but, if running rights were arranged, to St. John, Halifax and other points in the Maritime provinces served by the Intercolonial railway. They were to operate in this wav, namely, that an account should be kept subject to the supervision of the Government's auditors of the receipts and operating expenses and that, if there should be any deficiency, it should be added to the cost of the Transcontinental road and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company should pay interest upon that as well as upon the cost of the road. Nearly three years have passed since this Government have come into office, and no arrangements have been made for the operation of the completed section in New Brunswick, although I believe, it has been completed for nearly two years, because it was operated last year to a certain extent by the commission. My hon.friend the acting Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) was not able to tell us, when his Estimates were under consideration, whether or not any effort had been made to have an agreement entered into, notwithstandinv the pledge made to this House last session that the mattter would be taken up at once and an effort made to induce the management of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company to enter into an agreement. The people of the Maritime provinces are in the dark as to whether or not the management of the Grand Trunk Pacific is going to operate the eastern section of the Transcontinental line. When the Grand Trunk Pacific are coming to Parliament for a grant of $16,000,000, this important question should no longer be left open; the matter should be settled definitely, so that the people will 
know that these valid objections, as to the degrading of the line under the present Government, have been removed; and it would be a matter of gratification to the country, especially to the people of Quebec and the Maritime provinces, to know that this had been done and that an agreement had been entered into.


Mr. FOWLER:: What objections have the Grand Trunk Pacific made to operating the eastern end of the Transcontinental railway?


William Pugsley: In the province of New Brunswick?


George William Fowler: Yes, or any part.


William Pugsley: That is a matter concerning which the Government ought to tell us.


George William Fowler: You are speaking of
objections. Surely you know what the objections are, or do you know that there are any objections?


William Pugsley: Yes, I have seen it
stated in the newspapers with authority that the explanation has been made by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company that, by reason of these changes which have been made, they would not be bound to operate the eastern division. I know that, as a matter of law, by reason of the changes in the specification without the consent of the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific, they would be able to raise an objection. But now that we are asked to give this large amount of aid, this matter should be made clear. I know that, when asked with regard to the terminals at St. John, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company intimated to the people of St. John that they did not know how they were going to get into St. John, and they really conveyed the impression that they were not entirely certain as to what was going to take place as to the operation of the road in the Maritime provinces. While they did not say that in so many words, that is the impression they conveyed. There is also the important fact that, while about four years ago the Grand Trunk Pacific spent a large amount of money in purchasing some forty or fifty 5 p.m. acres of land at the head of Courtenay Bay at St. John with a view to going ahead with their terminal arrangements immediately, and although Mr. Hays, the late president, had plans prepared showing an extensive layout of the terminals and had stated to the people of

St. John nearly four years ago that the Grand Trunk Pacific wanted to go right ahead so as to have the port ready for the traffic which should come over the Transcontinental railway. During the three years that this Government have been in office, there has not been one advance of any kind or description towards the carrying out of what Mr. Hays then said it was the intention of the company to carry out. I cannot help feeling that, by reason of the changes made without the consent of the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific, an uncertainty has been thrown into the minds of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company as to the intention of the Government with regard to the operation of the eastern division and as to what may be the decision of the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. Surely it is not unreasonable, now that this question of aid comes up, that these questions should be settled, and that the people should be assured that the Grand Trunk Pacific will not only at once enter upon the operation of the completed sections, but operate the whole line when completed.


Robert Laird Borden: As to the operation of portions of the line before completion of the whole, I do not understand that the Government have power under the agreement to force the company to operate. The company have the right to elect to operate and the conditions upon which they shall operate are to be settled by agreement or otherwise by arbitration, if I remember correctly.


William Pugsley: It is in the statutes of 1904.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, the provision reads:
Pending: the completion of the eastern division by the Government, the company shall be entitled to lease from the commissioners, to be appointed under the said Act, and to operate such portions of the said eastern division as may from time to time be completed, but upon such terms as may be agreed upon between the company and the said commissioners, which terms are not to be more onerous than those of the lease of the whole division by the said contract provided for, save in so far as may be necessary to give full effect to the paramount right of the said commissioners next hereinafter mentioned, and subject always to the paramount right of the said commissioners to use and operate the same without any payment of tolls or other compensation for such purposes as they may deem necessary or expedient in the execution of their commission.
Inasmuch as the arrangement which has been arrived at is not a compromise of a disputed legal right, we did not think it 305
desirable to go into some of the matters to which my hon. friend has alluded, except by way of very general discussion; and I may say that, in so far as that discussion has taken place, we have found no disposition of the part of the company to ask any release of their agreement to operate the eastern division. The only thing that has been discussed, and that more or less in a general way, is as to the date when the operation should begin. Some question was raised as to whether it would be wiser, if the entire road were completed just at the commencement of the winter, to begin the operation in the winter or to await the opening of spring, inasmuch as the road runs through a new country and for a very considerable distance through an uninhabited portion of the country. Doubtless there will be matters to be arranged between the Government and the company in respect of the operation of the eastern division; and the agreement of 1903, as amended by that of 1904, contains quite clear and distinct provisions as to what the respective rights of the Government and the company are to be and as to the manner in which any disputes between the Government and the company are to be disposed of. I do not know whether there is any further agreement we could make that would render it clearer than it is at present The company have put forward, to my knowledge, no claim in respect of the alleged degrading of the road to which my hon. friend alludes.
And I have had conversations- on the whole subject with Mr. Smithers and Mr. Chamberlin. They have insisted very strongly- I am alluding to personal conversations of a recent date-


William Pugsley: Did they enter a formal protest?


Robert Laird Borden: I was speaking of what had taken place during personal negotiations. I think I do remember some allusion to a formal protest. But they have put forward very cogently and insistently that then position has been altered very seriously by reason of the fact that though the prairie section as constructed by them has been opened for operation, (if not formally taken over or formally completed), for about four years and a half, during that time they have had no connection .with the East; and they have urged the claim that if greater expedition had been used in the construction of the line between Winnipeg and Cochrane, they would have been



able to have their connection between the lines of the Grand Trunk Pacific in the West and the lines of the Grand Trunk in the East. And they attach to that failure what seems to be an exaggerated importance. They have put it forward as meaning a very great loss to them. I have not admitted any claim in that regard, nor any claim 'whatever. That has been the subject of the most frequent discussions in the negotiations that have been carried on in regard to this matter. I have had no intimation whatever from the company, either directly or indirectly, that they are not prepared to carry out the terms of the agreement entered into by the company in 1903 as amended by the agreement of 1904.
Resolutions reported and concurred in.
Mr. BORDEN thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 226, to authorize the guarantee of bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Borden, Bill No. 224 to amend the National Transcontinental Railway Act was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 1:
Wilfrid Laurier: Will my hon. friend explain the motive of the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: I will. My right hon.
friend remembers that by section 9 of chapter 71 of the Statutes of 1903 it was provided that the construction of the eastern division of the National Transcontinental railway should be carried on by three commissioners. I think the number of commissioners may afterwards have been increased.


Wilfrid Laurier: Four.


Robert Laird Borden: In 1912, it was provided by chapter 39 of the statutes of that year that one commissioner might be appointed, and during the last two and a half years Major R. W. Leonard has been commissioner under the legislation as so amended. It is hoped that the road will be completed during the present year. The contracts have long since been let, and everything else of importance in that regard has been done. It is possible that the private business affairs of Major Leonard may not permit

him in the future to discharge the 'duties of commissioner. It is thought that within the few months or weeks that might elapse, it would be the proper thing so to amend the section that the Minister of Railways himself might exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the commissioner. That explains the first subsection.
As to the second subsection: The commissioners have power, under the agreement of 1904, amending in that respect the scheduled agreement of 1903, to operate the eastern division before completion. Perhaps I had better read the enactments. By section 9 of chapter 71 of the Statutes of 1903,
' it was provided as follows:
The construction of the eastern division and the operation thereof until completed and leased to the company pursuant to the provisions of the agreement shall be under the charge and control of three commissioners, to be appointed by the Governor in Council, who shall hold office during pleasure, and who, and whose successors in office, shall be a body corporate under the name of ' the Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway ' and are hereinafter called ' the Commissioners.'
By section 3 of the Schedule to the National Transcontinental Railway Act, chapter 24 of the Statutes of 1904, it was provided:
3. Pending the completion of the eastern division by the Government, the company shall be entitled to lease from the commissioners, to be appointed under the said Act, and to operate such portions of the said eastern division as may from time to time be completed, but upon such terms as may be agreed upon between the company and the said commissioners, which terms are not to be more onerous than those of the lease of the whole division by the said contract provided for, save in so far as may be necessary to give full effect to the paramount right of the said commissioners next hereinafter mentioned, and subject always to the paramount right of the said commissioners to use and operate the same without any payment of tolls or other compensation for such purposes as they may deem necessary or expedient in the execution of their commission.
In view of the fact that it is proposed that the minister may be appointed to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of commissioner, and that a certain period might intervene between the completion of the road and the time when the company should undertake the operation thereof under lease, it is thought desirable that the minister should be vested with power to operate the whole or any part of the eastern division as a Government railway, in order to ensure that the road shall be operated immediately after completion, and to render it practically impossible that any considerable period should

intervene between the technical completion of the road and the leasing of it to the company.


Frank Oliver: At what time is it expected that the section of the road between Winnipeg and Quebec will be completed and taken over by the company?


Robert Laird Borden: During the coming
autumn, but as I stated a moment ago in speaking upon the other Bill, some question has been raised by the company as to whether or not, if the whole line should be completed this autumn it would be desirable to begin operation during the winter months, or whether it would be more in the interests of the country and of the company as well to begin operations early in the spring. That matter, however, has not been decided in any way.


Frank Oliver: Assuming that the road is completed this fall, will the section west of Cochrane be put in operation whether the section from Cochrane to Quebec is ready for operation or not?


Robert Laird Borden: The Government, as I
understand the contract, has no power to compel the company to take a lease of a portion of the line. The company has the right to ask that it may operate a portion of the line and that an agreement be made for that purpose. It does not seem to me that we could force the company to operate that portion of the line alone, but the passing of this enactment will give to the Minister of Railways and Canals power to operate it himself if he should think fit to do so.


Wilfrid Laurier: The object of this Bill, as explained by my hon. friend, is to vest in the Minister of Railways the powers now vested in the commissioner. As to the motive, my hon. friend says that the road is on the point of being completed and that there will, therefore, be no further need for the services of the commissioner.
I should be glad indeed to believe that the expectations of my hon. friend with regard to the completion of the road will be realized. There is no doubt whatever that the roadbed will be completed this season; in fact it was to have been completed ere this. But the road will not be finished simply because the roadbed is ready; terminals and various other accommodations will	be necessary. My hon.
friend is	aware that	there are
no terminals at all at Quebec and that if, as expected, the roadbed is completed in 3051
November, there will be no stations or terminals. I understand that the contract has been let for a freight station to be erected on the old Champlain market site. As to the passenger station itself, an agreement was entered into by Major Leonard, sanctioned by the Government, under which a union station was to be built for the Canadian Pacific railway and the National Transcontinental-railway. It was supposed that this agreement, which was made last year, would be followed by definite action, but up to the present time nothing has been done in the way of carrying it out. I do not know even if the land has been purchased, but I am certain that the plans respecting this station have not been carried out. The workshops have been established at St. Malo. It was first decided to have them located at Cap Rouge, but it was finally decided to place them some eight miles from the roadway, at a place which is not accessible by rail. How access will be obtained to that place from the roadway is a matter which has not yet been settled. It was rumoured at one time that a tunnel was to be built from the roadway to the workshops, but nothing has been done. I have reason to believe that at the present time the Government have not made any arrangements to establish communication with the workshops at St. Malo. The other day the acting Minister of Railways told me that access would be obtained by arrangement with the Canadian Northern or with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. The shops are placed in proximity to the lines of the Canadian Pacific and Canadian Northern railways, but they are eight miles from the railway which they are intended to serve. To obtain access to these workshops, one of three things must be done. We must have a line from our own railway to the workshops; we must make an arrangement with the Canadian Northern railway or we must make an arrangement with the Canadian Pacific railway. Nothing has been done, however, along that line. Unfortunately, the road is far from being completed. I do not think that it can be completed this season, and even if a load of grain were to come over the railway from Winnipeg to Quebec, there would be no station to receive it. The situation, therefore, is not at all J3 represented by my hon. friend. As the road is far from being completed, there is no immediate necessity for doing away with the services of the commissioner and vesting his powers in the Minister of Railways. If the road were to be com-

pleted within a few months, perhaps there would be no objection to the Minister of Railways taking charge of the National Transcontinental railway. In 1904, when this legislation was introduced, we thought it proper to place the construction of the road under the control of a commission. When my hon. friend came into power in 1911, he did not abandon the idea of a commission, but he modified it and placed the railway in the hands of a single commissioner, Major Leonard. I am not sure that Miajor Leonard has made a great success of it so far; at all events I think it is altogether hopeless to assume that the road will be completed during the present year.


Robert Laird Borden: The station at the Champlain market is not a freight station alone; it is a passenger and freight station combined.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is stated in the press that the building which is now being erected on the Champlain market site is simply a freight shed.


Robert Laird Borden: That is a mistake; it is a passenger and freight station, costing about 870,000 and, as I am informed, it has been approved by the authorities of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. The plans have been submitted to them and they have approved of them. Two agreements have been worked out respecting the union station, and the city of Quebec was a party, I think to at least one of them. One agreement was for the construction of the station and the other for its management and operation. A great deal of negotiation went on in respect of both of those agreements but they, were finally completed, 1 think several weeks or perhaps months ago. After they were completed some question arose, I am not familiar with the exact details, as to the acquisition of land. The Canadian Pacific railway proposed to put in certain lands and I think the Government were going to acquire and put in certain lands also, and it appears that some difficulties, the exact nature of which I do not recall at the moment, arose which caused- some further delay. I understand the difficulties have now all been removed and I am informed that the Canadian Pacific railway was to call for tenders for the construction of the station at a very early date. I am not prepared to say just what length of time will be required for its construction, but in the meantime, the station at t'he Champlain [Sir Wilfrid Laurier.J
market will be available and will answer temporary needs.
As far as the tunnel is concerned, there has been more than one proposal submitted to the commissioners by their engineers and considered by them. I am not prepared to say at the moment whether a final conclusion has been reached as to which scheme is to be adopted. My right hon. friend has referred to a piece of line which I think is vested in the Canadian Northern railway and which would provide access to the union station when constructed. That line of railway would also provide access to the shops. I understand that arrangements are practically completed for the acquisition by the Government of that line of the Canadian Northern railway. I do not wish to give that as an assurance, but I understand from the acting Minister of Railways that arrangements were practically fcomplefted to-day for its asquisition which would provide, pending the construction of the tunnel, access to the union station and to the shops at St. Malo. Under the circumstances, I could hardly agree with my right hon. friend as to the difficulty in respect of terminals in the meantime. It will be found that these terminals will be ready by the time the roadbed and the necessary accessories are completed in such a way as to permit the operation of the road. We feel very sure that our expectations in that regard will not be disappointed.


George Perry Graham: If there was any definiteness about the date of the completion of this line, there would be some reason for this Bill; but this line is not completed and unless the Government are going to declare in an arbitrary way that it is completed before it really is, its completion is many months away. Major Leonard remains commissioner until the road is completed? The Bill does not seem to outline that. I think it is an open secret that there has been lack of harmony between Major Leonard and some members of the Government for quite a long time. If we may judge by some articles which appear in the Winnipeg Telegram and in a certain newspaper in Quebec to which the Postmaster General is very close, these papers have been condemning Major Leonard for months. It is said that this trouble arose because Major Leonard has a very stiff backbone and refuses to allow the commission to be run on political lines; that he has maintained his position under the statute to manage the affairs of the Grand Trunk Pacific, as far as construction is concerned, and that

he has done as his judgment dictated, that he was being really interfered with at every turn, and consequently, whoever was right or whoever was wrong, friction arose. I am inclined to think that this Bill might have a short title, ' A Bill to dispense with the services of Major Leonard.' Without any frills as to the details, I really think that is what it is for, from information that X have had coming to me for the last three or four months. I think that the public will agree that a mess has been made of the situation in the city of Quebec. Everything has been left at a standstill, in fact it has been turned backwards in that city during the past two and a half years. When this Government came into power they found a pretty well defined plan, first a station at the Champlain market, with a line nearly constructed to that station from the Transcontinental. That site for the station was chosen by consent of the Canadian Pacific railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Quebec Central, the Delaware and Hudson, the city council of Quebec, the Board of Trade of Quebec and the Government. Several meetings were held and a unanimous arrangement was agreed upon by all the parties. The Champlain market and other property was purchased for the completion of this work. The shops were to be placed where the shops ought to be, on the main line of the Transcontinental near the north end of the Quebec bridge; and there is no railway man, unless he is interested, who will give any other decision. I am doubtful if the chief engineer of the Transcontinental railway has given his consent to all that has been going on in the city of Quebec with regard to the Transcontinental. If he has not, then that work is in direct contravention of the statute. He is the responsible man, more responsible in a way than the chief commissioner himself; and I cannot bring myself to think that Gordon Grant has agreed to what has been done in Quebec and around it with the National Transcontinental railway. The shops were to be constructed approximately at the north end of the Quebec bridge on the main line of the Transcontinental, and any repairs that had to be made on ears for through traffic going to the Maritime provinces, or from them, could be dropped within a stone's throw of the main line and there repaired and put in service again. These shops have been changed and taken seven or eight miles away from the main line of the Transcontinental, and if you do buy the Canadian Northern railway you
are at that much more expense, although this Government were going to be more economical than we were. In addition to that, every car and engine has to be hauled seven miles and back again over that line, a haulage of fourteen miles to the shops; and these shops are for the benefit of two other roads and not for that of the Transcontinental railway. I say it advisedly, and I have discussed the subject a good deal, that a mess, and a horrible mess, has been made of the Transcontinental at Quebec. While it may be that the road will have the steel laid and will be ballasted and all that kind of thing this autumn, the provision at Quebec will not be completed and cannot Ibe for taking care of the traffic, and we will find that if traffic can be brought to Quebec that there will be no facilities there to take care of it. Every person will agree, the Postmaster General cannot but agree with me in what his newspaper has said, that the work has been retarded beyond all the endurance and patience of the people of Quebec during the last year. Who was to blame I do not know, but I do believe that friction has occurred between the commissioner and the Government, and that that is responsible to a great extent for the condition in Quebec at the present time. If the commissioner is to remain until the road is completed, he ought to remain at least one year more, and even then Quebec will not be ready for the traffic. If ever there is a time when a commissioner is needed it is at the completion of the road. Just when it has to be decided whether a particular portion of the line has been constructed according to contract, and whether the agreement between the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Transcontinental and the Government has been carried out in all its details, and whether the terminals have been properly constructed-that is the time when a strong commissioner is needed, and it. is the worst time of all to take the road out of the hands of the commissioner and put it in the hands of the Government unless for very good reasons. If this Bill is to get rid of Major Leonard the Government ought to take Parliament into its confidence and say so. If they are not satisfied with the way Major Leonard has conducted the business of the construction of this road and consequently they propose to take over the management of the road themselves, they ought to say so. The Government did not like the commis-

sion they found when they came into power, and dispensed with its services. They said there was going to be a great improvement; they were going to appoint as a one-man commission a man of high repute. I am not going to criticise Major Leonard at all, but I say emphaticaly that nobody knows better than the Government that they have been in constant trouble ever since the commission was changed, either through their owm fault or the fault of the commissioner or some of the officials. If it is proposed to remove Major Leonard on account of the breach between him and the Government, a6 I believe, I urge the Government to tell us that that is the case. If the Government would have this House believe that this step is merely in anticipation of the road being completed, then I say they are all wTong because the road will not be completed this year not yet next year unless they make better progress than has been made in the past two years.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend seems to misunderstand the terms of the Bill as well as its purpose. The Bill does not provide that the Minister of Railways and Canals shall be the commissioner. It merely provides that he shall be eligible to be appointed as commissioner. If it should prove that Major Leonard is unable to continue in the discharge of his duties by reason of his own personal affairs, the Government would be face to face with one of two alternatives: either to appoint a commissioner in succession to him, or to have the Minister of Railways and Canals take over the work. My hon. friend will realize that to get a suitable man who would undertake to discharge the duties of commissioner for possibly only six months or a year would be practically impossible, and mere-fore it has been thought desirable that this Act should be amended in this way. The Bill is not designed for the purpose of getting rid of Major Leonard, as my hon. friend suggests. Personally, I have had very little to do with Major Leonard; the most I have had to do with him was in connection with the Quebec terminals, to which my hon. friends have alluded. Before speaking in Quebec last autumn, I asked him to come and explain to me the whole situation in regard to the terminal at Quebec. I asked him to give me a full and frank description of the position, and to state to me definitely whether or not the terminals would be ready and sufficient to take care of the traffic by the time the road

was completed. He gave me a statement, and after having first submitted that statement to him in writing to see whether it was in consonance with his arrangements and intentions, I embodied it in the statement I made to the people of Quebec. I see no reason to believe that he will not be able to carry out what he then told me he was prepared to carry out. For the reason that I intended to make an important statement to the people of Quebec, I desired above everything else to be absolutely accurate. As I have already said, I called in Major Leonard, and listened with the greatest care and attention to his description of the proposed work in connection with the terminals at Quebec. I took notes, and afterwards dictated a statement to my stenographer. I revised that statement after it had been dictated, and submitted it to Major Leonard for his perusal before I delivered it in the city of Quebec. Therefore, so far as that statement	is concerned, which	was regarded as satisfactory by the people of Quebc, to whom it was communicated, I say that I have the warrant of Major Leonard for every word that I uttered on that occasion. I can say further that so far as my communication with him in respect to that matter is concerned, I found him most ready to inform me, and he has been of the greatest possible assistance so far as my personal relations with him are concerned. I have never had the slightest cause to complain of any incident or anything whatever in respect of his discharge of his duties as commissioner.
I would like to say also that the changes which were made in the arrangements planned by the former commission have not been brought about through any political influence whatever, so far as I understand and so far as I believe. The changes which were made were advised by Major Leonard, so the Minister of Railways and Canals informs me. They were urged upon the Minister of Railways and Canals as changes for the better, and (inasmuch as we had appointed Major Leonard as commissioner, and as the terms of the statute vested a very .large discretion in him, it would hardly have been becoming for the Government to set up its will against the will of the commissioner who had been selected for his great experience in matters of this kind. My hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) states his belief

that Mr. Grant, the chief engineer of the Transcontinental, has not acquiesced in these changes. I am not able of my own personal knowledge to state whether that is or is not the case, but I shall make inquiry. I can only say at the moment that I shall be very much surprised to learn that the changes have not been acquiesced in and approved of by Mr. Grant. At the moment I cannot say more than that, because I desire to be accurate in any representation or statement that I make before the committee in respect of so important a matter. I have always understood that Mr. Grant did acquiesce, and I certainly know that these changes were urged by Major Leonard.


George Perry Graham: I was not criticising
Major Leonard, I was rather saying that he had been pushed pretty strongly on other grounds than that of railway practice, and that friction had frequently arisen. I have a very high opinion of Major Leonard in a good many ways, although I differ from him in some of his contentions as to the railway. It has been rumoured that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, which is to lease these terminals at Quebec-and when I say terminals I refer to everything included in the changes at Quebec-ha3 not given its formal consent to all these changes although they cannot properly be carried out without the consent of that company. Is that true?


Robert Laird Borden: I desire to speak with
reserve on that matter as I do not profess to be fully informed of the facts.
I will make inquiry and give the information at a later date. I understand that, although the approval of the Grand Trunk Pacific may not have been given in formal, legal shape, all these proposals from time to time and the plans which accompanied them have been submitted to them, and they have acquiesced in and approved of them in an informal way. That is my understanding at the moment. I shall make inquiry and obtain definite information before this Bill shall have passed its third reading.


George Perry Graham: The question was raised in another discussion as to the company contending that the line would not be completed until the Quebec bridge was finished. I think the acting Minister of Railways and Canals will find a letter from the late Mr. Hays admitting that the completion of the bridge was not a necessary part of the
completion of the Transcontinental railway. That is on file somewhere.


Mr. PELLETIER:: There will be no difficulty about that.


Wilfrid Laurier: Speaking also with great reserve, I would say that I have reason to believe that up to the present time the Grand Trunk Pacific have not assented to the changes which have been made in the Quebec terminals. It may be true that they have been communicated with from time to time as to the nature of these changes, but my information is that the Grand Trunk Pacific have never assented to these changes, but on the contrary have protested against them.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my right hon. friend refer to any particular part of the work or generally?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, generally to the character of the road and the changes in the Quebec station and terminals. If I understood my hon. friend the acting Minister of Railways and Canals and the Prime Minister the Government have acquired the line of the Canadian Northern railway from St. Malo to Cap Rouge.


Mr. REID:: There is a short piece of line five miles long, extending from the viaduct to the St. Malo shops. Negotiations have been going on for some time with the owners of the railway for the purpose of acquiring it, and the negotiations, I understand, were concluded to-day.


George Perry Graham: How could you acquire that line without any authority?


John Dowsley Reid: We have made an offer which has been accepted.


Wilfrid Laurier: That simply means more delay?


John Dowsley Reid: In what way?


Wilfrid Laurier: To-day the hon. gentleman says the negotiations are completed. Where is your authority for acquiring that line of railway? I do not know that you have any. I do not know under what statute you can acquire that road. Has the agreement been signed?


John Dowsley Reid: No, the agreement has not been signed. The negotiations were only completed to-day for the purpose of acquiring the road.


Wilfrid Laurier: That means more delay. I understand the Government are building a station at Champlain

market to cost $70,000. I speak subject to correction, because it is some time since I have seen the contract, but I am under the impression that the contract which was made with the city of Quebec for the erection of a station at Champlain market had as one of its conditions that the station to be built was to cost $1,000,000, and that is the reason why the land was sold for $100,000. I do not make an absolute statement to that effect, because I may be wrong, but I am sure that the station that we intended to build when we gave the eontract in 1911 was to cost $1,000,000. Would my hon. friend be kind enough to place a plan of the station before the House?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. I personally submitted a plan of the station at Champlain market to Mr. Chamberlin, and he approved of the plan upon which tenders are being called.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend will put a plan of the station and also the approval of Mr. 'Chamberlin on the table?


John Dowsley Reid: I showed it to Mr. Chamberlin and he agreed.
- Sir WILFRID LAURIER: Oh, my hon. friend is satisfied with that?


George Perry Graham: I think it would be wise now to have the formal approval of rue Grand Trunk Pacific to the changes in Quebec. As to the acquisition of this portion of the Canadian Northern line, the Prime Minister will agree with me in saying that there is no authority under the Act for the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific to buy a piece of line. Everything has to be advertised for and tenders asked. We had a great deal of correspondence and difficulty in working out the details in order to take over the contract that the old Quebec Bridge Company had for the construction of the connection between Champlain market and the Quebec bridge. The line was partly constructed and it took several weeks to work out a way to take over that contract. The price was lower than that which we had received for similar work elsewhere. I do not think there is any power at all to take over that line and if the line is to be taken over a vote will have to be placed in the Supplementary Estimates during the present session in order to authorize it, or another agreement will have to be confirmed, or some other steps taken by Parliament authorizing you to take over the line.


Robert Laird Borden: I would not be prepared to express an opinion one way or the other without making an examination of the statute. It may be possible that legislation will be required for the purpose. The hon. gentleman will remember that, with respect to about six miles west of Winnipeg, legislation was necessary for the purpose of making it a part of the western division of the National Transcontinental railway. The road was owned by some other company; I do not remember which company it was.


George Perry Graham: I think the Canadian
Northern.


Robert Laird Borden: That is my impression.
In the same way it may be that legislation will have to be enacted in regard to this. But I will know more about it perhaps when we come to deal with it later.


George Perry Graham: It should be done with
the consent of the Grand Trunk Pacific because they will have to pay interest upon that line.


Robert Laird Borden: I will have all this information when we come again to deal with the matter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As a matter of fact, has the Government turned down any of Major Leonard's actions in respect of the Quebec works?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know exactly
what my hon. friend means by ' turning down.'


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is there a conflict between the Government and Major Leonard as regards the Quebec work?


Robert Laird Borden: The only thing I recall
at the moment is that I think Major Leonard was under the impression that a smaller and less expensive station than that which is to be erected would be sufficient for the requirements at Champlain market but it was thought that a station such as is proposed would be more suitable, and he acquiesced in that upon the reasons being put forward.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is he going to leave the service of the Government completely?


Robert Laird Borden: I have not said that he was going to leave before the completion of the road, but I spoke of the possibility of his private affairs requiring his attention, and in that way I mentioned that during the short time which would intervene the

Minister of Railways might be trusted to perforin the duties of the commissioner.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is very satisfactory, but for my right hon. friend's information, because there must be only one mind as regards the situation between the authorities and the people in Quebec, I desire to read to my right hon. friend something which I find here in a Conservative paper, the Quebec Chronicle:
I have here the organ of the Conservative party, the Quebec Chronicle, an editorial in which, under date of Quebec, June 3, 1914, reads as follows:
Transcontinental Commission.	.
The end of Major Leonard as National Transcontinental railway commissioner is in sight. It is known that for some time he has disagreed with some of the most influential members of the Cabinet and that some of the most important Quebec works have been delayed, because he insisted too much on having eveiything his own way. At all events, the Government is now introducing a Bill allowing them to transfer the work of the Transcontinental Comnvs-sion to the Minister of Railways and Canals.
In the firm hand of the Hon. Mr. Cochrane, who will now direct and decide in place of Major Leonard, it is expected that the work of the terminals will be proceeded with much more satisfactorily than before. It is known that Major Leonard had at last consented to invite tenders on the first plan for the Champlain market station, leaving to one side the plans, or the small bit of a station which he had prepared. Tenders were due yesterday and it is likely that the contract will be let without any unnecessary delay.
This station, such as it will be built, will, we understand, be an ornament to the river front and is arranged in such a way that any number of freight sheds may be added on the western side.
Just here in parenthesis-my hon. friend will remember, during the first session of this Parliament, after the address had been adopted by 'this House, my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition moved for the papers in connection with this station. Up jumped the Postmaster General and said:	Nine-tenths of the people
in Quebec know that the Champlain market station is a blunder, and that it should never have been located there. Here now, we have the announcement that this station on the Champlain market will be an ornament to the river front and will be arranged in such a way that any number of freight sheds may be added on the western side. Just the argument made by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Cochrane has submitted a final Order in Council for the Quebec union passenger and
freight station at the Palais and the Canadian Pacific railway has been notified that everything is in readiness in that respect.
Of course, no mention of the Grand Trunk Pacific. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company is satisfied.
There also seems to be no doubt that Major Leonard's brand new scheme of a tunnel under the Laval University-
Which is the heart of Quebec.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is not the place.


Rodolphe Lemieux: (reading):
-with level crossings on St. Paul and St. Andrew streets, main business thoroughfares of Quebec, will be discarded and that some of the St. Malo shops which Major Leonard omitted from the plans will now be proceeded with.
That has reference to the plans made by the land speculators.
Major Leonard had also strongly objected-
He is an oppositionist.
-that there should be so much accommodation	contemplated on the rivef
front, and he thought that what the Harbour Board was doing in the estuary of the St. George river was sufficient. On this point also Major Leonard's view will not prevail any more and the Government have put in the Supplementary Estimates the sum of $500,000 to begin work on the river front, under the direction of the Minister of Public Works.
It is gratifying to learn that these works which have been held hack will now he carried out witti fresh impetus.
The elections are coming next year.
That it should he so is almost wholly due to the good work of Hon. L. P. Pelletier.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It is a good newspaper. I have reason to believe that what the Chronicle says is to a great extent the view not only of its editor but of the Quebec Board of Trade, the mayor of Quebec and the city council of Quebec.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it the view of the
Government?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The Government expresses its views on the floor of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Not always.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: An honest Government like this one always does. There is no use disguising the fact that there are complaints in Quebec because the work has not been proceeded with. There is no denying that fact.


William John Macdonald: About whom are the people in Quebec complaining?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: They are complaining about Major Leonard in that respect.

There is correspondence between the Board of Trade and Major Leonard and between the mayor of Quebec and Major Leonard.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who appointed Major
Leonard?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Does my hon. friend not know that yet; I thought he knew more than that.


George Perry Graham: The Government gave
and the Government are taking away.


Mr. HENDERSON:: Blessed be the name of the Government.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The union station at
Quebec, the Champlain Market station, the workshops-the tout ensemble as now outlined, has been suggested by Major Leonard. It has been approved by the Minister of Railways and it has met with the approval of the citizens of Quebec. There is not the slightest doubt about that, because the city council has passed a resolution, practically unanimously, agreeing to all these changes. There is no use for my hon. friend to pretend that this is objected to by the people of Quebec, because it is not. There is dissatisfaction on account of the delay, mainly on account of the Champlain Market station.
I myself am of the opinion that it might have been begun before.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You were opposed to it.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is a scheme of which I entirely approve.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Champlain station?


George Perry Graham: The little one?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No, I was against the little one. I am in favour of the big one.
I am in favour of the one which this Government is building. Is not that satisfactory to my hon. friends on the other side?


William John Macdonald: When did you change your mind?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I never changed my mind on this question. The plan which Major Leonard had Was not satisfactory to the people of Quebec, and was opposed by the people and the city council. The moment they got a business scheme and plan, like the one now in course of completion, they accepted it with the greatest pleasure and put themselves on record in that respect.


George Perry Graham: Would the plan include the tunnel?
	[


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: What does my hon. friend mean by that?


George Perry Graham: Just a tunnel to go under the ground. Does the plan, which the people of Quebec said was a business plan and which they approved, include the tunnel?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes, it does.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Cochrane says it should be wiped away.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: \ly hon. friend has not listened attentively. There have been two plans, both suggested by the Transcontinental Commission. The first one my hon. friend referred to the other day and said it had been discarded. He said also that the St. Malo shops had been discarded.


George Perry Graham: No, I never said that.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: He said they were
shown on the map as discarded.


George Perry Graham: I said they had been
marked off the map.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is practically
the same thing. Another plan, for a tunnel under the city of Quebec has been deposited in the registry office. This was done by the Transcontinental Railway Commission. The people of Quebec are opposed to this last proposition. The City Council is opposed to it, the Board of Trade is opposed .to it. It is not surprising, under these circumstances, that the newspapers in Quebec should voice the public opinion about it. There is the whole matter. I invite my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), the right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid. Laurier), and the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) to wait and see, when these plans are completed and this work executed, who will be right and who will be wrong.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. A. LACHANCE (Quebec Centre,). (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to take part in the debate on the Bill now submitted to the consideration of the House, and I would not have changed my mind in the matter, had not the question of the establishment of the Transcontinental terminals in the city of Quebec cropped up incidentally.
Having in the course of the recent debate on the report of Messrs. Gutelius and Staunton dealt with various matters

to which reference was made this afternoon, I was anxious to know what answer the government would make to the statements I made at the time. I therefore listened very attentively to the speeches of the right hon. the Prime Minister, of the hon. {Postmaster General and of the hon. Minister of Customs. To my regret, 1 must aver that the only inference that can be drawn from their utterances, is that, as regards these terminals, no advance has been made within the last three years and that the government are still in a state of absolute indecision concerning their future plans in this connection.
Those who were present during the debate may have noticed, as well as myself, the hesitation with which these hon. gentlemen ventured to tread on that ground; vagueness and indefiniteness characterized all their statements. However, the hon. Postmaster General has requested us to wait a while, and that we would have convincing proofs of the efficiency of this government.
All the same, I am not satisfied; for three years wonderful things have been promised to Quebec, but Quebec is still awaiting the fulfilment of any of one of those promises.
When I recall the rabid denunciations of the Quebec Conservative papers, such as the Evenement, the Morning Chronicle, etc., previous to September 21,	1911,
in respect to the so-called inactivity of the then government in the matter of the Transcontinental terminals, I am surprised at the mildness shown by those papers, whose editors, these three years have abstained from calling attention to the inactivity of our ministers, and whenever they uttered a sound, did so with the object of excusing the government and holding responsible for any delay some official in the latter's employ. I am the more surprised that during the last session the hon. Postmaster General seemed intent on assuming the full responsibility of the change effected in the original plans of such terminals, and I am happy to find that his stand at this moment confirms me in that view. He was anxious, no doubt, to impress the whole world in that way with a high opinion of his power and prestige in the councils of the state. But the fame he won in that way must have vanished considerably in the meantime, for events have turned out contrary to his expectations, and that responsibility of which he was so proud, must now weigh on his shoulders like a
leaden cloak. That recalls to my mind some verses of Dante's Divine Comedy, wherein the poet describes the fate of unfortunate men bending under the weight of such a mantle, condemned to unceasingly turn within the same circle, over steep precipices, and forced in the course of their grim pilgrimage to pass over the bodies of victims of the executioner.
The position in which the hon. Postmaster General now is appears Jo /me somewhat similar; there is no opening for him through which to escape, in whatever direction lie turns. How much lighter he would feel, if only he could cast aside that mantle; but that is out of question. Indeed, of late, he has been obliged to ride over the body of his friend, Mr. Leonard, who no doubt was his close advisor in the preparation of the new plans of the Transcontinental terminals; for I do not suppose for a single moment that this gentleman would have touched these plans at. all without the assistance of the hon. minister. However, less merciful than those unfortunate people to whom I have just referred, the hon. minister not only passed over the body of his friend, but I might add that he trampled it under foot. I find evidence of the fact in two editorials published in the Evenement of Quebec, on May 4. and 5, 1914. That paper is the organ of the hon. Postmaster General. They contain strictures of a violent character in reference to that quondam bosom friend. Persons who are familiar with the turn of mind and the manner of writing of the hon. gentlemen state that these denunciations must be attributed to him. I have reason to believe that they are right in stating so. Whether they are right or wrong, I may be allowed to quote those two editorials. In the first place, the article appearing in the Evenement of Monday, May 4, 1914, reads as follows: The Stations and Workshops.
Spring is with us once more, and, as often happens in our clime, hardly has the snow melted away, than without transition summer is heralded in by a succession of warm days. The harbour awakens and gives signs of greater activity. More than fifteen steamers have entered it since the opening of navigation. Work is proceeding on all sides; it seems as though the number of hands were not sufficient to cope with the requirements. This is the proper time to take a hand in the work and to deal earnestly with the question of the great public improvements which are proposed, or in course of execution, at Quebec.
If we are unwilling to fritter away part of the already too short season which is just opening, tenders should be called for immediately for the building of the Champlain market station. As regards the Union station at the Palais,

have done absolutely nothing towards the building of these terminals within the last three years, and they will have to bear the responsibility of that neglect, which may have possibly disastrous results for Quebec as well as for the whole Canada.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I do not rise to make a long speech or to follow in detail the various points raised by the hon. member for Quebec Centre. He has evidenced a great deal of cleverness and wit; he has read articles from the newspapers and commented upon them with a good deal of apparent satisfaction, and I shall do nothing which will in any way detract from his satisfaction in this matter. While the remarks of the hon. member for Quebec Centre may be very witty, they are not at all to the point. He said that last year I took the responsibility of carrying out the plans for the terminals at Quebec. So I did, and I do the same thing to-day. I have always taken the ground that the plan outlined by the former Transcontinental Commission was not what was needed in respect of the terminals at Quebec, and I think so still. The complaint urged by the Board of Trade and the City Council of Quebec is that the work should have been begun early this spring. It was not begun early because the tenders for the Champlain Market station had not been called for as soon as the people of Quebec would have desired. At all events, tenders have been asked and received and I expect that before many days are over the contract will be let. The Government will be in a position to give the contract to the lowest tenderer, and I hope that the lowest tenderer will execute his work promptly and well. I may add, in all fairness and justice to Major Leonard, that he has always declared that this station will be ready at the time of the completion of the road. Whether or not this prediction will be fulfilled time will tell, but, in any case, this work will not be delayed; the contract will be let at once.
The hon. member for Quebec Centre and the right hon. leader of the Opposition have repeated what they have seen in the newspapers with regard to this matter. The Liberal papers of Quebec are full of complaints. They find fault with everything; they say that the new arrangement for the terminals, which received the approval of of the people of Quebec, of the city council and of the board1 of trade, has not been approved by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. Le Soleil, the organ of my

aright hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, and the other English-speaking Liberal papers have published that statement time and again. As a matter of fact, the contracts for the building of the union station and for its operation were entered into after the matter was fully discussed in my presence in the office of the Minister of Railways, fully discussed with Mr. Biggar, the general counsel of the Grand Trunk railway, and with Mr. Kelley, one of the vice-presidents of the company. My hon. friend the acting Minister of Railways was there also, in the absence of the Minister of Railways, and these terms were agreed upon in our presence. These are the facts, and they cannot be denied. About ten days ago I asked Mr. Chamberlin how he could account for the fact that the Liberal press in Quebec were making the statement that he did not approve these plans. He said that he never authorized anybody to make such a declaration. His grievance was that when these contracts had been actually signed, after they had been approved by his company and his representative, Major Leonard should have notified him of the fact, and that he did not do so. I shall not give any opinion as to that, it is a mere matter of detail.
As to the other works at Quebec, my hon. friend, no doubt in good faith, has made a big mistake. He tells us that the Champlain Market station is not being built according to the contract between the city of Quebec and the Transcontinental Commission and that the mayor of Quebec made a complaint to that effect at a recent meeting of the city council. I told my hon. friend when he said that that he was entirely mistaken, and I say again that he is entirely mistaken. As a matter of fact, the station on the Champlain market is not mentioned in the contract between the Transcontinental Commission and the city of Quebec, and my hon. friend, who represents one of the important divisions of Quebec, surely ought to know that. Yet he comes before this committee and tells hon. gentlemen that the mayor is complaining that the station is not going to be built according to the contract. Evidently my hon. friend has something more to learn with regard to this matter. The contract between the Transcontinental Commission and the city of Quebec has reference to the St. Malo shops and the union station, and not to the Champlain Market station. I hape that my hon. friend will in future be careful of the facts

in referring to this matter and that he will relate only those circumstances which are within his knowledge. Having devoted a great deal of thought, time and labour to this matter with a view of bringing it to a final issue, I know exactly how it stands, and I repeat that my hon. friend made a huge mistake when he accused this Government and Major Leonard of not fulfilling the contract to which he refers. The shops were begun last fall; the contractors worked nearly all winter, and a great deal of progress has been made on them. The work is progressing now. There are a great many employees working at it today. The construction of the Champlain Market station will begin within a few days. As to the union station, there has been a good deal of difficulty and discussion between the Canadian Pacific railway and the Transcontinental Commission. These difficulties have been adjusted after a great deal of work and after many efforts to have them settled. They are now settled, I am happy to say, and I hope that the work will proceed before long. Those are the facts and I shall not detain tjje committee at any length about them. The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) said there had been a big mess made in connection with the Quebec terminals. I might tell him that, if there is some disappointment at Quebec because the other works have not begun as early this spring, as they might have done, the people of Quebec are absolutely united, except, of course, the Liberal papers which have to find fault anyway. The Quebec people, Liberal and Conservative, are a unit in thinking that the plans now completed and the work which is going to be finished are the proper ones and meet the views of every one who has the interest of Quebec at heart. That is what the hon. member for South Renfrew calls a mess.


George Perry Graham: It is a mess from the standpoint of the Transcontinental; it is not in the interests of that railway.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Not at all, it is in the interests of the Transcontinental and future events will prove that the Transcontinental Railway terminals at Quebec will not be confined, as they would have been under the former Administration, to one large station. While there was some space between the cliff and the river front, that area was not large enough for a station of that importance without blocking everything else. We were all of that opinion. I was of that opinion when plans for the 306
station were adopted, when the tenders were invited; and we were so strongly of that opinion, one and all, that when we came into power we cancelled that contract, and now Quebec is going to have two stations as terminals for the Grand Trunk Pacific, a fine station at the Palais, both freight and passenger, and another smaller station at the Champlain market, freight and passenger also. This is satisfactory to the people of Quebec and they do not complain of it at all. They do complain of certain delay, but after all it is better to have delay and have the work properly done than to rush work which would not be a success in the end.
Mr. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska). (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I do not now intend to answer the remarks presently offered by the hon. minister. I only wish to put to him a question which is inspired by a statement made last night at a meeting of the Montreal Young Men's Conservative Association. The hon. member for Chambly-Vercheres (Mr. Rainville) seems to have addressed the meeting, according to a report I now have on hand. 1 quote the following abstract from his speech, as published in 'Le Devoir' to-night.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: On what page?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Page 5:
Other Liberal legacies, the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific, had to be assisted with millions in order to avoid a deeper crumbling.
I shall not refute the apparent inaccuracy of these words, but a great deal must bd forgiven to the hon. member for Cham-bly and Vercheres, on account of his convert zeal. During the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific, the bon. member was supporting the government, but he seceded from the Liberal party on other matters only. It is ever since that he so frequently and willingly sings Rule Britannia.
I quote again:
Mr. Pelletier pledged his head and was within a hair's breadth of resigning in connection with the $16,000,000 for the Grand Trunk Pacific, which refused to take the Cochrane-Moncton division of the Transcontinental. Mr. Pelletier has a written promise to the effect that this branch will be operated by the Grand Trunk Pacific, w'hose plan was to switch on the Toronto and Northern Ontario at Cochrane, with intent to carry grain to Newport, in the United States.
If the hon. Postmaster General feels like saying that the statements made by the hon. number for Chambly-Vercheres are true, he will relieve much anxiety and



doubt as to the final fate of the Quebec section of the Transcontinental. If it is true that the hon. Minister has a written promise from the Grand Trunk Pacific authorities, I will ask him to kindly place it on record in this House.
Mr. PELLETIER. (Translation.) In answer to the hon. member's request, I must say that I never asked for a written promise. There is a contract passed between that company and the late government. I have no promise from the Grand Trunk Pacific, and care for none. I never had any, and will never beg for one.
Mr. LAPOINTE. (Translation.) Then the young Conservative element of Montreal will judge for themselves upon the accuracy and truthfulness of the statements launched by the hon. member for Chambly-Vercheres last night.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon.
friend the Minister of Railways says that the Grand Trunk Pacific authorities had agreed in his presence to the new plans for the terminals at Quebec.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The Union station.


Wilfrid Laurier: My	hon.
friend knows that corporations have only one voice, the resolution of their board of administration. It is no use to say:	It
was agreed in my presence. My hon. friend knows as well as I do that that is of no force. If there is an approval of the Grand Trunk Pacific to the Union station, as stated by my hon. friend, that agreement ought to be placed on the table of the House, and I expect to have it. My hon. friend told me he had brought some plans to-day. We shall have this matter up again, and I expect that at the next sitting of the House that we shall have before us the approval of the railway company.


John Dowsley Reid: The p.ans which the Tight
hon. gentleman has before him I showed to Mr. Chamberlin, and in my presence he approved of those plans and said they Were quite satisfactory. What I did was simply to write a letter to Mr. Chamberlin the next day, saying I had called for tenders in accordance with the plans I had submitted to him and to which he had agreed. That is all the correspondence.


Wilfrid Laurier: Let us have
the letter and its answer, and we will judge by them of the approval.


John Dowsley Reid: I have no objection to that.


William Pugsley: I have a very strong
objection to the second section. I want to know what it mean3. I would also like to call the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to section 3, because it relates to eastern Canada and to the operation of the line in the Maritime provinces. Section 3 provides:
After the eastern division is completed and until it is leased to- the company the said eastern division shall he under the control and management of the Minister of Railways and Canals, who shall have power to operate the whole or any part of the said division as a Government railway under the provisions of the Government Railways Act, Revised Statutes, 1906, chapter 36.
If my right hon. friend is not in a position to disclaim any intention of providing that the Government may operate a portion of the Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific another portion, I would necessarily have a suspicion that this section is intended to provide for the very thing which we in the lower provinces, and also many people in the province of Quebec, are afraid of. We have heard rumours for quite a while, and statements have been made in the newspapers, that * is the intention in quarters which are influential and powerful to induce the Grand Trunk Pacific to operate the line from Winnipeg to Cochrane, and from that point to use the Timaskaming and Northern Ontario railway down to North Bay, and then the Ontario system of the Grand Trunk. The rumours are to the effect that the section of the Transcontinental east of Cochrane will not be operated by the Grand Trunk Pacific. These rumours have been circulated in Northern Ontario with a view to influencing the electors. The people there have been given to understand 'by people influential with this Government that it is intended to biing tlhe traffic of the Grand Trunk Pacific down to North Day into Ontario, instead of carrying it to the province of Quebec in the summer and to the Maritime provinces in the winter.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Who said that?


William Pugsley: I have been told that a good many people have said that, and people very close to my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals.


John Dowsley Reid: No person ever mentioned it publicly.


William Pugsley: The people of Northern
Ontario have been canvassed on the strength of it, and particularly in North Bay. Section 20 of the agreement for the construe-

tkm of a transcontinental railway, which will be found in the statutes of 1903, provides :
When completed the said eastern division shall be leased to, and operated by, the company tor the period of fifty years, at a rental, payable-
The rental is of course provided for. If it is intended and understood that the Grand Trunk Pacific is to operate the whole line, why does the Government feel it necessary to ask Parliament to provide that the Government may take charge of a part of the Transcontinental? If the section had provided that the Government may operate the whole line it would not be so bad, but as it is this legislation fits in absolutely with the rumours which have been so freely circulated. I protest against the section. The Grand Trunk Pacific must in the interests of Canada, and more especially in the interests of Quebec and the Maritime provinces, operate the whole line from Winnipeg to Moncton or no part of it. They must not be allowed to say that they will only go east as far as Cochrane, and then transfer the traffic to the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway, and again to the Grand Trunk. I think everybody who has given any thought to this matter will agree that that must not be allowed. Then why does this Government ask Parliament to provide that the Government may operate a part of the line after it is completed? This section does not apply to portions of the line, completed in advance of the completion of the whole line, for that is already provided for in the Acts of 1903 and 1904. This section provides that after the eastern division is completed and until it is leased to the company the whole line or part of it may be operated by the Government. Whoever drew up this Bill must have had in mind that the time might arrive when after the road was completed the Grand Trunk Pacific might say: We are only willing to operate a part of the eastern division, and then the Government could say: Very well, you can operate a portion of the line, and we will operate the rest. We know very well that the Grand Trunk Pacific would choose the portion between Winnipeg and Cochrane.
But what necessity is there for this at all? The Act of 1903 clearly states that the Grand Trunk Pacific are to operate the whole line the moment it is completed. The terms are well defined. The Grand Trunk Pacific are to have the road free of rental for the first seven years, and after that they are to pay rental at the rate of three per cent 306i
on the cost of construction. If the Government have no thought that the Grand Trunk Pacific will refuse to enter upon a lease of the line, why are they providing that the Government may operate the whole or part of this line after it is completed? If the Grand Trunk Pacific are bound to operate the line the moment it is completed, as they are bound to do under the statute, why should the Government ask Parliament to-day for authority to operate a part of the line, which would necessitate the Government's going to great expense in purchasing locomotives, passenger and freight cars, and all the equipment necessary to operate the line with any degree of efficiency. It does seem to me that unless there is something behind this, unless there is some thought that the Grand Trunk Pacific may operate only a portion of the line and that the Government may operate another portion, this legislation is absolutely unnecessary and absolutely without any justification whatever. It only strengthens the position which the Grand Trunk Pacific, take to-day, that they do not know where they are at so far as the operation of the eastern division of the Transcontinental is concerned. That explains why the Grand Trunk Pacific are doing nothing irj the Maritime provinces. It looks as if there was something behind this, and as if the Government were looking forward to excusing the Grand Trunk Pacific from operating the line east of iCoohrane and were going to operate it themselves.


Robert Laird Borden: I can assure my hon. friend that his mind need not be disturbed by any such suspicion as that which seems to haunt it. This legislation was not promoted nor asked for by the Grand Trunk Pacific. It is designed to strengthen the hand of the Government rather than otherwise. Let me say to my hon. friend that we have not the slightest intention of adopting any such course as that which he suggests as possible. I agree entirely with him when he says that the Grand Trunk Pacific must operate the whole of the line from Winnipeg to Moncton, and that they could not be permitted to select a particular part of it which might be convenient to them and to leave to the Government the operation of the remaining part. It seems to me that the position is a fairly strong one so far as the Government is concerned. It is extremely essential to the interests behind both these companies that the line from Cochrane to Winnipeg should be operated

by the Grand Trunk Pacific, and it is not competent to the Grand Trunk Pacific to [DOT]ask for or to insist upon the operation o! that line by their company without operating the whole line. We do not intend to give them any such right or any such option. hon. friend seems to be disturbed by the fact that, in this legislation, the Government is authorised to operate the whole or part of the eastern division as a Government railway. That is not intended to have, nor shall it have any such operation as my hon. friend suggests.


William Pugsley: Then why put the words ' or any part ' in?


Robert Laird Borden: They were put in by the draftsman and might serve a useful purpose. If the Government for the time being were not able to operate the whole of the line through lack of rolling stock, or if an unreasonable or impossible position were taken by the other party to the contract, it might be a useful thing that the Government should for the time toeing operate only a part of the line; but there is no *idea whatever that the Grand Trunk Pacific shall be put in possession of the line from Cochrane to Winnipeg and that the Government shall assume the duty and burden of operating the rest of it. That is as far from the mind of the Government as it is from the mind of my hon. friend.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understood from my right hon. friend it is not the intention of the Government to ask for the resignation of Major Leonard, but it is understood that he will tender it?


Robert Laird Borden: I will not go even a3
far as that; but I understood that he had business affairs which demanded a very large part of his time and attention, land that he might ask to be relieved. We are not asking for his resignation, and I do not want to be understood in that way at all.


William John Macdonald: There has been a
great deal of discussion in the country as to the attitude of the Government with reference to Major Leonard, and the impression has been conveyed by Government organs that the Government have been wanting to do things in regard to the Transcontinental railway, more particularly in Quebec, which Major Leonard did not approve. The organ of my hon. friend the Postmaster General has discussed Major Leonard very frankly. The organ in Winnipeg of my hon. friend

(Mr. Rogers) has done the same thing. I understood the Premier earlier in the day to say that there was a probability that Major Leonard would retire on account of being interested in private business. The country has naturally been somewhat interested in these articles that have appeared in the Government organs in regard to Major Leonard. In 1912, when the Minister of Railways introduced a measure providing for the retirement of the men who then composed the Transcontinental Commission, we were told that the country was to be congratulated upon the advantage of obtaining the services of Major Leonard, and that it was totally unnecessary to have the four gentlemen, who represented the various portions of the Dominion, dealing with this matter. I was aware, from my knowledge of public affairs, that Mr. Grant, the chief engineer of the Transcontinental, was a man of exceptional ability, and that it was not necessary to add to the engineering side of the management by appointing Major Leonard simply on account of the fact that he was an engineer of experience. The Government, however, decided that it was not wise to have a combination of business men in regard to this matter; they wanted another engineer of experience, and they therefore appointed Major Leonard in place of the other gentlemen of business experience representing the different parts of the country. Eulogies of Major Leonard were pronounced by Conservative organs throughout the country. The special fitness and qualifications he had for the position were set forth in glowing terms by the paid party organs of my hon. friends opposite. The country was to be congratulated upon the fact that, although under the administration of the Liberal party we had, as commissioners, men of experience in business affairs who knew nothing about building a railway, at least we are going to have the right man in the right place. Personally, I somewhat wondered what particular part Major Leonard was going to fill. I felt that he would be a supererogation, seeing that Mr. Grant was there. The Government adopted a rather peculiar attitude in the matter, because they appointed Mr. MacPherson as assistant to the commissioner, although he had no particular qualification for the position except that he was an engineer. This Government assumed the responsibility in 1912, so far as the Transcontinental was concerned, of everything that was done under the direction

of Major Leonard. I had occasion, in a previous discussion in this House, to point out that the present commissioner was responsible for the additional cost, of which hon. gentlemen complained in their federal news bulletin, which has been circulated throughout this country with the ridiculous report which they sent abroad degrading the fair name and financial condition of Canada. These hon. gentlemen said: We have found in Major Leonard a new light, a man in whom the country can have every confidence. The Liberal party spent $97,000,000 on the Transcontinental. Every dollar over and above that has been spent by this Government under the direction of Major Leonard. The Winnipeg Telegram, an organ of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, later deprecated the genius of Major Leonard, and intimated that some mistake had been made in selecting him as the man with the heaven-born qualities who was going to carry this great work to completion. Later on, when it came to be a question of what was to he done in the city of Quebec, when the fine Italian hand of my hon. friend the Postmaster General began to get to work, it was discovered in his particular organ that Major Leonard was not one of those distinguished gentlemen in whom the whole country could have confidence. The organ of my hon. friend the Postmaster General proceeded to attack Major Leonard and declared that he was not the heaven-born commissioner that he was supposed to foe; but that, on the contrary, he stood in the way of carrying out those measures which this wise and economical and all-that-sort-of-thing Government, that sit on the right of the Speaker, wanted to carry out.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Perry Graham: They admit it.


William John Macdonald: Yes, they admit it.
We have here under the guise of a measure which assumes that the Transcontinental is going to be finished at the end of the year, a proposition to retire Major Leonard.


George Perry Graham: That is the object of
the Bill.


William John Macdonald: That is the sole object of it. Hon. gentlemen may fence; they may finesse; but the fine Italian hand of the Postmaster General is there. Major Leonard stands in the way of the scheme of the Postmaster General in the city of Quebec, and as a consequence my hon. friend has enough influence with this Government to introduce, under this particular, guise, a measure that means that Major Leonard is to be retired, and that his valuable services, so much eulogized three years ago, are no longer to be at the disposal of the country.
That is the proposition that we have here. Hon. gentlemen may disguise it, they may talk about private business interests and they may suggest all kinds of reasons why this should not be, but every one in the province of Quebec will have to hold the Postmaster General responsible for the utterances of his personal organ in regard to this gentleman. My hon. friend from Rou-ville (Mr. Lemieux) read from the Morning Chronicle of Quebec its opinion of this gentleman. He stands in the way of the desires of the city council of Quebec, and in the way of the views and ambitions of the Postmaster General. It is just as well that the House and the country should understand that Major Leonard, who possessed all the qualifications under the sun which fitted him to be the sole and absolute commissioner of the National Transcontinental railway only two years ago, now, in the estimation of the men who sit on the Treasury benches, does not possess any of those qualifications at all. They say that they made a mistake, that they discovered that Major Leonard has not those qualifications, that he is a man who happens to think for himself, that he happens to exercise those qualifications which hon. gentlemen said he possessed two years ago, and does not propose to be responsible for everything the hon. Postmaster General intends to impose upon this country. Because he has a will of his own and, I assume, is absolutely conscientious in his opinion, because he has those qualifications which hon. gentlemen opposite lauded so highly only a few years ago and because he stands in the way of the peculiar views and ambitions of the Postmaster General, we are having this insidious Bill introduced by means of which Major Leonard is being got rid of. This country is being deprived of his services in order that no longer he may stand in the path of the Postmaster General, and this House is asked to believe that the Transcontinental railway will be absolutely completed within a year, that Major Leonard's services will be no longer required, and that it is proposed to hand the whole control over to the Minister of Railways and Canals.
The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) is hack and we are

all glad to see that he is again in good health. I think that, with the high qualifications which the hon. gentleman's press bestowed upon him, instead of laying pipes and playing the game of his old friend, Sir James Whitney, he ought to be in the House of Commons defending this Government in regard to Canadian railway propositions and the railway administration. I admit with the utmost frankness the qualifications of the acting Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid)-


George Perry Graham: Easy, easy, now.


John Dowsley Reid: You do not think so from the way you are speaking.


William John Macdonald: -are of such a character that he perhaps meets with less opposition in the House and that he is able, with his suave, smooth manner to. anticipate objections that the present Minister of Railways does not always anticipate. If the Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane) has all these great qualifications that the Government organs declare he has, why should he not be in Parliament dealing with this very project instead of playing the game of the Ontario provincial Government as he is doing ? This Government, which has amongst its members men who fill such important positions as does the Minister of Railways and Canals, ought to have its members personally in the House when they are dealing with such measures as the Grand Trunk Pacific loan, the Canadian Northern proposition and especially in reference to this fundamental proposition in regard to the change in the management of the Transcontinental railway. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, who is a new Daniel come to judgment in the railway administration, is absent from the House, and the Minister of Customs, who has had no experience in regard to the matter, is put in charge of this measure. It will be interesting for the whole of Canada, recalling the eulogies which this Government, the men behind it and their press, pronounced upon Major Leonard only two years ago, to realize that because he will not obey their behests, because he will not execute their wills, will not do what the Postmaster General dictates in the province of Quebec, they are proposing to dispense with his services, because that is the real proposition before the House.


George Perry Graham: Now that the Minister of Railways and Canals is to be the commissioner, could the hon. gentleman who is leading the House (Mr. Foster) give us 
any information as to the truth of the rumour that there is to be another Minister of Railways and Canals-I mean a new one -not two-and that the present minister is to retire ? Is the rumour correct that he is to retire and that he is to be succeeded by the present acting Minister of Railways and Canals ?


John Dowsley Reid: That is absolutely


George Perry Graham: It is not well to refuse
these things until they are offered. I was just looking for information. There is another rumour that had some colour given to it the other night by the circumstance that the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) introduced this Bill notwithstanding the fact that the Minister of Railways and the acting Minister of Railways were in the city. Some members of the House have taken it for granted that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is to become the new Minister of Railways and Canals in order, if possible, to get out of the impossible situation in which he has been placed on account of certain contracts on the Intercolonial railway between St. John and Halifax which contracts affect him seriously in the city of St. John. It has been rumoured that a demand has been made that the new Minister of Railways and Calais shall be a man from the Maritime provinces. That 'being the case, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is stepping into the position. If the hon. gentleman who is leading the House could tell us if that be true it might expedite the passage of this Bill because this Bill says that whoever is to be Minister of Railways is to shove Major Leonard out and take his place, xi we knew who the minister was to be it might make a difference. If Mr. Cochrane is to retire some people may think that it would be all right if the Minister of Customs should succeed in keeping thaJt position which he has filled temporarily while tnere are others who think he would not do. There are some Maritime province members Who insist that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is the man who is to be Minister of Railways and Canals in order to make himself right in St. John for this Intercolonial railway business. If the hon. gentleman who leads the House can give us some information aS to who the new minister is to be, we would know right off who the new commissioner is to be because this is notice to Major Leonard that he is no longer to be retained in the employ of the Government.

Mr. GEO. E. FOSTER: The two speeches Which have just been made remind us that we are nearing the end of the present session. They are both indicative of a lack of argument.


William John Macdonald: What would be a
good argument?


Mr. FOSTER:: We have had a delightful piece of badinage from the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald). We could not see much argument in it as regards the Bill, i- had not much pertinency to the Bill, I do not think he saw much in it himself but he showed an intimate knowledge of old desDament scripture and certain other parts of scripture, made an apt quotation, paid many well deserved compliments to members of this Government and gave the visitors in the gallery a most excellent exhibition of what Nova Scotia is oft-times well able to do. So much for the hon. member for Pictou. Now, we come to the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham). Anyone would know that he had at one time or other been a newspaper editor and that he quite well understands how, if he cannot get facts, to set interesting rumours afloat.


George Perry Graham: We have both been in
that business.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. gentleman has
given us an excellent exhibition to-night of his power to put out rumours when he cannot get facts or arguments. Does he really wish to be satisfied that these statements of his are not well-based? If so, I am quite able to set his mind at rest. He thought the Minister of Railways, instead of being away somewhere laying pipes for something that is going to happen in the province of Ontario, ought to be at his work here. I am glad to be able to tell my hon. friend that the Minister of Railways is at his work here.


William John Macdonald: He is not in the
House.


George Eulas Foster: No, but he is doing very valuable work in his office.


William John Macdonald: He should be hero.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend is fair
enough to remember that the Minister of Railways has not been well. He went away for his health.


William John Macdonald: He is all right now.


George Eulas Foster: He comes back better. I wish I could say he is all right. He is getting better but he is avoiding the House
because of the excitement at this particular time of the session, that might be prejudicial to his rapid recovery. He is doing excellent work for the country in his office.
Mr! MACDONALD: We are glad to hear that he is better.


George Eulas Foster: Now, when we have a
Minister of Railways who draws such high encomiums as have been showered upon him to-night by such a discerning member as the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), do you suppose we are going to lose him? There is not a shadow of a chance of the present Minister of Railways vacating his office, and that being true, I am sorry there i3 not a chance of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) getting into hie shoes. Now that I have set the minds of the hon. gentlemen at rest, and as they apparently have exhausted the arguments on this Bill, I suppose they will not take up further time with it but will allow it to pass and let the House get on with other business.


George Perry Graham: One word before the Bill passes. I think hon. members will agree that the House owes the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) and myself something for having given them an opportunity to hear once more the silver eloquence of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster).


Frank Oliver: I desire to ask the Minister of Railways, concerning the Transcontinental, what is the condition in regard to completion of the telegraph lines, the station, the water tanks and the coial-sheds, between Graham and Cochrane?


John Dowsley Reid: The work is all under contract and I understand it is expected that the whole work will be completed and ready for operation this fall. The telegraph lines are now being built and the stations remaining uncompleted are under [DOT] construction by the contractors. So that early this fall, probdbly the 1st of November, not only the road indicated but the whole road between Moncton and Winnipeg will be ready for operation-telegraph Lines, stations, water tanks and all.


Frank Oliver: And what is the condition of the line between Cochrane and North Bay in the same respect?


John Dowsley Reid: That will be completed a
little earlier. It will be ready for opera-
,4860

tion probably between the 1st of September and the let of October.
Bill reported.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
['With the permission of\nthe House, I would like to read further\nmessages which have been received respecting the disaster to the Empress of Ireland:\nFrom Mr. Harcourt to the Governor General.\nLondon, 1st June, 1914.\nPlease transmit to Prime Minister following message received to-day from "Government of New South Wales. Begins:-New South Wales shocked at enormous sacrifice of valuable human lives in Empress of Ireland disaster; wish you favour by conveying to bereaved relatives on behalf of Government and people of this sister British Dominion profound sorrow and sympathy.\n(Sgd) Harcourt.\nFrom Mr. Harcourt to the Governor General.\nLondon, 1st June, 1914.\nFollowing telegram has been received from Governor General of Australia:\nPlease convey Australia\'s deepest sympathy with Canada in terrible maritime disaster which has brought sorrow to so many homes in the sister Dominion.\n( Sgd) Harcourt.\nDunedin, June 3rd, 1914.\nHonourable R. L. Borden,\nOttawa, Ontario.\nCitizens of Dunedin desire to express sincere sorrow at deplorable disaster and condolence with bereaved.\nShacklock,\nMayor.\nMay 30th, 1914.\nSir,-With deep feeling of sorrow I learn of the terrible disaster of the fine ship \' Empress of Ireland,\' which envelopes with, grief this beautiful country.\nIn the name of the sons of Cuba residing ill this country, and in my own, as the representative of the Republic on this Dominion, I beg to extend to the Canadian people, through you, the testimony of our most sincere regrets.\nI have the honour to be, Sir,\nYour obedient servant,\nN. Perez Stable,\nConsul General for Cuba in Canada. The Right Hon. Robert L. Borden,\nPremier of Canada,\nOttawa.\nClifton Hotel, Niagara Falls, Ont.,\nJune 2, 1914.\nHis Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught:\nThe Mexican Government has instructed us in a cable received this morning to express to your Royal Highness and to the people of Canada the sincere condolence of the Mexican nation for the bereavement suffered in the tragic and regrettable loss of life occasioned by the disaster to the * Empress of Ireland.\' At the same time we beg your Royal Highness to accept the assurance of our personal sympathy for the sad event which has spread sorrow in the land we are beholden to for the most generous hospitality.\n(Sgd) Emilio Rabasa.\n(Sgd) Augustin Rodrigues.\n(Sgd) Louis Elguero.\nConsulado General de la Republica Argentina.\nCarleton Chambers, 74 Sparks Street,\nOttawa, Canada,\nJune 2nd, 1914.\nSir,-In the absence of the Consul General, Mr. Carlos A Galarce, and in the name of the', 'Argentine Government, I wish to show you my deepest sympathy in the appalling disaster to the steamer Empress of Ireland, in wThich many Canadian lives were lost.\nI have the honour to be, Sir,\nYour obedient servant,\nD. Saavedrat,\nIn-charge.\nTo the Right Honourable R. L. Borden, P.C., Ottawa City.\nOn motion of Mr. Borden, the House adjourned at 12.20 a.m. Friday.\nFriday, June 5, 1914.']
John Dowsley Reid: On the last occasion when the House was ini Supply, three or four items on page 52 of the Main Estimates were allowed to stand. . There is no reason why, on any of these items, we should not discuss anything that was left undiscussed.


George Perry Graham: I would suggest that the first item be taken up and then we can have whatever discussion arises.
Railways and Canals-Chargeable to capital * Railways-Intercolonial	railway-Diversion
of line between North Sydney and Leitches Creek, $160,000.


Mr. A. R. MACLEAN:: What progress is being made towards the completion of the Halifax and Eastern railway, that is, the branch of the Intercolonial from Dartmouth to Dean Settlement? When will the road be completed and (ready for operation?


John Dowsley Reid: My information is that the rails will be laid on the whole of this road, from Dartmouth to Dean, before the end of the current fiscal year.


William Findlay Maclean: That is, March next?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: What weight of rails
aie you putting down?


John Dowsley Reid: We are Taking rails from
other parts of the Intercolonial. They run from fifty-six pounds to eighty pounds.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Are you supplying the rails as quickly as they are required by the contractors?


John Dowsley Reid: Quite recently they said that they were ready for a few more rails, but up to the present we have been keeping them supplied with all the rails which they require.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am sorry that
the minister does not anticipate completion of this branch of the Intercolonial railway before the end of March next'. The construction of this road has taken too long entirely. I think the grading is practically completed. I have been informed that the laying of the rails would have been considerably more advanced than it is, were
[Mr. J. D. Reid.l
it not for the fact that the Government have not been supplying rails to the contractors as rapidly as required. I have not made inquiries from official sources into the matter, and possibly I may be in error, but statements to this effect have been made to me from fairly authoritative sources. It has also been remarked to me on many occasions that the rails which the Intercolonial railway is supplying to this branch are altogether too light. I submit that this road, upon which there will be considerable traffic and where the time to be made by passenger trains will be of considerable importance, should have a heavy rail. This road has now been a very long time under construction and I think that its completion should be expedited as much as possible. I think that if a little attention is given to the matter the road should be ready for completion early in the autumn. I should like to ask the minister if that is likely to be the case?


John Dowsley Reid: As I have said, we have not heard of any shortage of rails, with the exception of information we received a couple of weeks ago that they were ready for an additional supply. I think, therefore, that my hon. friend must be in error when he says that the completion of the road has been delayed by reason of the shortage of rails.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will you make
inquiry into the matter?


John Dowsley Reid: I certainly will make inquiry, but I am informed by officials of the department that there has been no serious delay up to the present time. I can assure my hon. friend that the completion of this road will not be delayed one moment by reason of any shortage of rails; during the recess rails wild be provided in such a way as to complete the work as speedily as possible. My hon. friend says that the rails are too light.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They are secondhand rails.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, they are taken from parts of the Intercolonial where they are not required and used on the branch line between Dartmouth and Dean.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is the weight of the rails ?


John Dowsley Reid: The average weight is 57 pounds; they run from 56 to 80 pounds.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Are there any 67-pound rails on this branch line ?

Mr. 1REID: Yes, the 67-pound rails are used; they run as high as 80 pounds on this branch. I submit that rails of the weight of 67 or 80 pounds are quite heavy enough for a branch line. I think it is much better to use upon branch lines rails that are not required upon other parts of the line than to place them on the main or through line. I can assure the hon. member that this road will be completed at the earliest possible moment. I understand that the only complaint of the hon. member is that rails are not being promptly supplied in sufficient quantities; if this is his only complaint, there is no reason why the road should not be completed at as early a date as possible.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I should like to impress upon the minister the desirability of urging completion of this road by the contractors at the earliest possible date. When it is in operation it will serve a very considerable section of Halifax county which is now isolated, and it will afford much convenience for a large number of the inhabitants of the district traversed by this line. If the department would display a little more energy in the way of urging completion of the road, I think it could be accomplished at an early date. I would like to ask the minister if at the present time any engineers are making a survey of the Intercolonial railway from Bedford, on the Bedford basin, which is an extension of Halifax harbour, towards Windson junction with a view of securing a better grade from Bedford basin to Windsor junction ?


John Dowsley Reid: With reference to the Dartmouth and Dean branch line, I can assure the hon. member that I will take this matter up to-morrow with the contractors and with the department and urge completion at the earliest possible moment. I have received no complaint from the contractor or from any other source, except as I have stated. In the matter of survey parties along the Intercolonial railway, the general manager of Government railways advised me that he had several parties working along the road with a view to having profiles made for the reducing of grades. The hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) asked me if a survey party was working in his section; the chief engineer advised me that they are running a line in Cape Britain in connection with the proposed changes in grades on the Intercolonial. I understood him to say also that a survey was being made between Windsor junction
and Bedford in respect of the proposed changes of grade along the Intercolonial in that particular section.


William F. Carroll: Are any surveys being made between Sydney and East Bay, towards St. Peters, off the line of the Intercolonial railway?


John Dowsley Reid: I wired Mr. Gutelius, the
chief engineer, asking him about that and in reply he says that our engineers are running survey lines in Cape Breton in connection with proposed grade revision.


Mr. KYTE:: That answer is not to the point because surveys between St. Peters ard Sydney cannot possibly be in connection with grades on the Intercolonial railway unless it is in contemplation to acquire the Cape Breton railway and extend it to Sydney so as to have -a second line on which they can possibly secure better grades.


John Dowsley Reid: In making a revision of
grades between Mulgrave and Sydney an alternative route might have to be adopted.


George William Kyte: Is this survey being made by Government engineers?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, it is an Intercolonial survey party, in connection with the proposed grade revision.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The minister has informed me, in answer to a question, that a survey party is now endeavouring to relocate the line between Bedford and Windsor Junction for the purpose, I presume, of securing better grades. A very heavy and objectionable grade is found on the Intercolonial railway from Bedford to Windsor Junction. In order to secure this lower grade on the present line of the Intercolonial railway between Bedford and Windsor Junction, I presume the line will have to be lengthened. This brings to my mind a matter which I desire to bring to the attention of the Minister of Railways and which has been frequently suggested in Halifax, particularly by one of its citizens who has given a very careful and considerable study to the matter of railway terminals in that city and vicinity, Mr. Clarence Lon-gard. Mr. Longard, in the press and otherwise, has frequently made the suggestion that in order to secure the shortest line possible to the city of Halifax on the Intercolonial system, and at the same time secure the most favourable gradients ami curvatures, it was desirable to construct a diversion from a point called Wellington on the Intercolonial railway into Dartmouth and, in continuation of this suggestion and as a

part of his project, the construction of a bridge across Halifax harbour from Dartmouth to Halifax, then dealing in some one way, of many suggested, with the question of terminal facilities at Halifax. While this matter has been called to the attention of the Government, I do not think it has received any consideration whatever. I think the suggestion is a very commendable one indeed, and has very considerable merit. It meets with public favour. It is possible to shorten very considerably the mileage of the Intercolonial railway to and from the port of Halifax by constructing the diversion suggested by Mr. Longard. Not only would it shorten the mileage but it would afford very favourable gradients and curvature which is very desirable, because both gradients and curvatures on the Intercolonial railway between Windsor Junction and Halifax are extremely adverse, and I think this is the judgment of all railway men. Apparently it is now proposed to try and secure a better grade, but by lengthening the line. Does the Government favour this idea? Is it the policy of the Government? I think it is possible to shorten the line, and improve the grade at the same time, by constructing the diversion I have just mentioned. From the standpoint of the interests of the port of Halifax it is not desirable to lengthen the Intercolonial. This is easily avoided. I do want to press on the minister the desirability of a careful investigation of Mr. Longard's scheme. The same suggestion was made many years ago by a railway engineer then in the employ of the Government of Canada. The completion of the Halifax and Eastern railway between Dartmouth and Dean's Settlement has created a new situation in respect to the Intercolonial railway on Halifax harbour which demands immediate and very careful attention.. The acting minister wjll perhaps recollect that the western termini of the Halifax and Eastern railway are at Dartmouth. The traffic originating on that line, either freight or passenger, will in most cases be destined for Halifax and therefore it is extremely important that this freight and) passenger traffic should have the easiest access possible to Halifax after reaching Dartmouth. When the Halifax and Eastern railway reaches Dartmouth it, of course, can use the Windsor and Dartmouth branch, trains may proceed from Dartmouth to Windsor Junction, a considerable number of miles, and then proceed to Halifax from Windsor Junction. .


John Dowsley Reid: How many miles is it from Dartmouth to Halifax?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would say
twenty-four or twenty-five miles and it is altogether out of the question to expect passengers to travel that distance in order to get from Dartmouth to Halifax. Of course there is the ferry service between Dartmouth and Halifax, but this hardly affords the requisite facilities. Therefore, I urge upon the Government that preparations be commenced for the construction of a bridge between Dartmouth and Halifax which would enable the Halifax and Eastern Railway trains to reach Halifax over this bridge, and it would also afford opportunity for vehicular and pedestrian travel. The present Minister of Railways promised *me that during 1912 surveys would be made in connection with my suggestion in referring to a railway bridge across Halifax harbour. However, nothing has been done. I do submit that matters have now reached that stage, by reason of the practical completion of the Halifax and Eastern into Dartmouth, that a bridge should be constructed and I want to urge on the minister the urgency and necessity of the early construction of the bridge. Its construction would of course, be a necessity in the event of the adoption of the diversion from Wellington to Halifax via Dartmouth which I have already referred to. The Minister of Public Works did Halifax the honour of a visit last year. He went down there for the purpose of soothing the wounded feelings of the citizens of Halifax at the time the steamers of the Royal Line had been induced by Government influence to move from Halifax to St. John. It was almost necessary for the Minister of Public Works to be in a position to promise the people of Halifax something, so he promised them the early construction of this bridge, a dry-dock and some other things. I have not observed, however, any inclination on the part of the Minister of Public Works to implement the promises he made during that visit, but I want to urge upon him on this occasion in the strongest possible way the necessity for the construction of a railway bridge from Dartmouth to Halifax.
Nearly two years ago, the Minister of Railways announced, in person at Halifax, and with much acclaim, that the Government was about to undertake the construction of additional railway terminals at the port of Halifax. I suppose it was the Gov-

ernment's intention to provide for the port of Halifax the most modern and efficient terminal facilities possible, in order to make it a successful national port for Canadian traffic. I assume it was not the desire of the Government to lengthen the route of the Intercolonial or do anything which would militate against the port as a competitor for export traffic. In connection with the Halifax terminals now under construction, I long ago took the position that before that work was commenced the plans or the general scheme should have been submitted to the best terminal experts available in the world, or at least to men who were experienced as railway terminal engineers; I still incline to that opinion. As time goes on I believe that opposition will steadily grow in Halifax not to the idea }f providing that port with more efficient terminal facilities, but against the method or scheme now proposed for giving the port this terminal accommodation. Under the present scheme the Intercolonial is lengthened very considerably. A railway station is being built at the extreme south end of the city and I cannot help saying- and I think it is the judgment of every citizen of Halifax-that this station is to be very inconveniently located indeed. Much valuable property has been destroyed, and in other respects, which I cannot specifically discuss to-night, irreparable injury done the city. Altogether, I say that the whole project did not receive sufficiently serious consideration from the Government before embarking upon it. I do not think it is yet too late to reflect and reconsider. It is not too late to abandon the present scheme if a better one can be suggested. Many competent persons say this is possible. The whole scheme should have been considered much ,moir>e carefully, and in a broader aspect as well. For instance, I think the construction of a bridge across Halifax .harbour should have been a part of that project. I also think that the relocation and reconstruction of parts of the Intercolonial should have been considered as part of the scheme fbr giving Halifax improved port terminal accommodation. Had these two matters, and there are others doubtless, been taken into consideration when the matter of these terminals was being projected, an altogether different scheme might have been evolved. One much more suitable and convenient in every respect. Even if it were necessary to have terminal facilities at the south end
of the city, where they are now being constructed, and which at least is doubtful, it is quite possible that access by tunnel or otherwise might have been had to that part of the city in another way from that now being employed. Under the present scheme a great deal of valuable property has been taken, and in many other respects, which I do not intend to enlarge upon, the city is being very considerably injured, and I doubt if time will prove the wisdom of the selection of the site for the proposed terminals. Public opinion in Halifax has changed very much. I do not think it is favourable to the present location. I submit the whole matter should be reconsidered and we should have the Government's promise to that effect. If the Government had exercised a little more business acumen in selecting the site for the terminals, and had given less consideration to the political effects, probably things would not be quite just as they are to-day. I trust I have made myself clear to the acting Minister of Railways. First, I desire to impress upon him the importance of a consideration of the relocation of the Intercolonial at points wherever necessary, in order to shorten the line and improve the grade; secondly, the construction of a bridge across Halifax harbour; and lastly a reconsideration of the terminal scheme at Halifax. I should like to hear from the minister upon these points. Will he indicate the Government's views on these matters? I trust the minister will take these matters into his serious consideration at the very earliest opportunity. I am sorry that the short time available to me this evening prevents my discussion of these several matters in a more comprehensive manner.


John Dowsley Reid: We have a survey party
between Windsor Junction and Bedford, for the purpose of ascertaining the best way of reducing the grades. They will find out whether that can best be done by reducing the present grades or by an alternative route. The	hon.	member has	advocated	thebuilding of a bridge across the Narrows. When I was in Halifax	some	time	agoI remember that when I asked about certain old wooden piers in the harbour there, I was	told	that there	had	been	abridge across the Narrows. I agree with	the	hon. member	that	a bridge
would be a good thing and more particularly now that the Dartmouth and Deans branch railway is being built. But the Government have undertaken a large number of works

at Halifax; they are spending a great deal of money on these works and in addition there is the amount being expended on the Dartmouth and Deans branch. It is impossible to do everything in one year. As soon as the road is completed, or is nearing completion, this matter should be taken up. The hon. gentleman says it is twenty-four miles from Dartmouth to Halifax around by the railway. That must entail great expense in the carriage of freight as compared with what it would cost, if by the construction of a bridge across the harbour, it was cut down to probably a mile. I must take issue with the hon. member in so far as the plans of Halifax harbour are concerned. The hon. gentleman does not agree with the plans and layout but these matters are left to men who have had large experience in this kind of work. It is not to be expected that even the Minister of Railways and Canals., or my hon. friend who has not had experience, would be qualified to come to the best conclusion as to the layout and work necessary to make Halifax one of the finest harbours in the world.


John Howard Sinclair: How much does the minister propose to spend on the terminals at Halifax?


John Dowsley Reid: It is difficult to say for the reason that the terminals at Halifax will be proceeded with as they are required.


John Howard Sinclair: The plans are completed, I understand, and the contracts let.


John Dowsley Reid: The plans are completed and I have a photograph here showing what the works will look like when they are finished. The whole plan provides for several new berths for steamers and at the present time there is a contract for about 2,000 feet of piers and two berths. That work is under contract and when it is completed no doubt the work will be extended from time to time as further accommodation is required.


John Howard Sinclair: Has the minister no
figures to show how much he proposes to spend upon improvements at that port?


John Dowsley Reid: I have the figures of the contracts we have let.


John Howard Sinclair: How much do they
amount to?


John Dowsley Reid: The total amount of the contracts let will be $6,500,000.


John Howard Sinclair: Does that cover the whole of the proposed expenditure?


John Dowsley Reid: The station is not included in that.


William Pugsley: There must be an estimate of the whole layout.


John Dowsley Reid: I have no. estimate of the
whole layout or of what may be required in,years to come. I have an estimate of the works that are let.


William Pugsley: In the department over which I had the honour formerly to preside, when any particular layout was designed and the plans prepared, just as in the case of Halifax harbour, there was always an estimate of the engineers showing what would be the total outlay. My hon. friend must have that information in his department.


John Dowsley Reid: Take Montreal harbour, for
example. We all know that there are so many berths or piers laid out and that an estimate is made for a series of piers. At Halifax an estimate has been made of the works that we have under contract and that is all that will be required for some little time. When we get that work completed we can provide for another series of berths if required.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend from
New Glasgow (Mr. Sinclair) asked what was the estimated cost of the total layout. The Montreal Harbour Commissioners have plans prepared and although the work may extend over a number of years, and they do not propose to let contracts in the meantime, they still have an estimate of the total cost.


John Dowsley Reid: We have an estimate of the work we proposed to do at the present time.


William Pugsley: Have you not made an estimate of the other?


John Dowsley Reid: No, that is all that is required and, as I stated, the total estimated cost is $6,500,000. When that work is completed, or nearly completed, if we wish to extend it, we will have another estimate made and new contracts called for.


John Howard Sinclair: How many ships can
;ou accommodate with the work you are proposing now?


John Dowsley Reid: We have six slips provided
for in the contract that is now let.


John Howard Sinclair: You have berths with
sufficient accommodation for six steamers?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, six piers.


John Howard Sinclair: Whai is the length of
the piers?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 1,200 feet.


John Howard Sinclair: That would give accommodation for four times as many vessels.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, and if required the
work will be extended.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the estimate include the breakwater?


John Dowsley Reid: Neither the breakwater nor the station is included in this estimate of $6,500,000.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the department
not intend to construct a breakwater?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, but it is not in the
present contract. We have not let a contract for the breakwater or the station.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Might I have
some intimation from the minister that he will direct that a survey he made of this relocation I suggest between Wellington station. and Dartmouth during the present season?


John Dowsley Reid: All right.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: When you are
equipping a port in a modern fashion for national ia.s well as local purposes, it is desirable to have the line of railway as short as possible and with the most favourable gradients and curvatures. Will the minister also inform me if it is the intention of the Government to construct a railway station in the north end of the city of Halifax or if it is their intention to allow the present station to remain for certain purposes or whether they are to remove that and have a new station at the south end of the city alone where the terminals are being located?


John Dowsley Reid: I agree with the hon. member that the line of railway between Wellington and Halifax should be as short as possible, and I will certainly give instructions that a survey be made during the present year between Dartmouth and Wellington for the purpose of having any changes made that are necessary in order to shorten the railway and to improve the gradients and curvatures.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: After having made that survey and after having taken into consideration the construction of the bridge, the Railway Department might find that they can provide terminal facilities without the carrying out of the terminal project in the way they now propose doing. While it might be considered desirable to
construct piers at the south end of the city, where they are now about to be constructed, the piers might be approached in a different way altogether without the amount of injury being done to the city and private property that will be done if the present project is carried out in its entirety. What about the railway station?


John Dowsley Reid: I agree with the hon. member. In order, however, that the suggestion of the hon. member may be taken into consideration, I shall to-morrow forward a letter to those in charge of the terminals and the general manager of the road in order that they may give consideration to the suggestions of the hon. member with reference to that survey.
With reference to the stations, that matter has not, so far as I am aware, been considered. The contract has been let for the main terminals, but nothing further has been decided upon by the Railway Department or the general manager. That matter will be considered at a later date.


John Howard Sinclair: Some time ago I asked the minister the following question with reference to the Dartmouth to Dean Settlement branch that is being constructed:
If the said original contract has been sublet, what are the names of the sub-contractors and the mileage allotted to each, and the amounts payable to said sub-contractors under the contracts sublet to them, as aforesaid?
The answer was:
The original contract has not been sublet.
Every one in Nova Scotia knows that not only was it sublet, but it was sublet two or three times. It was sublet first to an Italian firm by the name of Cavicci and Pagani, who sublet it again to a number of other contractors. I was surprised to get this answer from the Minister of Railways, and it shakes my faith in the accuracy of his information as to what is going on in his department. I thought this a suitable time, when we are dealing with the question of Halifax, to ask my hon. friend whether he has any more information than he had when he answered this question about a month ago. He certainly was misinformed when he said that the original contract to Mr. M. P. Davis had not been sublet.


John Dowsley Reid: There is a clause in these contracts that the contractor has not the right to sublet without the consent of the minister. No application has been made to the Railway Department by the contractor for

its consent to his subletting the contract, and we have no knowledge of this contract being sublet to the firm mentioned or to any one else. The estimates come in from the engineer in charge of the work every month in the name of the contractor Davis. We send a cheque to Davis; and there is nothing in any way, shape or form on record in the department to show that these men are sub-contractors of Davis. Davis may be employing the men to do the work for him, not as sub-contractors-


John Howard Sinclair: They are sub-contractors.


John Dowsley Reid: They may be; but Davis may have such an arrangement that they are not really considered as sub-contractors and therefore it may not have been necessary to make application for the acceptance of them as such.


Mr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM:: The minister knows that the work is not being done by Davis or directly tinder his control?


John Dowsley Reid: I think the hon. member will agree that, unless an application has been made to the department or some information given to it, that they are sub-contractors, and as long as the work is proceeded with, we cannot consider-


William Chisholm: The firm of M. P.
Davis have never been in charge down there at all.


John Dowsley Reid: They might not be on the
work, but they can hire a foreman to do the work.


John Howard Sinclair: If my hon. friend will
look into the matter, he will find they have turned the contract over to the subcontractors and have kept a ten per cent rake-off themselves, just as has been done in other cases.


William Findlay Maclean: Has the minister made any rearrangement of the suburban railway service between Halifax and Windsor junction? He will remember this was a matter of much discussion at Halifax during last winter, and I referred to the matter myself one day during this session. The service at present in force is very unsatisfactory. I was advised by the minister on one occasion that some time in the spring or early summer a new time-table would be issued. Is it likely to be issued soon?


John Dowsley Reid: The general manager was
here about a week ago; and I made inquiry of him as to the suburban service both at

St. John and at Halifax, because there was some complaint last winter with reference to both places. He assured me that there were no complaints; that everything was apparently satisfactory. At all events I have not received any complaints. since last February. I do not know whether the hon. member has heard of any of late or not. In so far as the suburban services at Halifax and St. John are concerned, they must be in a fair state, because no comp'aints are being made to the department at the present time.


William Findlay Maclean: I do not suppose the
people can go on complaining forever. To be frank, I must admit that, within the past few days, I have not heard of any complaints msyselli|, nor have any been conveyed to me, nor have I seen any made in the public press; but I can safely say that the suburban service given during all last winter was very unsatisfactory, and there was no goo-d reason for discontinuing the former service which had been in force for a great number of years.


John Dowsley Reid: I think the summer timetable is now effective, and that everything is perfectly satisfactory.


William Findlay Maclean: Have you fixed up the St. John suburban service satisfactorily?


John Dowsley Reid: I think that was fixed up in February.


William Pugsley: The people are worn out with making complaints.


John Dowsley Reid: I think the hon. member is not fair in making that statement because, when I was at St. John last February, I met a deputation who were all agreed at that time that the service was perfectly satisfactory with the arrangement I then made with them.


William Pugsley: 'All agreed.' That is
a few Conservative workers.


John Dowsley Reid: At that meeting a subcommittee was appointed to meet me and discuss the matter, and the hon. member will know if he read the papers at the time that that committee was composed of about half Liberals and half Conservatives. We arranged a time-table that was perfectly satisfactory. The Liberals of the city themselves wired to Mr. Hazen that they were perfectly satisfied with the arrangements made at the time. From the information I have had since, I am led to believe that there is not the slightest complaint about the suburban service at St. John.


William Pugsley: I hope it is entirely
satisfactory. Of course, there is a great difference between the service in summer and in winter. It is the winter service they were complaining of more particularly. I may say that the people generally were well pleased at the reception that the minister gave them-they were delighted with his affability, and he promised to remove the difficulties and they were in hopes that great improvement would be made. I heard that the suburban cars were old cars, frequently heated with coal-stoves and lighted with old-fashioned oil lamps, giving a wretched service, and such accommodation as we used to have on the Intercolonial thirty or forty years ago. The people could not imagine that they could be so treated. Why was it that this suburban service had been satisfactory for so many years under Mr. Blair, Mr. Emmerson and Mr. Graham, and that this dissatisfaction occurred so recently? Prior to freight trains coming into Hampton there was no dissatisfaction with the suburban trains.


John Dowsley Reid: I arranged a service, and abandoned the idea of the use of passenger cars on the freight train. After that, as I understood, the complaints ceased. The same cars were used that had been running for a number of years, in fact, the same cars that were run when the hon. member (Mr. Pugsley) was a minister of the Crown, and he did not complain then about the cars not being up to proper standard.


William Pugsley: I heard from many quarters that inferior cars were placed on the service, cars lighted with oil lamps and heated with coal stoves.


John Dowsley Reid: Of course, I am not going to dispute the statement of the hon. member; I suppose he says what he is told, but I was informed that the facts were as i state. At all events, I understood that the arrangements that were made are perfectly satisfactory so far as the service was concerned.


William Pugsley: So far as promises are concerned, but not the performance.


John Dowsley Reid: I remember they said that
the service that was arranged would be perfectly satisfactory. I met some of these gentlemen, both Liberals and Conservatives, and asked them if any trouble had been experienced in connection with that Service. I can assure my hon. friend that they told me that there had been no complaints with regard to the service other than that which had been made in respect to the cars. I am doing what I can to arrange to have better cars both at St. John and at Halifax in connection with that service.


William Pugsley: Then we shall look forward to having better cars, at any rate.


Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: The press of Nova Scotia published a report some time ago that the hon. minister had promised to survey a railway route from Orangedale to Cheti-eamp the present summer, with a view to constructing a road forthwith between those two points. Has the hon. minister, any information with respect to that?


John Dowsley Reid: The Minister of Railways
never promised that.


William Chisholm: The acting Minister
of Railways.


John Dowsley Reid: I never made that promise.


William Chisholm: On March 16 the hon. member for North Cape Breton moved :a resolution in this House with regard to Intercolonial branch lines. At that time I desired to make a few remarks, but I could not do so on account of my failure to secure a copy of a report for which I moved over a year ago, during the last session. At that time, on March 16 the Minister of Railways suggested to me that I would have an opportunity of discussing this question when his Estimates were under consideration and for a few moments I desire to discuss the proposed line of railway from Orangedale to Cheticamp in the county of Inverness. I would have much preferred making these observations earlier in the session and would have done so were it not for the refusal of the hon. Minister of Railways to place on the table of the House the report which I have referred to.
Since I first had the honour of a seat in this House I have taken every opportunity to place before the Minister of Railways and the Government the importance of the construction of this line from the standpoint of a traffic gatherer for the Intercolonial railway, and the development of the natural wealth of the country through which it passes. In 1911 the late Ministry assured me that if my statements were borne out by the report of accredited engineers, they would undertake the construction of this road in 1912. It may be supposed that, on account of this occurring very close to the date of an election, the assurance then made by the Ministry was

a pre-election promise, but I may say that at that time an election was not anticipated. The -Government had no intention of going to the country untii late in 1912. Besides, the history of railway promises in Inverness county for twenty years previous to 1897 was such that repeating similar promises in 1912 would not be calculated to be .received very favourably by the people of that county. My knowledge of these facts convinced me that it would not be the part of good judgment for me even to publicly refer during the campaign of 1911 to the assurances I got from my party that the construction of this road would be undertaken in 1912, and I absolutely avoided ever referring to the subject publicly during that campaign. I refer to this matter particularly at the present time, because if the present Government fail to construct this road I hope to keep the promise fresh in the minds of the Liberal party, members of which assured me that construction of this road would be undertaken, and that this promise will be redeemed when they come into power which, according to all indications, will not be in the distant future.
I am going to attempt to convince you, Mr. Chairman, 'and the acting Minister of Railways that the proposed line of railway from Orangedaie to Chetieamp is one of the most promising and really meritorious proposed branch lines of the Intercolonial [DOT]that has 'ever been discussed in this House, .both as a supplier of traffic to the Intercolonial railway and as a means for industrial development.
I wish first to refer to the many prospective sources of traffic along this route. I think I can say in a general way that that section of the country from Orangedaie to Chetieamp is one of the most wealthy of its size in eastern Canada.
Tlie country abounds in valuable minerals, lumber. The coast waters teem with first-class commercial fish, and, the agricultural possibilities of the country from Orangedaie to Chetieamp are enormous. I shall first refer briefly to some of the mineral deposits to be found along the line and at close proximity to it the development of which would be assured by the construction of this line.
At a distance of about six miles from Orangedaie, the southern terminus of the proposed line, there are very large deposits of silica. This silica has been developed only recently; a company has been incorporated for the purpose of manufacturing it into its commercial products. This com-

pany applied to the Legislature of Nova Scotia recently for a charter to construct a railway from their properties to the Intercolonial railway. The line follows the route of the proposed branch line from Orange-dale to Chetieamp, and if the Government undertakes the construction of this road, the necessity of the company's building this branch railroad from their property to Orangedaie will be removed and their goods would be carried over the proposed Orange-dale-Oieticamp line. The manufacture of silica into its various commercial products by this company would contribute very largely to traffic upon the Intercolonial railway. Some three miles farther north, very valuable deposits of dolomite have been discovered. That enterprising concern, the Dominion Iron -and Steel Company, made a thorough examination of these deposits, and as a result they have purchased the property. In order to obtain accurate information on the subject I wrote to one of the leading officials of that company and received a reply, of which the following is a part :
As the properties mentioned above, however, are only get-at-able by water for shipping purposes and as there is always a demand for stone fresh from the quarry during the Winter season, I have no doubt but a railway would develop a business of from 250 to 500 tons a day over this line.
The winter season, therefore, is the time when the traffic would be the greatest. The Dominion Iron and Steel Company get their dolomite from Newfoundland and Marble Mountain in the county of Inverness, and they can get it only during the summer months, during open navigation. This mine at Whycocomagh, which is on the proposed line, could be operated in the winter time, and that is the season during which the Dominion Iron and Steel Company -are unable to get their dolomite from the other two sources to which I have referred. I anticipate that with the growth and development of this property, not 500 tons but 5,000 tons a day would be carried over this route. The property has been subjected to a very careful examination and the quality of the mineral has been found to be first-class.


John Dowsley Reid: 5,000 tons of what would be
carried?


William Chisholm: bours. The harbours we have are all what we call bar harbours. There is not a harbour from Port Hood to Cheticamp from which coal could be shipped, and that is why these deposits have not been developed. Some ten years ago some English capitalists sent out an engineer to Ste. Rose for the purpose of examining the property. After a short time he succeeded in locating three seams of first-class coal, one five feet, another six feet, and another eight feet. The physical conditions here are all that could be desired for the successful operating of these mines. The mine has been opened up and now supplies the surrounding country with coal. It is estimated that 40,000,000 tons of coal are located in these three seams at Ste. Rose. There are other seams deeper down, but as yet they have not been as accurately located and their thickness estimated as these three seams. At a short distance north are to be found the Chimney Corner deposits, which were opened up and developed in the yeaT 1869. A pier was built there, and a quantity of coal shipped out during one year, but on account of the transportation difficulties the undertaking had to be abandoned. The money invested was of course lost, and that gave a black eye to coal operations in that part of the county. Mr. Tessier estimates that an output of 600,000 tons a year of coal could be depended upon from these areas. (He gathers his data from the information he received from the mines at Inverness, which I referred to here a few days ago. I desire to read just one short paragraph of Mr. Tessier's report with respect to these deposits:
I have not the least doubt in my mind that the output of the Ste. Rose and Chimney Corner mines combined would double the output of the Inverness Railway and Coal Company mines, say about 600,000 tons annually giving employment to 1,000 men. It would also be reasonable to anticipate an increase of population of over 5,000 in connection with the work of these mines.
It will be seen from this that these coal deposits are most valuable. In the Canadian Northern debate the other day, I expressed my disappointment that the Mackenzie andMann properties at Inverness w-re not included in the securities given to the Government. I said at that time that there were most valuable properties here and I expressed the opinion that Mackenzie and Mann would have carried out their contract with the municipality of Inverness, and would have extended their road to 307J
Cheticamp, were it not- that they were anxious to get hold of the coal deposits at Ste. Rose and Chimney Comer. I still adhere to that opinion. I am firmly of that opinion. They are only human, and I am all the more convinced of that by the information that I gathered from the various speeches delivered on both sides of this House during the discussion on the Canadian Northern Railway resolutions. They are after the coal deposits of Inverness county and when they .have secured this at their own figures they no doubt will extend their road to their own property and not until then.
We come now to other important mineral deposits. You may be amazed to know that such a quantity of valuable mineral can be found in the county of Inverness and that these minerals are still undeveloped. I charge against Mackenzie and Mann the fact that these mineral properties have not been developed. I am convinced that as far as developing the resources of the county of Inverness are concerned the greatest curse that ever befel the county was the entrance therein of Mackenzie and Mann. I will admit that they have developed their own coal property, and that that has been a great blessing to the county of Inverness, but that is only a drop in the bucket as compared with the industrial development that would result in the opening up of our various mineral deposits throughout the county. If that line through the county of Inverness had been owned by the Government, or by any unselfish corporation, the road would have been extended to Cheticamp long ago and the properties that I have referred to would have been developed. In that sense I say that the advent of Mackenzie and Mann has been a curse to the county of Inverness.
I now desire to refer to the gypsum properties in Inverness. Gypsum is regarded by many people ae a low priced mineral, which is difficult to be economically handled except under the most favourable condition for mining and transportation, but the gypsum industry in that part of Nova Scotia is destined to become a very important one. In the county of Inverness, through the energy and business acumen of the late Rev. Father Fiset, of Cheticamp, a very valuable plant has been erected there and gypsum is being manufactured. The value of the manufactured product ranges from $7 to $12 a ton. It will be seen from this that the gypsum industry in North Inver-

ness is destined to assume very great proportions the moment we have proper transportation facilities. While this mineral as found in nature is low priced it becomes valuable in manufactured form, and is in great demand-the market of which is daily on the increase. The Great Northern Mining Company have operated their plant for the last few years. A delegation from that concern waited upon the Government in 1912. They expressed their readiness to enter into a contract with the Government to supply this proposed railway with a certain number of cars of manufactured gypsum a day at a fixed price which appears to me at least to be a very paying rate. I refer to that to show the great necessity for transportation facilities in so far as this article is concerned. I desire to read a communication which was sent to the Government by the manager of the Great Northern Mining Company and which is as follows:
Ottawa, 30th January, 1912. Honourable Prank Cochrane,
Minister of Railways and Canals,
Ottawa, Can.
Honourable Sir,
Complying with your request made on the occasion of our interview of the 26th instant regard ng the building of a branch line of the Intercolonial railway from Orangedale to Cheticamp, we beg to submit the following as an inducement to procure the building of said line:
(1)	We shall give the railway the importation of all our supplies (bags, barrels, hair, retarder, coal, oil, machinery, etc.), and we shall export by said railway from six to seven carloads of manufactured gypsum every day for the Montreal and Quebec markets; and as our trade shall increase we shall also ship a considerable amount to the intermediate towns on the line.
(2)	We are also willing to enter into an agreement with the Government to pay $3.75 per ton from Cheticamp to Montreal for every ton of manufactured gypsum, our company will ship over the road within the period of five years. This rate includes the established charge of three dollars from Mulgrave to Montreal and seventy-five cents from Cheticamp to Mulgrave, which latter rate, if reckoned for the whole distance to Montreal, would amount to the enormous freight rate of over $8 per ton. But in order that this offer will be binding on ourselves, we desire the Government to take immediate action and at least to grant sufficient money to insure a survey of said line next season.
Your Government will readily understand that, in order to bond ourselves to this generous offer we must have a reasonable assurance of the time the Government proposes to have said line completed so that we may not be embarrassed in making our exportation contracts in the meantime.
Great Northern Mining and Railway Co.,
Limited, Hubert Aucoin.
Managing Director.
This will show you the importance to this concern of the construction of the road. This is only one of half a dozen similar concerns which would start operations in this part of the country if they only had means of transportation. They have an unlimited market for 'their product in the cities of Canada. The unfortunate part is that they cannot hope to do any large amount of business while they have their present means of transportation. They are greatly discouraged and you can hardly blame them. By this communication you will see that the Great Northern Mining Company are willing to supply this proposed line with six or seven cars of manufactured gypsum a day, and that is only one-sixth of the amount of gypsum freight that would be carried over this line. The gypsum found in the county of Inverness has been subjected to a very exacting examination and analysis and it has been pronounced the best quality of any gypsum found in Canada. As a result the product, when manufactured, secures good prices, such as assure the manufacture in increasing quantities.
I now desire to refer to another important industry and that is the fishing industry. We have located off the county of Inverness the most valuable fishing grounds perhaps in eastern Canada. Off of the county of Inverness the fleets of the United States and of western Nova Scotia secure a large portion of their catch every year. Since the very first settlement of the county of Inverness the fishing industry has been one of the' very greatest importance. It has been carried on successfully until recent years. I might point out that one hundred and thirty years ago a firm from the Channel islands came over to Cheticamp, erected a fishing establishment there and they have continued doing a splendid business and are found there to-day, one of the most prosperous concerns of this kind in Nova Scotia.
I refer to that as an indication of the value of the fishing industry in that part of the country. I am sorry to say that in recent years, on account of the fresh fish market having secured the greater portion of our fish, in consequence of the better prices paid in those markets, and in consequence of relieving the fishermen of a great deal of the work they had to do and the expense they had to incur in their old method of curing fish, the people of North Inverness have been discouraged because they have not been able to place the products of their labour on the fresh fish market. We are eighty miles away from the nearest Intercolonial railway station, and it would be

markets; this would give a market at home for the products of our. farms, and would give such a stimulus to the agricultural industry in that portion of the country as the farmers there have never engaged in. Without a railway, there is only one thing, in my judgment, that will happen, namely that the country will rapidly become depopulated. In fact, our young .men are leaving it every day. They cannot remain there, because they cannot carry on the farming industry under present conditions of labour and make it pay. Our farmers must meet the increased cost of production and at the same time are not permitted to enjoy the conveniences enjoyed by the farmers in other parts of the country more favourably circumstanced with respect to markets and transportation conveniences.
This line also runs through a lumber region, hard and soft lumber being found in large quantities. This portion of the country has never been exploited so far as lumber is concerned, although there are large quantities of very valuable lumber such as pit timber, which finds a very ready market close at home in the mines of Sydney and Inverness. Very fine qualities of hard wood are found all along this proposed route at varied distances from the line, which would find ready market. With a railway this valuable property could be placed upon the markets, and the country would become more wealthy as a result. This lumber is absolutely valueless to-day for lack of transportation.
I desire briefly to refer to the prospective tourist trade of the proposed Orangedale-Cheticamp branch line. This trade has increased to an almost startling degree in many countries of recent years. An article published in the American Review of Reviews in 1907 places the annual income of France from this traffic at $500,000,000, and of Italy -at $100,000,000. The same article places the expenditure of the American tourist in England at $25,000,000 a year. During the past five years, this trade has greatly increased, so that the above figures are much lower than the -amounts now spent. Other statistics show that Switzerland's annual income from tourists amounts to $150,000,000. According to the United States statistics, the state of Florida gets a larger revenue from this trade than fro-m the products of the soil; an-d tourists spend $7,000,000 each year in the Adirondacks, and at least $40,000,000 in the pine woods of the state of M-aine. The President of the
[Mr. A- W. Chisholm.'
American Civic Federation, in a speech in September last, estimated that the American spent abroad in 1910 the startling amount of $350,000,000.
I think it is conceded that Canada is endowed by nature with more natural attractions for the tourist than any other country on the g-l-obe. I fear though that enough is not being done by this -country to develop this trade. I have always felt that the Government of this country have neglected their opportunities in this respect, particularly .in so far as the Maritime provinces -are concerned. Any enterprising railw-ay concern owning and operating the Intercolonial railway would, I am convinced, regard it as their first duty, from a business standpoint, to fully advertise the many tourist attractions to be found in the country through which this road passes, would build up-to-date hotels, thoroughly protect our fresh water fisheries and game, of which we have abundance, and in every possible way promote and encourage tourist traffic.
I feel I am correct when I -say that this railway line from Whycocomagh to Cheti-camp passes through a country with greater attractions than any other part of *eastern Canada of its size. For boating *and bathing Whycocomagh c-annot be surpassed. The angler can satisfy his desires *to his heart's content, not in one but in a *half dozen streams flowing into Whycoco-*magh bay and lake Ainslie. Trout Brook, I venture to say, has not its equal in the *Maritime provinces as a trout angling stream. The Margaree river is long known *as the best salmon angling river in Nova Sootia. The Margaree and Trout Ibrook *attracts many tourists every year, but on account of their distance from the nearest Tailw.ay, only a small number visit these waters now, as compared with the many who would take advantage of the great angling here afforded, if they could get to *and from here by rail. Little river in Cheticamp is another beautiful fresh water *river, where salmon abounds, and where 'angling is most successfully carried on. 'The scenery all along this route is unsurpassed for beauty and grandeur. In fact, the only thing required to bring thousands *of summer tourists to Inverness county is railway conveniences, and there is no reason why we could not capture our share of this ever-increasing traffic possessing as we do so many tourist attractions unsurpassed by any other country in *the world.

I have great faith in the extent of the tourist trade which can be developed in this portion of the country. I wish the acting Minister of Railways could find time to drive along this route from Orangedale to Oheticamp and through the beautiful country of Whycocoimagh, Lake Ainslie and the Margarees. I am sure he would say that the possibilities of the tourist traffic there are almost unlimited and would he moved to immediate activity in an effort to give the tourist of the world an insight into the many and varied attractions which are found all along this proposed route.
Another important matter which I desire to .bring to the notice of the House is that Cheticamp is within forty miles of a very populous portion of the province of Quebec, the Magdalen islands. The Magdalen islands are now served by a steamer running from Pictou, a distance of 130 miles. I have the assurance of mariners that the waters are open much later in the fall of the year between Cheticamp and the Magdalen islands than between Pictou and the Magdalen islands. If this line of railway were constructed, a daily mail could be given to the people of the Magdalen islands and a much more satisfactory connection with the rest of the world. The people of that portion of Quebec are as much interested in the construction of the line from Orangedale to Cheticamp as are the people of Inverness county. I am sure that if the hon. member for Gaepe (Mr. GauthieT) were here this evening he would give me his hearty support. These islands have a population of over 7,000 all of whom are most interested in being brought into closer connection with the main land. This Government and the Government of Nova Scotia are paying $15,000 a year in steamship subsides to steamers plying along the coast of Inverness, this being the means of travel and transportation enjoyed at present by the inhabitants of the northern portion of the county. There would be absolutely no necessity for this expenditure if this line were constructed. This may appear a small matter; but if you capitalize this amount, which is paid out every year, it is worth $375,000, which amount would go a long way in the construction of this road. All these facts contribute to one end, and that is the justification for the construction of this portion of the road. I have endeavoured to point out the probable traffic " that could be
gathered by this line of road. I think that hon. members who have listened to me will adlmit that, while I am not making any effort at rhetoric, at least I give every indication of being fair in my representation of this case. The hon. gentlemen who have listened to me must be astounded that all this wealth has been left undeveloped up to this time, but I have given you the reason why, in my judgment, this is the case and that is that the pioneer railway builders in the county, Mackenzie & Mann have since their advent into the county acted the dog in the manger, and did not hesitate to sacrifice all other considerations, so far as Inverness is concerned, in their effort to get control of the mineral wealth of the county.
"Now I wish to say a word or two with regard to the probable cost of the construction of this road. The engineer, Mr. Tessier, to whom I referred, made a thorough survey, for the time at his disposal, of this line. An English concern made a survey of the line some years ago. I believe the plans are to be found in the Department of Railways. That concern cut away the forest on the right of way, and the result was that Mr. Tessier had every opportunity to form a judgment as to the cost of the road. He has taken into consideration all the facts, and has considered the cost of the construction of the Inverness to Point Tupper railway. He has come to the conclusion that the road could be constructed for $22,000 a mile. I have no hesitation in endorsing his estimates in that respect. I am convinced from my own knowledge, after spending fifteen years in practising my profession in this section of the country, that from Orangedale to Oheticamp no engineering difficulties would be encountered in the construction of the road. However, I am not an engineer and my opinion may not be worth much, but I have a great deal of respect for the opinion of Mr. Tessier, who has put a great deal ot energy and care into this work. Mr. Tessier in his report gives the following estimate of the cost of this proposed road per mile.
Right- of way	$ 1,300
Proportional expense of terminals	 500
Bridges and culverts	 1,600
Traek laid (65-lb. rails) ballast, etc	 6,000
Grading	 8,000
Fencing	 400
Telegraphs	 200
Water supply and	stations. ...	500
Engineering	 500

General and legal expenses .. $	500
Equipment, cars and locomotievs	 2,500

Total cost of proposed line, including 5 miles sidings, $575,000.
.It will be said, and I think I was told by the Minister of Railways, that the solution of the railway difficulties in the county of Inverness could be met by the construction of the Inverness railway northward. I do not agree that the extension of the Inverness railway to Cheticamp would be calculated to develop our resources. That road if extended north would serve the' coal mines, but the experience of the Port Hood coal mining company and the Mabou coal mining company with Mackenzie and Mann was not likely t<5 encourage capitalists to invest in the development of the coal mines at Ste. Rose and Chimney Corner. The Mabou and Port Hood mines have closed down. As far as the Mabou mine is concerned I think a great portion of the difficulty can be attributable to the fact that it was practically impossible to get any reasonable transportation agreement with Mackenzie and Mann. It was because of these difficulties that I was led to ask the Government to include this system in the schedule in order to bring it under the operation of the Railway Commission. If that had been done Mackenzie and Mann would have had to submit to the findings of that court. At present they can carry on their operations to suit themselves. I have said that I do not think that the solution of the railway difficulties of the county of Inverness will be found in the extension of the Inverness line north. The silica property, the barytes property, and the petroleum property would not be on that line. That large and prosperous section of country 'from Orangedale to 8. W. Margaree would not be served by the extension of the Inverness Railway north and could never hope to get railway conveniences if that road were extended north. The resources of that portion of the county could not be developed. Whereas the Orangedale-Cheti-camp road would serve the whole country from Orangedale to Cheticamp. The experience of the people of Inverness with the Inverness Railway and Coal Company has been such as to discourgage them. There is not the slightest hope from that railway company. The people realize that if the development of the country's resources depends on Mackenzie and

Mann's road, it will remain as at present until Mackenzie and Mann get hold of them all, as they ATe thying to do with the properties at Ste. Rose and Chimney Corner. I think I have submitted to the acting Minister of Railways sufficient information to justify his regarding this as one of the most important proposed branch lines in connection with the Intercolonial railway. I would suggest that he be not so ready to lose faith in the findings of his engineers as was the Minister of Railways. I regret that when I asked the Minister of Railways in the House last year what his opinion was of the report of Mr. Tessier, he told me that in his judgment the report was too rosy and would not be borne out by the facts. I am sure that if the hon. Minister of Railways were well acquainted with the facts he would not have made that assertion. The statements which I have made to-night are absolutely correct, and I submit should be ample to satisfy the most exacting of requirements of the hon. minister if he desires to mete out to the people of Inverness that measure of fair and just treatment which they will merit. If the minister desires to supplement the information which he now has, I would suggest to him that he send one or two engineers into the county of Inverness with instructions to look over the whole situation. I may point out to him though that the sending of engineers there before an election, was to the people of Inverness a veritable emetic, in view of the experience of that period before the Inverness railroad was constructed. Again, if he will go from Orangedale to Cheticamp, he will find the many sources of traffic to which I have referred. I believe that the Minister of Railways is a business man, and if he takes a business-like view of this situation; if he sends his engineers down there, and if he starts with the premises that the road will be constructed if the conditions justify such construction, I am satisfied that the road will be constructed without delay. Let me in closing assure the hon. minister that the people-of Inverness are grateful and if this Government will give our people the relief that the construction of the Orangedale-Cheticamp line would surely give, they will secure a warm spot in the memory of a grateful and warm hearted people.


John Dowsley Reid: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks made by the hon. member for Inverness, and I certainly feel that that part of the county should receive consideration at the earliest possible moment. I read the report made by the

engineer; I certainly felt that it was very rosy, and wondered why the Inverness Railway Company did not extend their road through that part of the county if the results would have been as suggested in the report and by my hon. friend. However, at this late hour all I can say is that that section of the country is the same in respect of which some other parties called upon me and urged the completion of this road. I think I stated that the chief engineer of the Intercolonial railway would look over the district during the coming season, and I shall urge upon the general manager that that be done.
As we sat until about four o'clock this morning, I would suggest that, if it is agreeable, we pass an item or two and adjourn. I will bring the Estimates on some time to-morrow, when any further discussion that is desired may take place.


William Chisholm: I wish to draw the attention of the acting minister to the fact that, when we are considering his Estimates again, I shall ask for some information with regard to the issue of passes. I understand that some of the employees of the House receive passes over the Intercolonial railway, and I should like to obtain some information as to the principle upon which they are issued and why discrimination is made.


Mr. LOGGIE:: Last Friday, in making a reference to the diversion of the line between Nelson and Chatham Junction, the acting minister said that he would place before the minister the views which I had expressed in regard to the matter. I should like to know from him if he has done so, and if the diversion is to go on and the rails to be taken up between Blackville and Nelson.


John Dowsley Reid: I did mention the matter to the hon. minister, and, if I remember rightly, he said that the mill-owner mentioned by the hon. gentleman would not promise that any particular quantity of lumber would be shipped over that railway. However, the rails are still there, and if there is any business to be done, that mill-owner cannot complain; the road will take out all the lumber and any other supplies that may be necessary. Part of the rails have been taken up, and the hon. member knows the position in which the road is at the present time; nothing further has been done. The hon. minister will be taking a trip over the Intercolonial within a few weeks; he will look into the
matter again and see whether or not it is necessary to change the conditions that exist at the present time.


William Stewart Loggie: I understand that two contracts have been let, one for the work at Derby Junction proper, where it was expected that transfer would be made of freight' from the main line to the point whence it would be taken into Chatham and Loggieville, and another for the work on the south side of the river. Am I right in saying that there were two contracts?


John Dowsley Reid: No, just one contract.


William Stewart Loggie: There is a rumour afloat that the work was let in two contracts alnd that one of them was cancelled. May I ask the minister if any changes are proposed other than those suggested by the minister last year, namely, that the freight from the main line for Chatham would be transferred at Derby Junction? The minister said last year that the station at Chatham junction could be moved out to Derby junction, and there the freight would be transferred for Chatham.


John Dowsley Reid: There has been no change, the policy as laid down by the minister will be adhered to. The hon. member for St. John asked a question on the 29th of May as to what effort had been made to have the -Grand Trunk take over that section of the National Transcontinental railway between Moncton and Edmundston. That was answered by the Prime Minister to-day in this discussion. The hon. gentleman wanted me to bring down any correspondence between the Government or the commission and the Grand Trunk Pacific. There is no correspondence; any communication so far as the Government was concerned, was verbal discussion between the Minister of Railways and the president of the Grand Trunk Pacific. The right hon. leader of the Opposition asked me to state the condition of the road between Quebec and Edmundston. I may say that the part between Quebec and Edmundston is completed; the only remaining contractors on the road between Quebec and Moncton is the firm of M. P. and J. T. Davis, and they inform me that between Quebec and mile 150 there is between 50,000 yards of train-haul filling and 30,000 yards of ballasting to be done; 20,000 ties have to be replaced and there is a little fencing and six miles of track in Monk yard. The work will be all completed by the 1st of August next.


William John Macdonald: Will the Government continue the practice which has been followed of shipping materials and men to Hudson bay, using lumber and vessels and all that kind of thing and throwing away public money ? Would it not be better to give a contract to some large and responsible firm of contractors who are accustomed to establishing termini and let them take charge of the whole work. Last year the work in Hudson bay was being done by day labour, and I understand that men away up in that north country were only paid for the days they worked. You can see the difficulties that would arise under those conditions. But as it is the Government are squandering the public money and not getting any further ahead with this work.


John Dowsley Reid: I am glad the hon. member has called attention to the Hudson Bay railway because I see in the Evening Citizen to-night an item with reference to work in the construction of the Hudson Bay railway which, so far as 1 know, is absolutely false and untrue. The article refers to the conditions of work on the railway from Le Pas north. It
12 m. speaks of the cruel treatment of men by the contractors. Of course, the Government are dealing only with the contractors, and so far as we are *concerned no charge has been laid or made to the department. Mr. McArthur and I think Mr. Boyd are the contractors and I believe that there are no better contractors in Canada, and no men who would treat their men better. We made contracts last year for taking the necessary material and men to Hudson bay. Ships were chartered to the very best advantage. It is true that a couple of vessels met with mishap, one got into Nelson and if it had not been for the captain's own fault the vessel could have been discharged without loss. However, they were insured and the Government will not lose by the accidents that did happen. That was the only way to get the material to Hudson bay, and the Government are making similar arrangements to take up the necessary supplies and materials for the work.


William John Macdonald: And you have it
done by day's work?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, in charge of one of our best engineers. There is no reason why our own engineers and staff should not be able to do the work as cheaply as contractors.


William John Macdonald: No good.


John Dowsley Reid: I am satisfied that if we were doing it by contract the hon. member would make just about as strong a speech as he has done, censuring us for letting a contract on account of the high rate we would have to pay.


George Perry Graham: The department bought
two boats from Poison's.


John Dowsley Reid: They are going up to
Nelson this summer. We found that we could buy a steamer for what it would cost to charter it for two trips and so we bought these two vessels. Some other time I would be glad to discuss this matter with the hon. member for Pictou and give him more information.


William John Macdonald: I do not expect to have another opportunity this session of discussing the matter with my hon, friend. I want to tell him that the Government are simply throwing away their money, absolutely squandering it by their present methods. They have been pottering around Hudson bay for two years but nothing has been done yet. They sent up a gang of useless heelers from the Maritime provinces-	.


John Dowsley Reid: I did not think you had any. heelers in Nova Scotia.


William John Macdonald: My hon. friend's party has. That is all they have done, and they did not even gain any political advantage by that for every one of the men they took up came down mad at the way they had been treated. If the Government are really earnest about this project, they should give the job to a big firm of contractors accustomed to do work of this kind. The minister will go on again this year fooling away with the situation, and when the people get at this Government they will throw them out of power and find that the only results attained have been to put money into the hands of a few people.


George Perry Graham: We will have it on our hands.


William John Macdonald: If my hon. friend
was gaining some political advantage by it, I would speak with some degree of feeling, but it is not so. In the Maritime provinces we know more about the situation than do the people of central Canada. The people of Ontario and Quebec have nothing to do with Hudson bay, commercially or otherwise. The men in Manitoba

have to do with it by reason of the fact that they are interested in the construction of the railway, but Nova Scotia is the most interested. All the supplies come from our province and so do the men. A story of the most pitiful government mismanagement that ever occurred in any country could be told of the way this Government have handled this project. Why does not the minister take hold of the situation, and have these terminals built? If he goes on pottering away with it this summer we shall be no further ahead at the end of the year, and no doubt there will be a lot Of lumber floating around Hudson bay with nobody to look after it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There was one vessel
that attracted my attention-the Alcazar. She took a cargo of hard pine from some American port, came to Halifax and from there went to Hudson bay, came back to Halifax, and then went to North Sydney with her full cargo.


John Dowsley Reid: Only part of the cargo.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: A fairly full cargo. I
imagine that this is rather an expensive w'ay of getting hard pine to Hudson bay. There is no reason why this hard pine should not ask for another ride around the gulf this year. The Alcazar's cargo of lumber is now piled alongside the Intercolonial at North Sydney, and I would like to know what the minister is going to do with it. Will we be able to buy it for kindling wood at North Sydney, or is it to be put on board the Alcazar again?


John Dowsley Reid: We are going to take it back again to Hudson bay. The Alcazar's captain, on account of the poor unloading facilities and the lateness of the season, feared that he might not be able to get, out of the bay again, and that is why the cargo was not discharged. I do not believe there would have been any danger if he had remained a little longer. We are sending the lumber up again this summer, and I hope this time it will stay there.


William John Macdonald: Will you guarantee
it will not be back again at North Sydney in the autumn?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.
Progress reported.



Robert Laird Borden: With the permission of
the House, I would like to read further
messages which have been received respecting the disaster to the Empress of Ireland:
From Mr. Harcourt to the Governor General.
London, 1st June, 1914.
Please transmit to Prime Minister following message received to-day from "Government of New South Wales. Begins:-New South Wales shocked at enormous sacrifice of valuable human lives in Empress of Ireland disaster; wish you favour by conveying to bereaved relatives on behalf of Government and people of this sister British Dominion profound sorrow and sympathy.
(Sgd) Harcourt.
From Mr. Harcourt to the Governor General.
London, 1st June, 1914.
Following telegram has been received from Governor General of Australia:
Please convey Australia's deepest sympathy with Canada in terrible maritime disaster which has brought sorrow to so many homes in the sister Dominion.
( Sgd) Harcourt.
Dunedin, June 3rd, 1914.
Honourable R. L. Borden,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Citizens of Dunedin desire to express sincere sorrow at deplorable disaster and condolence with bereaved.
Shacklock,
Mayor.
May 30th, 1914.
Sir,-With deep feeling of sorrow I learn of the terrible disaster of the fine ship ' Empress of Ireland,' which envelopes with, grief this beautiful country.
In the name of the sons of Cuba residing ill this country, and in my own, as the representative of the Republic on this Dominion, I beg to extend to the Canadian people, through you, the testimony of our most sincere regrets.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
N. Perez Stable,
Consul General for Cuba in Canada. The Right Hon. Robert L. Borden,
Premier of Canada,
Ottawa.
Clifton Hotel, Niagara Falls, Ont.,
June 2, 1914.
His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught:
The Mexican Government has instructed us in a cable received this morning to express to your Royal Highness and to the people of Canada the sincere condolence of the Mexican nation for the bereavement suffered in the tragic and regrettable loss of life occasioned by the disaster to the * Empress of Ireland.' At the same time we beg your Royal Highness to accept the assurance of our personal sympathy for the sad event which has spread sorrow in the land we are beholden to for the most generous hospitality.
(Sgd) Emilio Rabasa.
(Sgd) Augustin Rodrigues.
(Sgd) Louis Elguero.
Consulado General de la Republica Argentina.
Carleton Chambers, 74 Sparks Street,
Ottawa, Canada,
June 2nd, 1914.
Sir,-In the absence of the Consul General, Mr. Carlos A Galarce, and in the name of the

Argentine Government, I wish to show you my deepest sympathy in the appalling disaster to the steamer Empress of Ireland, in wThich many Canadian lives were lost.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
D. Saavedrat,
In-charge.
To the Right Honourable R. L. Borden, P.C., Ottawa City.
On motion of Mr. Borden, the House adjourned at 12.20 a.m. Friday.
Friday, June 5, 1914.