1914-06-05

VINEBERG DIVORCE BILL.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SAM. SHARPE presented the fifteenth report of the Select Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills, as follows:
Your committee have considered the Bill No. 220 (letter U-3 of the Senate), intituled: 'An Act for the relief of Helen Vineberg,' and have agreed to report the preamble thereof not proven, on the ground that, in their opinion, sufficient evidence has not been adduced to establish the allegations set forth therein.
Mr. THOBURN moved:: That the fifteenth report of the Select Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills he referred hack to the committee for further consideration.


Mr. BOULAY:: Mr. Speaker, I desire to
say a few words on this question.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would say that it is
not permissible to discuss the Bill at this stage. It is the report from the committee that is before us; the Bill is not before us; therefore hon. members cannot discuss the Bill, but can only give reasons why the report should otr should not be referred back.


Herménégilde Boulay: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I objected to the second reading of this Bill, and my objection was maintained on the ground that the proof in the case was not sufficient. We have not yet had the evidence laid before the House in French, and- we thought that the Rill would not come back to this House before the evidence was printed in that language. Yesterday I attended a meeting of the Miscellaneous Private Bills Committee, and the proceedings there strengthened my conviction that we should not proceed with this Bill. I maintain that we cannot form a sane judgment on this question without

seeing the evidence in our language. From what I have seen I am more and more convinced that this position should be maintained, and that we should have the evidence in French before any action is taken.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When the hon. member raised his objection before, I inquired into the matter carefully and found that since 1885 the evidence on such Bills taken before the Divorce Committee of the Senate has never been printed in French. The question had been taken up in the Senate and at the request of the French members of the Divorce Committee a resolution was passed by the Senate that in future the evidence would not be printed in French. They did not think it desirable to have it printed, and from that time on the custom has continued. As to what would be required when the Bill reached this House and the Private Bills Committee of this House, that, of course, would be an entirely different matter, but I would regard the objection which the hon. member has taken as one of the strongest reasons for referring it back to the committee for further consideration, when it would be the right of any member of that committee to have the same witnesses called before it, to hear the evidence as it was given in the Senate, or to adopt any other method desired to obtain information with regard to the facts of this case.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: I do not wish to delay the House, but I am bound to take exception to a statement made. My views on divorce are well known. I am opposed to divorce, -and think it should be abolished. That is the judgment of many people in this country. But, as regards the printing of the evidence; that is a matter of principle with me. Your honour states that a decision has been reached by a committee of the Senate by which the printing of the evidence in French is not required. This decision can only bind the Senate.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is what I said to the House. I stated that this decision could only bind the Senate, and, as it had no effect in this House, I gave no ruling on the subject.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is no trouble about this. I have discussed the 'question with His Honour personally. I do not blame His Honour the Speaker for the view

he entertains. I take exception to His Honour's statement that to avoid the printing of a document in French a Bill could be referred back to the Private Bills Committee, where the hon. member for Ri-mouski (Mt. Boulay) and the other members of that committee would have a chance to have the witnesses brought before them, to hear their evidence, and to have that evidence translated into French if desired.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I said that it would be their privilege to have the evidence brought before them if they so desired, but I did not express any opinion as to the necessity of having printed in French the evidence which comes from the Senate. I simply said that this was one of the alternatives; but, as to the printing of the evidence in French, I expressed no opinion.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I hold the view that
any document coming before this House should be printed in both languages.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I understand that the motion is to recommit this Bill to the Private Bills Committee, which has already reported against it. There is a rule of this House, unwritten, but well understood, and I think a safe rule, that committees should toe supported by the House unless there is some very strong reason for the contrary action. Those of the denomination to which I belong do not believe in divorce, and we vote against it on religious grounds, and not upon the merits of each case. I hold as much as any one for the privileges of the French language in this House, but I do not understand the request which has been made by my hon. friend from Rimouski to have this evidence printed in French, because whatever may be the merits of the case he will vote against the Bill. There is no reason, therefore, why he should require the evidence to be printed in French. For my part, I do not read the evidence at all. It is bad enough that the English-speaking members who believe that the marriage tie can toe dissolved by Act of Parliament, and who are called upon to decide the merits of each particular case, have to read the evidence; but I am dispensed from that. Neither I nor the hon. member for Rimouski read the evidence. We shall vote against the Bill anyway, and therefore I cannot support this motion.


William Thoburn: The right hon. leader
of the Opposition says that this Bill should
not be referred back to the committee unless for very good reasons. As the mover of the resolution, I will give the reasons why I ask that the Bill be referred back. My first reason is that the member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter), who has charge of the Bill, was unable to be present at the committee yesterday, as he was attending a sitting of the Supreme Court. Another reason is that owing to the House having sat till four o'clock yesterday morning there was a very small attendance of the committee, only seventeen of the sixty-four members voting on the motion to reject the Bill, which was carried by a majority of one. Another reason is that copies of the evidence had not been properly circulated; a large number of the members were without a copy. Another reasons that the Bill passed the Senate Committee by a majority of two to one. For these reasons, I think it is not unreasonable to ask that the Bill be referred back to the committee.


Mr. FRIPP:: I am a member of the
r* [DOT]	, T>
* 11 _	J nr. n momV*armvaie X>ii.l& ^umuunco, muu	I*	-
of this House I desire to protest against this Bill being referred back for the reasons mentioned by the mover of the motion. The Bill was considered by one of the largest committees we have had this year, although several meetings have been held at which the Chairman required double sight to find a quorum. This Bill occupied the attention of the committee for nearly two hours, and was discussed at great length. The whole evidence was read and considered, learned counsel appeared for both parties, and in my judgment the committee would be establishing a very pernicious and dangerous precedent to grant a divorce on the evidence of one person, who had committed perjury over her own signature. For these reasons I submit that the Bill should not be referred back to the committee.


Mr. BOYCE:: 1 join with my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) in protesting against the reasons that have been given by my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Tlioburn). The fact that the hon. member in whose name the Bill stands was not present at the committee is of no moment. He is not present this morning, and while the committee was sitting yesterday he showed so little interest in the matter that he did not trouble to attend. I agree with my hon. friend from Ottawa that it was a large and representative attendance of the

committee. Great interest, 'as shown in the proceedings, counsel for the petitioner and for the respondent were heard, and every part of the evidence was submitted and dissected by the committee, who deliberated over that Bill in all its disgusting details for an hour and a half. For what reasons does my hon. friend from Lanark move that this Bill be recommitted? Among the four reasons he gave to the House there was no hint of any new evidence, any new facts, or any new arguments. He simply expects that by some chance or mischance there may be a different attendance at the committee, larger or smaller, and hopes that there may be a different finding upon the evidence. I am not very much in love with the principle or want oi principle of divorce, but I have never voted with a clearer conscience than I did yesterday when this Bill was before the Private Bills Committee. It would be absolutely out of harmony with the principles of parliamentary procedure to recommit this Bill when it has not been shown that any injustice has been done, or that any advantage could be gained by so doing. My hon. friend from Lanark says that there was a very small attendance at the committee. Might I ask what greater attendance he expects at this stage of the session? This is Friday. If rumours are true and our expectations are realized, we shall arrive at prorogation early next week. Could a better attendance be got at the Private Bills Committee on Saturday, or on Monday, or on Tuesday, supposing the committee were to defer its sitting until then? 'There is one reason and one reason alone for the motion of my hon. friend from Lanark: it is that by a different attendance at that committee he hopes to get a different finding from the one arrived at yesterday. He says that copies of Ithe evidence .were inot cirflji-lated. Whose fault is that? If I take an interest in any Bill before a committee, as a member of that committee I am entitled to a copy of the evidence, and surely it is my fault if I do not complain; and I never heard a complaint yesterday morning in that respect- I venture to say that my hon. friend from Lanark will not -say that any complaint was made that the evidence was not circulated and in the hands of the committee.
The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) says that there was too much of it circulated. Possibly there was. One reason given by the hon. member for

Lanark why the Bill should be referred back is that it has passed the Senate committee twice. Why was it referred back to the Senate committee? It was referred back for the purpose of taking further evidence, it being contended that the evidence in support of the divorce as recommended by the Senate committee was not satisfactory. It was referred back, and was considered by the Senate committee, and that fact is not an argument to be used by my hon. friend from Lanark in favour of the recommittal of the Bill. The evidence upon which it was reported by the Senate committee on two occasions is the evidence which was before the Private Bills committee of this House; upon that evidence the committee saw fit to refuse to endorse the Bill, and with that decision I entirely agree. To ask now, at this late stage of the session, for a recommital is not in accordance with the principles upon which such matters are dealt with. I shall vote against it, and I hope that other hon. gentlemen will join me in that vote.


Mr. PELLETIER:: When the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) took the objection the other day that the evidence had not been printed in both languages, I was under the impression that the objection was well taken, and that the evidence should be printed in both languages. But I do think that the privilege of having two official languages recognized in this Parliament does not go so far as to have dirty . stuff printed in French for the purpose of circulation when we who belong to the Catholic faith believe it a matter of principle to vote against divorce anyway. I agree with what my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has said in that respect, that no good purpose would be served by incurring the expense of having this evidence printed in French, and I would do everything in my power to prevent it from being circulated if what I have heard as to its character is correct. I am not taking any ground on the merits of the case, because I do not know anything about it. I think the Bill should be dealt with upon its merits, and I would not insist on its being printed in French. If it were, it certainly would be excluded from the mails as matter not fit to be circulated. I will vote against the motion for recommittal, not for the reason that the evidence has not been printed in French, but because I do not believe in divorce.


Mr. BORDEN:: I do not know the merits
of this case, but it seems to me that it illus-

trates the .evils of the procedure by which divorces are brought about. As I understand this case, from the debate that took place a few days ago and from the debate this morning, the question as to whether or nf a divorce should be granted depends entirely upon the credibility of the witnesses. It further appears that all the members of the Senate committee, who heard the evidence and saw the witnesses, and the only member of the Commons who was present and heard the witness, believed those who were brought forward on behalf of the petitioner. It is usually considered that in the disposition of judicial affairs, the opportunity to see the witnesses, to hear them give their evidence, and to note their demeanour, assists in determining in a way not otherwise possible whether they are to be believed or not. Therefore, we have this remarkable condition, that those who heard the witnesses, without exception, believed the evidence of those witnesses who were called on behalf of the petitioner; and the members of the Commons committee, who, with but one exception, did not see the wit-*ppsrpr at all^ hftVA <l<?t0rEQiii6<I by s, majority of one-by a vote of nine to eight-that what was said by the witnesses ought not to be believed at all, and that a divorce ought not to be granted. Whatever may be said about the merits of this case, it seems to me to point to the conclusion that if applications for divorce are to be determined by the judicial decision of committees of the Senate and the House of Commons it would be a marked advantage if a joint committee could be arranged for, so that all those who are to determine the question in issue shall have an opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses. The present case does, in my opinion, show that the procedure is very unfortunate, very inadequate, and attended by a great many evils. I think it ought to be the duty of both branches of this legislature, in the early future, to consider whether or not some better mode of disposing of these questions could not be found.


Mr. GREEN:: The fact that divorce cases are tried, as they are, by the Senate, or Tather it is owing to that circumstance that we have this situation before us this morning, is a clear illustration of the necessity of changing the method, so that our divorce cases may be heard by the judiciary. As far as divorce proceedings are concerned, I have noticed since I have had a seat in this House, they are generally, or very often, decided not upon the
evidence as it is laid before the committee, and as they would be in a court of law; but those who have the decision in their hands are canvassed from day to day as to how they shall decide upon evidence that has not at the time been submitted to them. I do not propose to take up the time of the House, and I would not have risen except for the claim that was made by the hon. member who moved this resolution (Mr. Thoburn), as to the smallness of the committee.' As a matter of curiosity, last evening, after hearing that claim put forward in the lobbies, I had the matter looked up. I may say that I agree most thoroughly with the right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in the statement that committees of this House should be sustained and their reports upheld. That is customary, and it is good business; if we are going to quarrel with the decision reached by a committee every time a report is brought in, our work will be endless. The sitting of the committee yesterday was the largest that has taken place this year. There were twenty members present. The first meeting of the committee this year was on the 12th of February, and though there was not a quorum present, they did business. A quorum is ten, and there were eight present. The record is is follows:
Date.
No. Present.
12th February	 8
24th "	  14
12th March	 ll
,19th	"			16
2nd April	 10
5th May	 17
20th "	  15
27th "	  13
29th "	  9
1st June.. ,	 10
4th June	 20
Therefore, the decision of this committee, coming from a meeting at which twenty were present, should be upheld.
Mr. SAM. SHARPE: I am a member of this committee, and it is my opinion that the Bill should be referred back for further consideration, inasmuch as many members of the committee did not have an opportunity of perusing the evidence. Members of the committee have told me that complaints were made at the sitting of the committee that the evidence had not been circulated. Since the decision of the committee, a member of it who refused to vote because he had not had an opportunity of perusing the evidence and of reaching a proper decision, told me that he had since had an opportunity of

perusing the evidence, and that, if the committee met again, he would attend and vote against the Bill. The members cannot he expected to pass upon a measure without having an opportunity of perusing the evidence. Therefore I submit that, for the reason that the evidence had not been printed and circulated amongst the members, so that they had not a full opportunity of discussing the matter and arriving at a proper decision, the Bill should be referred back for further consideration.
iMr. KYTE: We have reached a stage in this session at which all members are anxious to devote their attention to such important matters on the legislative programme as require our attention. It is rather unfortunate that at this time we are asked to refer back to the committee on Private Bills the hearing of this malodorous divorce case. We are asked to give the petitioner a retrial of her case without her being required to furnish any new evidence. With all due respect to the wisdom of the Senate Divorce Committee in their decision in favour of granting the divorce, on the ground that the witnesses appeared before them and that they had therefore a better opportunity than had the committee of this House of determining the value of that testimony. I think, inasmuch as the evidence of the chief w$-ness upon whose testimony the granting of this divorce is asked, has so discredited herself in her own testimony and by the record of her own conduct, that nothing can be added to the value of the credibility that the witnesses should be-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order. I think the hon. member is going a little too far, because he is merely taking up the time of the House in discussing the evidence, which is not at present before the House.


Mr. KYTE:: I understand that the motion is to refer back this Bill to the Committee on Private Bills because there was insufficient evidence.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not so understand. I understood that the principal argument was that the evidence had not been distributed, and that the members of the committee had not had an opportunity of reading it.


George William Kyte: The motion of the hon. member for North Lanark, as I understand it, is that the Bill be referred back because there
was insufficient evidence to sustain the granting of the divorce, but I may be mistaken.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is not the question.


George William Kyte: It is a matter upon which the committee were called upon to exercise judicial functions. The Divorce Committee i3 the only one required to exercise judicial functions in regard to matters that come before it. Therefore whatever may be the opinion in this House as to the weight that should be given to the reports of other committees, I think that, when a committee reporting upon an application for a divorce makes a recommendation to this House, this House is bound to accept that recommendation.


Mr. NORTHRUP:: With all due respect
to the hon. member who has moved that this report be referred back, I desire to call the attention of the House to one feature of the case; and I do so more especially, seeing that my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has concurred in the view I have already expressed, namely, that our present system of granting divorces is eminently unsatisfactory. I do not think a better illustration of that unhappy state of affairs could toe found than in the case now before the House. We must bear in mind that when a motion such as this comes up, the Private Bills Committee having refused to pass the preamble of the Bill, and the rule of the House being, as I have always understood it, that prima facie the ruling of such a committee is binding and is to be upset only in case it can be clearly shown	that it	is wrong,
the respondent has certain rights, of which the House should hesitate to deprive him. I have no intention whatever of going into the evidence; but one fact is perfectly clear, namely, that two lines of evidence were given.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order. The evidence is not before the House; therefore it would be out of order to discuss it.


William Barton Northrup: I stated that I had no intention of going into the evidence. I merely stated that two lines of evidence were given. Nobody will dispute that, a3 a matter of law, this House can grant a divorce on any ground whatever that may happen to appeal to the feelings of the members; but the uniform practice has always been that divorces are not granted except on the ground of adultery. That being the uniform practice of the House,

in a case where two lines of evidence were given, one wholly irrelevant to that practice, I think -the respondent has a double right, seeing that he has been attacked in such a manner as this, to appeal, as a Canadian, to his fellow Canadians for fair play. He has a right to do that, if the practice of this House is that divorces shall be granted only on the ground of adultery.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member is practically dealing with the evidence, because he analyses it and says that there are two lines of evidence. The evidence is not before the House, and therefore it is not permissible to deal with it.


William Barton Northrup: I am not dealing with the evidence. I am bound by your ruling, Sir, and I am not going into the evidence. I merely call attention to the fact that if two lines are taken-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order. I think in that regard the hon. member is out of order. He is analysing the evidence when he takes that position. My ruling is that it is not permissible to refer to the evidence.


William Barton Northrup: I bow to your ruling, Sir, in that respect, although I had no intention of criticising the evidence or of going into it. I can say this, however, that this man, as a Canadian, has a right to justice from his fellow Canadians, and to appeal to every representative of the people of this country, of whom he i3 one, that his rights shall not be taken away from him.


Mr. CARROLL:: What about the wife?
Is she not a Canadian?


William Barton Northrup: The wife is certainly entitled, just the same as the husband:, to be protected. No one disputes that; but I say that, if the Private Bills Committee has reported against passing the preamble of thi3 Bill, then the respondent has the right to appeal to every member of this House, 'because, no matter what his religious views may be, he is sitting here as a representative of every man in Canada, not to violate his conscience by voting for anything he thinks wrong; but if, .having due regard to the evidence before him-I appeal to the hon. members for every province in the Dominion-he honestly believes that an injustice has been done to the respondent-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order. The hon. member is drifting back again into an examination of the evidence, which seems to me to be quite out of order.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Out of mere
eurosity and for the sake of a little information, I would like to know upon what principle it is not proper to dis'cuss the evidence upon this motion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: For the reason that the evidence is not before the Houee. I take it that the House is concerned only with the question that is now before it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is it a fact that the evidence is not before the House?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not at the present time.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The evidence was transmitted1 from the Senate to the House of Commons, and surely that evidence is officially before the House. My question was upon what principle members were not permitted to discuss the evidence on this motion. I desire to have the information, and I would like to have a ruling upon it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The evidence was referred to the committee, and the committee dealt with it and reported to the House. The motion is that that report be referred back; and upon that motion, which is the only one before the House and of which the House can take cognizance, the evidence is not in question.


Mr. GLASS:: I wish to explain my position in reference to this Bill. I was a member of the committee; but, although I attended the committee yesterday in the determination to vote only in accordance with the evidence submitted, I was deprived of the opportunity of discharging my duty because the evidence was not placed before me so that I could intelligently vote thereon. As a member of that committee I understood that I had a right to a copy of the evidence in advance. I did not receive such a copy, nor had I an opportunity until afterwards of reviewing the evidence. I do not think that the whole evidence was placed before the committee in such a way as to enable each member to give a conscientious and consistent vote on the question before him. I had an opportunity of reviewing the evidence later, and I must say that the inconsistencies and incongruities displayed in it dissipated any doubt that existed in my mind. Therefore, had I been at that time



in possesion of the evidence, as I am now, my vote would have been cast upon the question; whereas, under the circumstances, I could not conscientiously vote one way or the other, and I accordingly declined to vote at all. Had I been in possession of the facts and been able to vote at that time, there is no doubt that the vote of the committee would have been reversed. I submit that the position I was in-and I understand that other members of the committee were in the same position, because there were others who did not vote-is a just and proper reason why this report should be referred back to the committee.


Mr. McLEOD:: It has been propounded here by the right hon. leader of the Opposition and acquiesced in by hon. gentlemen who have followed him that it is a rule of this House, although unwritten, that the House must support the finding of a committee of the House. I have not long been a member of this House; but I think there is no rule, written or unwritten, to that effect. During the single session that I have been in the House, I have seen one Bill at least, the Bill respecting the Prudential Life Insurance Company, referred back to the committee after the preamble of the Bill had been defeated. Therefore, I think the House will not take very seriously the proposition that, after it has transferred to a committee of the House the power to deal with the subject matter of a Bill, it is bound to accept and acquiesce in the finding of that committee. I myself was not present at the meeting of the committee yesterday, and I have no right to claim any favour on that account; but, having read the evidenc'e, I, had I attended the committee, would have been bound to favour the divorce and would have done so. I concur in the view taken by many hon. members that the tribunal before which these divorce cases are heard is a wretched and miserable one.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Harry Fulton McLeod: I will modify that by saying that I think it is not in the proper sense a judicial tribunal; but it is the best one we have in some parts of Canada. One hon. member suggested that, this case having been-tried in committee, it should not be sent back again. This case has not been tried by the committee of this House. Whatever trial of a judicial nature there has been, has been before the Senate Committee. They alone heard all the evidence;

they alone were able to judge of the credibility of the witnesses as they gave their evidence, and they unanimously reported that Bill to the House. That having been done, the committee of this House did not try the case; they did not hear the evidence; they simply decided on the question, the evidence having been presented to some and not to others.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member is
drifting into a discussion of the evidence, which is not before the House. I think he is out of .order.


Harry Fulton McLeod: I rose merely to say that I did not think it was a rule of this House that we should stand by the committee, no matter what their finding might be. I shall vote to refer the report back to the committee.
Motion (Mr. Thoburn) negatived report concurred in.



DEBATES-CORRECTION OF THE PRINTED REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville). (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, I wish to raise a question of privilege.
While reading the report of the Debates this morning, I noticed an omission which I deem it my duty to point out, owing to its importance.
During the debate of Wednesday night on the question of the Farmers1 Bank, my hon. friend the Postmaster General sought to induce the members to believe that I had led the House into error in stating that the Minister of Finance had answered plainly and bluntly no, to a question asked by the hon. member for Laprairie-Napier-ville, or by the hon. member for Rouville, who had inquired whether it was the intention of the government to reimburse the depositors of the Bank of Saint-Jean and other banks which had failed. I then rose to a question of privilege and I maintained my position that the Minister of I inance had plainly and categorically answered no, and as a proof, I quoted from Hansard,, page 3331, as follows:
Mr. Lemieux: Is it the intention of the Government to reimburse the depositors of the Ville Marie Bank, the Bank St. Jean and the Banque du Peuple?
Mr. W. T. White : No.
I now find that this answer of the Minister of Finance is not reported in the printed report, and I may say that the stenographers of the House are not .responsible for

this omission, but the printers are responsible for it, because I have now in my hand the copy which was sent to the printers, and it contains the answer of the Minister of Finance, which 1 have just read.
I was anxious to point out that error, because I think it is of high importance under the circumstances.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand the hon. member to say that a portion of his speech does not correctly appear in ' Hansard/ Of course, he is quite in order in calling attention to the fact, and I shall endeavour to have it corrected.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND JUDICIARY.

[Stage Direction]
. On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: I desire to call the attention of the Government to the fact that there has been a vacancy in the judiciary of Prince Edward Island for some time. Judge McDonald died some time ago; before his death he was confined to the hospital for several months, and I presume that the business of his court has been left unattended to. I think that this vacancy should be filled; there ought to be no difficulty in getting a qualified gentleman to take the position.


Mr. DOHERTY:: So long as Judge
McDonald was alive, even though he was ill, there was no vacancy; therefore nobody would be appointed. I was not aware that he had been ill or incapacitated for any considerable period of time before his death. I learned of his death two or three weeks ago; since that time no action has been taken. I may say, however, that neither in the period of time during which the hon. member states that the judge was ill and incapable of attending to his duties, nor since his death, has any representation been made to me that there was business to be done. I may say that the matter of the appointment will be taken up without any avoidable delay.



EMPRESS OF IRELAND INVESTIGATION.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called: 'Mr. HAZEN: I should like to make a brief statement to the House in regard to the court of inquiry which will make an investigation into the collision between the Empress of Ireland and the Storstad on the river St. Lawrence last week. The court will consist of the following members:
Lord Mersey, chairman.
308J
Sir A. Routhier, Admiralty Judge for the Province of Quebec.
Hon. E.i McLeod, Chief Justice of New Brunswick.
With this court there will sit as assessors:
Captain Demers, Wreck Commissioner for: the Dominion of Canada.
Engineer Commander Howe, of the Canadian Naval Service.
Professor John Welch, naval architect',. Newcastle, England.
Commander W. F. Caborne, Royal Naval Reserve, London, Eng.
Of the above, Lord Mersey, Professor Welch and Commander Caborne have been recommended toy the Imperial Government. It is expected that they will leave by the Mauretania on Saturday next, and they should in due course arrive here on Saturday, the 13th instant. In the event of their arrival here on that day it is considered that the inquiry should be commenced on Tuesday, the 16th instant. In this connection I may state that it has been decided to hold the inquiry at the city of Quebec.
Professor Welch is regarded as among the most eminent of the naval architects of Great Britain. He was a member of the Bulkheads Committee appointed a few years ago by the Imperial Government under the chairmanship of Sir Archibald Denny, of the great shipbuilding firm of Denny Brothers, Dumbartonshire. His work as a member of that committee is an assurance that he is especially well qualified for the work to which he has been assigned. Commander Caborne, in addition to being a Royal Naval Reserve Officer, has had extensive experience in the merchant service.
Of the assessors appointed by the Canadian Government, Engineer Commander Howe, who has been appointed especially as a marine engineer, has been in the service of the Canadian Government for a num-beor of years. His record is as follows:
Engineer Commander Howe entered the royal naval dockyard at Devonport in 1888 as an engineering student. After serving five years in the dooekyard, he passed out second on the list and entered the Naval College at Greenwich. After a year at Greenwich he was one of the two students elected to take a further course in engineering and naval architecture. He obtained a certificate in advance course, and was appointed to H. M. S. Barfleur and served on various naval ships as an engineering officer. He was three years in charge of torpedo boat destroyers and the workshops at Malta and was three years in charge of the draughting office'and refitting of vessels at Portsmouth
[Stage Direction]
dockyard. He was assistant to engineer manager at Devonport dockyard and in charge of repairs to first and 12 noon, second class cruisers and in charge of dockyard machinery for three and a-half years. He was engineer assistant to the director of dockyards at the Admiralty for two years and also served as one of the assistants to the chief engineer of the Admiralty.
The other assessor we have nominated in Canada is Captain Demers, who previous to 1891 was engaged as an officer on foreign-going steamships in different parts of the world. In 1891 he joined the Fisheries Protection Service of Canada as second officer of the Kingfisher. In 1892 he was promoted to the position of chief officer and in 1897 he became captain of the Victoria. In 1898 he was appointed sailing master of the Ha Canadienne, and from 1899 to 1903 he was first officer of the Constance. In 1904 he was appointed chief examiner of masters and mates for Canada, subsequently becoming Assistant Wreck Commissioner. He was after a time appointed harbour master of Montreal, which position he resigned, and this year he has again been appointed wreck commissioner for the Dominion of Canada. He holds a board of trade master's certificate, and has a thorough and intimate knowledge of matters connected with the navigation of the river and gulf of St. Lawrence.
As hon. gentlemen will observe, the court of inquiry has been constituted after communication with the British authorities, who have co-operated with us in regard to the matter. The court as constituted meets with their approval, and, I trust, will meet with the approval of this House and command the confidence of the people of Canada.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. PUGSLEY:: I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Railways to the time-table of the Intercolonial railway. No connection is made at Moncton with trains for points west of Moncton, including, of course, St. John. I am sure this will he very inconvenient for the people of all that part of the province whidh is west of Moncton, and also for the people in the northern section of New Brunswick who are in the habit of coming to St. John for purposes of pleasure or business. It is a most extraordinary thing 
that an important section of a province like that should be entirely ignored in framing a time-table.


Mr. J. D. REID (acting Minister of Railways and Canals):: I remember the hon. gentleman calling my attention to the train service; but, on inquiry, I find that the time-table of the Ocean Limited this year is exactly the same as it was last year; no change has been made. HoweveT,
I had a telegram sent to Mr. Gutelius, the general manager, and perhaps the reading of that telegram will be a sufficient answer.
Moncton, N.B., 4th June.
Hon. F. Cochrane.
Ottawa, Ont.
The direct connection between the Ocean Limited and St. John will be made June 21 as in previous years when trains three and four are put on. The present time-table requires a wait for the Ocean Limited passengers for St. John at Moncton two hours and forty-five minutes. The Maritime Express has direct connection with St. John. Tou know we have four passenger trains per day between Moncton and St. John. I do not understand that part of your message with reference to Ocean Limited ignoring New Brunswick west of Moncton as trains stop at Harcourt, Chatham Junction, Newcastle, Bathurst, Dalhousie Junction and Campbellton, and locals 35 and 36 stopping everywhere run ahead of both 199 and 200.


William Pugsley: Mr. Gutelius docs not seem to understand the geography of New Erunswick. These points are all north of Moncton.



TECHNICAL EDUCATION.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. MACDONALD:: Owing to the absence of the Minister of Labour from the House through illness, the item in the Estimates relating to technical education was not reached. I would ask the minister if he could tell us what steps, if any, the Government will take in assisting the advancement of technical education throughout the country.


Mr. CROTHERS:: My hon, friend will
remember that when it was proposed to the late Minister of Labour to appoint a commission to inquire into the conditions of technical education and industrial training in other countries as well as in Canada, apparently realizing that under the British North America Act education was one of the subjects exclusively assigned to the provincial legislatures, he communicated with the Prime Ministers of the various provinces to ask whether they respectively had any objections to the appointment of

such a commission. Replies were received from all the Prime Ministers to say that they had no objection to the appointment of such a commission. I may say that in writing them my predecessor stated that the only object of the commission was to gather information for the benefit of the different legislatures of Canada, that it was not proposed by the Government to go beyond that, but simply to gather information for the benefit of the legislatures. In their replies the several Prime Ministers expressed no objection to that course; -but the Prime Minister of Ontario and also the Prime Minister of Quebec in their replies said they had no objection to the appointment of a commission if it were distinctly understood that the commission was to gather information for the benefit of the various legislatures. My hon. friend from Pictou will know, having scanned the report of the commission, that -they went far beyond that, and not only gathered information in this country and in Europe tout made recommendations, which it was not understood they should do when the opinions of the various Prime Ministers were -taken. The latest volume of the report, No. 4, deals with the crucial point or 'question in the whole matter, that is, the condition of technical education and industrial training in the various provinces of Canada. That part of the report was not ready for distribution until some time in March of this year, although,'I had taken many steps to insist upon the report being completed long before. As soon as it was completed it was sent out to the various provinces with a request that they should express to us their opinions touching the report. We are in communication with the various Prime Ministers now. The Government, while having given the matter some consideration, have not reached a conclusion as to what course we shall take and will not toe in a position to reach such a conclusion until we have heard from all the local Governments in Canada.



DOMINION LANDS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 213, to amend the Dominion Lands Act-Mr. Doherty; Mr. Blain in the Chair.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I desire to say that
after giving the best consideration of which I am capable to the observation made yesterday by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. 0'liveT), it 'appears to me that notwithstanding what he said it is desirable that this Bill should be enacted. I
think it is well that we .should not create a situation which may operate to discourage the taking up of homesteads by reason of the prolonged period required for naturalization. It is quite true that by reason of the amendment we made to the Naturalization Act, that prolonged period will not become necessarily operative for three years to come; tout at the same time it has been strongly urged upon me that it might operate to discourage the taking up of homesteads by persons after the first of January next, after the Act has come into force, toy reason of the fact that taking up their homesteads only after that Act had come into force they would have to comply with the five year period qualification in order to 'become British subjects. In deference to these views which are very strongly .and very generally entertained I think it is desirable to adhere to the original idea, and to pass the present legislation.


Mr. OLIVER:: I can only repeat what I said yesterday, but I want to repeat and emphasise that I think a very, very serious mistake is being made by holding out the idea that free homesteads can toe -acquired without assuming the full responsibility of at any rate Canadian citizens, if not of British subjects having rights and responsibilities throughout the empire. I cannot -appreciate the point of view that considers the occupation of land the first essential in dealing wuth immigration, and that the great purpose is the -arrival of people and the cultivation of the land. These purposes are only means to -an end, and that end is the eetatolishment of desirable citizenship. I think it would be very unfortunate if, for any reason, the Government were diverted from that view, which has been accepted from the very toeginning of the dealings of Canada in regard to free homesteads in- the West. It has been -a rock-toottom principle, and while I appreciate the difficulties in combining the requirements for imperial naturalization with the local requirements in regard to homesteading, if they cannot be combined, if one or the other has to go, then I say by all means looking at the matter from the Canadian standpoint and from the imperial standpoint it is better that we should insist on Canadian citizenship as a condition of acquirement of land at the hands of this country than that we should forego Canadian citizenship for the sake of establishing imperial citizenship.

I want to refer to the argument that has been so prominently put forward in the press and by responsible people in eastern Canada and in the United Kingdom. They hold that there is a danger of the alienation of western Canada from the ideas of British citizenship, and that there is a serious danger to the Dominion and to the empire in adherence to the principles and ideals of our civilization. I believe that under conditions as they have existed up to the present time, that view has been unduly exaggerated; but it has a measure of sound foundation, and the proposal of the Government in this legislation gives it form and body and weight such as it never had before. I want to repeat that the whole purpose of our policy of increasing our population by immigration and of bringing under cultivation our vacant lands, is not merely to increase the number of people living within the bounds of Canada and to increase the number of bushels of wheat that may be raised or exported, but it is for the purpose of establishing a stronger, because more numerous, Canadian citizenship, not without but with the ideals that we believe accompany that citizenship today; and the first and greatest responsibility of this or any other Government of Canada is to adopt such measures as may be right
and	reasonable,	as	may be	fair	anddo	justice to	all	parties	concerned,	to	ensure as	far	as possible	thatCanadian ideals	shall be	built	up
and Canadian citizenship strengthened. The first means at hand to do that is to hold out to all the world: We give you certain advantages under certain conditions; we do not ask you to come to this country to be hewers of wood or drawers of water for other people, but we ask you to come here to take part with us in the opportunities we are able to give you for building up the civilization and conditions that we already have established. I am for immigration, and I am for increasing the material development of our country, but I am not for immigration or for increasing the material development of our country unless thereby we build up a Canadian and an imperial citizenship and Canadian and British ideals of civilization.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: I usually agree with the logic of my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), but on this matter I think his logic is absurd. I do not think that his views will be very largely shared by the inhabitants of western Canada. As far as I can see-and I listened to my hon.

friend's speech yesterday as well as to-day -he fails to make two very necessary distinctions to arrive at a proper conclusion. He mixes up citizenship with what is in its essence a purely commercial undertaking. I do not think it has been in the minds of most Canadians that when they offer homesteads they do so, in the first instance, with the view of making citizens of the British Empire. It is with the view of developing the commercial interest of Canada. That is the primary duty of any Government in this country. In nine cases out of ten the people who come to this country with the object of taking up homesteads come with the object in view of increasing their material prosperity. They come to Canada because Canada is a good country to live in. Coming to Canada, I am inclined-from a considerable and intimate experience of homesteaders from many other countries-to believe that they find that their material interests run in the direction of still higher interests, and, in the case of our American friends as well as others, they become attracted to our laws and to the country, and in the end become citizens. I think my hon. friend has failed to draw a distinction between the grounds on which citizenship rests and what is purely a commercial undertaking whether on the part of the individual homesteader or on the part of the Government which arranges the conditions under which he shall homestead. There is another distinction which I should have thought would have occurred to the mind of my hon. friend. He is making a distinction without saying that he is doing it, or at least he does not seem to indicate that he is doing it. Is it a fair thing to a homesteader to ask him to be a citizen in order to own 160 acres of land while another American can come in an buy 10,000 acres of land without any question being asked? I see very little in the contention of my hon. friend at all, and I think the latter consideration would sway my thought on the matter. The fact that any person can come in from anywhere, buy 10,000 acres of land, leave the country or live where he likes, would lead me, in a sort of fairness of spirit, to recognize that the commercial undertaking of the homesteader is a significant factor in the development of the country, and I have a sufficient knowledge of the effect of the privilege of citizenship upon people who come to Canada to be able to assert that the result is, as I have already stated, that in nine cases out of ten the homesteader i.'lti-

mately becomes a citizen. If you make it compulsory that the homesteader has to become naturalized to get his homestead, he naturalizes in this country, gets his homestead, then goes back to the United States and renaturalizes there and you lose your citizen. The citizen who is worth having is the one who takes a higher view of citizenship than the mere possession of 160 acres of land.


Frank Oliver: The view which my bon. friend has put forward is absolutely contrary to what has been accepted by every Government of Canada and by the people of Canada ever since they have been dealing with homestead laws.


Michael Clark: I am afraid
that my hon. friend is a Tory when he gives suca a reason as that.


Frank Oliver: I can always Change for
the better but not for the worse. When a certain principle has 'been maintained for such a long period of time, when it is held 'by the Government that is putting through this legislation and when, in so far as we have been informed by the Government, it i3 a sound principle, when, contrary not only to the principle of former Governments, but of this Government, we are asked to adopt (this legislation, surely it ought not to be put through without the attention of the	country being called to it.
We objected to the legislation that this is complementary to. We have been insisting upon certain requirements in order not only to attain imperial citizenship,; but the best Canadian citizenship, and while we are doing that on the one hand, we are establishing a new condition contrary to the accepted principles of every Government that has preceded this one and of this one itself. I would not delay the House at such length on this question if I did not deem it to be as important as it is. I have had to deal in many capacities with many people who have come to settle in our western country. All nationalities who come to settle carry with them the natural instinct of love and reverence for the country of their birth, and there is a natural tendency to re-establish in the new country the conditions of the old. Bn some cases this produces desiraJble results, but it is also true that in other cases it produces undesirable results. Looked at in the light of the experience that I have had and the problems that we have to face, the very first duty of the Government is to establish in the minds of all people who come here to share with us the opportunities of this country that the opportunities of Canada involve the responsibilities of Canadian citizenship and that we, who have opened up and are developing this country, are offering these opportunities to the people of the world for the definite purpose of building up and strengthening our nationality and our ideals, and not for the purpose of changing, or of altering, or, if you like, degrading that nationality and those ideals. When the Government sees At to change that policy which has been pursued during so many years for a certain definite purpose, without any reason having any bearing upon the principle at all,
I say it is a serious matter; and the minister is not well advised in reconsidering his opinion of yesterday that the amendment might very well be left over for another session. The whole idea of our naturalization legislation as expressed by the minister was to make naturalization m Canada dear, to make it important, to make the alien realize that he was acquiring something that was of serious value to him. But by this legislation, he lets the alien know that Canadian citizenship is not a serious matter, it not a matter of value. He destroys the very purpose that he has in his naturalization legislation with the very people with regard to whom it is most needed.
Bill as amended reported, read the third time, and passed.



TRUST COMPANIES.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. T. WHITE (Minister of Finance) moved that the House concur in the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 70, respecting Trust Companies. He said:
The amendments are not of much importance, and I see no reason why they should not be concurred in. The title of the Bill is changed by adding the figures ' 1914 ' making it read 1 The Trust Companies Aet-1914 '. Section 3 is changed as to its phraseology, making it more clear. At page 6, line 18, a sub-clause is added providing that in case an election of directors is not made the company shall not be held to be thereby dissolved. That is not an unusual clause in company legislation. Then at page,9, line 15, there is provision to the effect that notwithstanding the forfeiture of shares for non-payment of calls,
[Stage Direction]
the shareholders shall continue to be liable to the creditors of the company for the full amount unpaid on such- shares at the time of forfeiture. There is no objection to that provision, eo far as I can see. At page 20, there is a somewhat important amendment, but in my view it is an improvement to the Bill.
William Pugsley: The Senate usually
makes improvements.


Mr. WHITE:: Sometimes it does; it is certainly within its right in taking into consideration Bills of this kind and improving them if they are susceptible of improvement. I must say that in Bills originating on this side of the House, particularly those under my own charge, there is but limited potentiality of improvement.


William Pugsley: But the Senate has improved this one.
Mr. WHITE; Slightly. By section 63 it is provided that trust funds held by the company may be invested:
In the stock, funds, or Government securities of Canada or of any province of Canada, or guaranteed thereby respectively, or bonds, or debentures, of any municipal corporation in any such province
To this, in the Bill, there was this exception :
-other than municipal corporations having a population of less than 2,000 or an actual rate of taxation exceeding two cents on the dollar exclusive of school tax.
The Senate has struck out that exception. I understand that representations were made to the Senate by bond dealers to the effect that the exception involved a discrimination against the securities of many municipalities of not quite 2,000, population, but which in the future would have many times 2,000. It. was also urged that it was not well that the rate of taxation should be made the test of the quality of a municipality's securities because by the simple expedient of raising the assessment the disability could be overcome, and so a premium would be put upon increasing assessments. I should say myself that the proper test is rather the indebtedness per head than the rate of taxation or the population of a municipality, and therefore I agree that, while this is a comparatively old exception, it migiht well be struck out. Under the section as amended, trust company funds may be invested in:
-the stock, funds, or Government securities of Canada or any province of Canada, or guar-
[Mr. W. T. White. 3
anteed thereby, respectively, or bonds Or debentures of any municipal corporation in any such province.
The other powers of investment conferred upon the company by the section are continued as they were when the Bill left this House. There is one other minor addition. The Senate has added the debentures of school corporations as well of school districts which were authorized under the terms of the Act as it stood. On page 25 there is a verbal change from ' this ' to * the.' These are the amendments which have come from the Senate and I think this House should concur in them.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Did not my hon. friend tell the House when he introduced this Bill that it should not be made retroactive?


William Thomas White: What I said when the Bill was being introduced was in answer to a question asked by my hon. friend, and it was to the effect that I was not in favour of retroactive legislation except when it was clearly necessary in the public interest. My hon. friend in asking the juestion, had in mind the case of trust companies which had been incorporated either by specia} Act or under the provisions of the Companies' Act,	with wider	powersthan	he-and	I	also thought	shouldbe	granted	to	such compabies.He	referred	particularly to	those
companies which had not yet been organized. The Bill as I introduced it in the House was not retroactive in the sense that it would cut down the powers possessed by any trust companies which had been heretofore incorporated, but certain sections of the Bill-those relating to the powers of the company to create preference stock and issue share warrants, as to the meeting of shareholders, the mode of keeping accounts and the return of annual statements, provision for inspection, provision for penalties for valuation of the provisions of the Act-all these were made to apply to all companies heretofore incorporated. I thought at the time that no exception could be taken to making these provisions retroactive because they did not in any way cut down the powers of these companies.


William Pugsley: It was not-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me not
regular at this stage to enter into a general discussion of the Bill. There are now before us for consideration the amendments

made by the Senate only. A general discussion of the Bill is irrelevant.


William Pugsley: I think there is another section that is made retroactive, section 66, -which provides for the investment of the companies' funds. That is made retroactive and might -work to the disadvantage of the company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is out of order to discuss sections of the Bill that are not before the House for consideration. The subject under consideration is simply the amendments made by the Senate. There is a growing habit of late, when the House is in Committee of the Whole, to let the debate go backward and forward indiscriminately, without regard to the natural order of procedure, and it would seem to me that an effort is being made to follow the same bad custom when not in Committee of the Whole.


William Pugsley: If these amendments are to be considered, would they not have to be referred to committee? I would like my hon. friend to consider in that connection, so that no time would be lost, the bringing of this Bill into operation on the 1st of September. That would give trust companies time to get rid of their real estate under the limitation of the section.


William Thomas White: Mr. Speaker, as the matter is of some importance, perhaps by consent, even though somewhat irregular, I might be allowed to give an explanation to my hon. friend. Section 66 is made retroactive on and after the 1st day of January, 1917. Section 66 refers to the investment powers of trust companies. In the Banking and Commerce Committee, subsection 7 of this section, as it now appears in the Bill, was introduced, and the report of the committee was adopted in this House. _That subsection provides:
The provisions of this section shall, on and after the 1st day of January, 1917, apply to all trust companies heretofore incorporated under the Companies Act or by special Act of the Parliament of Canada.
So, these companies have until the 1st day of January, 1917, to dispossess themselves of any investments they may have that are not in keeping with the provisions of this section. Now, I understand that the matter was brought to the attention of the Senate, and that this section was fully considered by a special committee of that House. .It was subsequently adopted by the Senate, I believe, on the
report of that committee. -So that the Bill, as reported from this House with no amendment to section 66, was adopted. I understand that one or more trust companies were represented before the committee of the Senate, and pointed out that they would be unable to carry on the business which some of them are now carrying on, namely, dealing in lands and at the same time carrying on a trust company business. I think the remedy which was suggested to them, though I speak with reserve as to that, was to make application to the Secretary of State under the Companies Act to change their corporate powers and divest themselves of their trust powers, in the event of their electing to continue dealing in lands, and carry on a business which if carried on by a trust company would be in contravention of this section 66. I understand that an amendment is being prepared by the Minister of Justice to the Companies Act, which will enable companies of this character to make application for a reduction of their powers. At present, under the Companies Act, while there is provision for the enlargement of powers, for the supplementing of powers already possessed, there does not seem to be any provision for the curtailing of powers which have been conferred upon companies incorporated under that Act. The Senate has made amendments in this Bill, but it has not made amendments in this section. I, do not see that the amendments made are objectionable, and therefore I move that they be concurred in.


William Pugsley: I am afraid that my hon. friend does not quite understand the force of the objection that has been raised. Certain members of the Senate think that it is an oversight not to provide that the Act shall come into operation at a future date. One of them spoke to me on the subject. I am not sure that I fully understand the point, but I understand that it is thought desirable to allow trust companies time to bring themselves under the requirements of the Act by carrying on a trust business solely, and to take advantage of the proposed amendment to the Companies Act before this Act comes into force.


William Thomas White: I had verbal information that that was the view held by at least one member of the Senate. Personally I do not see any objection to providing that this Bill should come into effect on the 1st of September or the 1st of October next, but it is not possible under the rules for this House now to insert a provision of this

kind. I find that Bourinot, referring to this stage of a measure, says, at page 677:
Neither House can regularly, at this stage, insert any new provision, or amend, or omit, any part of a Bill it has itself passed and sent up to the other House for concurrence. But it is perfectly in order to propose any amendment to an amendment made by the one House to a Bill of the other House, provided it is consequential in nature; that is to say, consequent upon or relevant to the amendment under consideration.
I would be perfectly willing to insert a section in this Bill providing that it shall not come into force until September 1, 1914, but such an amendment would not be consequential upon the amendments which have been proposed by the Senate, and under the rules we can do nothing but concur in or amend consequentially the amendments which come from the Senate. I discussed the matter referred to by my hon. friend with the Minister of Justice this morning, and his view and mine, upon looking at the interpretation clauses of the Act, is that if a trust company desires to take advantage of the new provisions in the Companies' Act and to make application to have its powers cut down so that it shall no longer be a trust company, it would not then be subject to the provisions of this Act, which are made retroactive. In other words, this Act would only apply to it so long as it continued to be a trust company as defined under the interpretation clauses of this measure. I think that that is a correct view, and, therefore, I do not see how any inconvenience will arise. If by chance such inconvenience should arise and be brought to my attention, the proper method, in my judgment, of dealing with the matter would be to introduce a Bill next session declaring that the retroactive provisions of this Act shall not apply to companies which take advantage to the Companies' Act of the amendment to which I referred, so as to make it perfectly clear that the retroactive provisions apply only to trust companies so long as they continue to be trust companies as defined under the interpretation clauses of this Act.
Amendments concurred in.
At one o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at three o'clock.



NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Borden, Bill No. 224, to amend the National Transcontinental * 
Railway Act, was read the third time and passed.

Robert Laird Borden: Before passing to the next order, might I be permitted to read to the House two communications from the general manager of the Intercolonial railway in respect of a statement made in this House which seemed to cast some reflection on one or more officials of the Intercolonial in connection with incidents subsequent to the disaster to the Empress of Ireland. The first communication is a telegram from Mr. F. P. Gutelius to the Minister of Railways and Canals under date of June 4, which reads as follows:
We understand that the Great Northwestern Telegraph Company have been sending messages tor survivors free upon request Canadian Pacific. All wires were overcrowded and special staff of six operators still working night and day clearing up accumulation of telegrams. Intercolonial does not do commercial telegraph business.
The other is a telegram from Mr. Gutelius to L. K. Jones, secretary to the Department of Railways and Canals, Ottawa:
On the first train there were 402 passengers, Rimouski to Levis. Tickets were not required, the conductor simply making a record of the passengers. For subsequent trains, free tickets were issued by the agent at Rimouski covering both survivors and corps 2S.



THE FARMERS BANK.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. T. WHITE (Minister of Finance) the House went into Committee on Bill No. 185, for the relief of the depositors of the Farmers Bank of Canada, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 1-short title:
Mr. GRAHAM:: You are not going to make the title general, and come to the relief of depositors in all bank failures ?


William Thomas White: I am afraid that would not be an apt title.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-payment of depositors in Farmers Bank:
George Perry Graham: This section refers to section 131 of the Bank Act and speaks of ' the holder of any charge upon the assets of the bank.' Whom would that include' P


William Thomas White: The first charge on the assets is in favour of note holders; next come governments, federal and provincial; and then depositors and other creditors. This section excludes note holders and any

governments having a charge upon the assets of the bank. For instance, the Ontario Government would be excluded.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Had it a deposit in the Farmers Bank?


William Thomas White: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: In my opinion, the
ordinary creditor of the bank has just as good a right to be reimbursed as the depositor. A case has been recently brought to my attention of a gentleman who drew through his own local bank for a certain amount on a debtor in the province of Ontario. Subsequently the draft, without his knowledge, came into the hands of the Farmers Bank, who presented it and received the money a few days before the failure of that institution; and the owner of the money appears to have lost it. In my judgment, he has an even better claim to be reimbursed than the depositors. A depositor is a lender, and these depositors lent their money to the Farmers Bank because it was paying a higher rate of interest than other banks. The ordinary business man when he sends a draft into his own bank does not know where it will go. He does not know the connections of the bank with whom he is doing business, and he relies on the banking institutions of the country; and in my judgment he has a stronger claim than the depositor whd simply lends his money to the bank.


Mr. BLAIN:: Has my hon. friend any evidence to show that any branch of the Farmers Bank paid a higher rate of interest than other banks?


John Howard Sinclair: No more than what I have heard stated in the course of this debate.


Richard Blain: My information is that it did not pay a higher rate of interest.


John Howard Sinclair: If the statement is not correct I wish to withdraw it, but I heard the statement made by several speakers in the course of the debate. I have no personal knowledge of the matter.


Richard Blain: I have been trying to find out from some hon. gentlemen who had branches of the Farmers Bank in their constituencies whether the Farmers Bank really paid a higher rate of interest than other banks. I have made inquiries of the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Thornton), and the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. Merner), and they both inform me that while such a report was in circulation
the branches of the Farmers Bank in their constituencies paid exactly the same rate of interest as other banks.


John Howard Sinclair: That may or may not be true. However, it makes no difference to my argument. I was saying that the depositor is a lender, and that these depositors selected the Farmers Bank as the parties to whom they would lend their money, and that in my judgment the ordinary creditor of the bank has a better claim, equitably, than the depositor. I have not heard this point raised during the course of the debate, and I would like to know the views of the Finance Minister on this matter.


William Thomas White: If I understand my hon. friend rightly, the party who has the claim to which he alludes is not a depositor. This Bill is to relieve the depositors who had money on current or savings account in the Farmers Bank. There are creditors other than depositors. Other banks in Canada hold drafts, money orders, and certified cheques on the Farmers Bank amounting to |14,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Are they to be paid?


William Thomas White: No. This Bill provides merely for reimbursing the depositors.


Mr. GERMAN:: If the reason assigned
by the hon. Minister of Finance for the passing of this Bill is a good one it is applicable to every creditor of the bank just as well as to the depositors. Why the depositors should be singled out to be repaid the money they deposited in the Farmers Bank as against all the other creditors of the bank I cannot understand. The reason given by the minister as a justification for the passing of this Bill is ostensibly that the Treasury Board of the former Government was negligent, and improperly if not wrongfully granted a certificate to the bank to do business. If that is the case every creditor of the bank is entitled to be paid as well as the de. positors. If it is not the case then the depositors are not entitled to be paid. I must enter my protest against the passing of this Bill for the reason assigned by the Minister of Finance unless he will include among the parties to be paid every creditor of the bank. If the Treasury Board negligently and wrongfully granted a certificate, then every creditor of the bank is on a footing of equality with the depositor. A depositor has no more right than an ordin-

ary creditor simply because he sees fit to deposit his money in a bank. It is asserted that the Farmers Bank paid a higher rate of interest than other banks. I am authoritatively told that they paid one per cent more than any other bank in the locality. It has been stated by hon. members representing constituencies in which that institution had branches that they did pay a higher rate of interest on deposits than other banks did. If the reason given by the Minister of Finance is a good one for the payment of any creditor then that reason should inure to the benefit of all the creditors the same as it does to the benefit of depositors.


Mr. MERNER:: The riding which I represent had two branches of the Farmers Bank with deposits amounting to about $120,000, and I can positively say that three per cent was all these branches paid, not four per cent.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he has ever made any inquiries as to the rate of interest that was paid by the Farmers Bank branches on deposits?


William Thomas White: I have never made any specific inquiry. My understanding has been that they paid the same rate as others but I am not certain as to that, because I have not made any inquiry.


Herménégilde Boulay: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) favoured us the other day, with an admirable statement of the situation as regards the Farmers' Bank and other banks. Nothing could be said further that would give us a clearer insight into the question.
I have carefully gone over the speech delivered by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. White) when the resolutions concerning the Farmers Bank were introduced. I also read through a return brought down in compliance with an order of the House of Commons dated January 16, 1911, and included in volume 45, No. 24, of the sessional papers for 1911. I have also read through the report of Commissioner W. R. Meredith, dated Fehruary 21, 1913, concerning that same bank. But that report reminds me somewhat of a fair maiden who having two lovers and been anxious to retain them both, arranged to have them call on different days.
It would appear from the statement of the hon. Minister of Finance, based on the 
report of Commissioner Meredith, that we are bound to grant relief to the depositors who have suffered enormous losses through , the failure of the aforesaid bank. True, in that report, at page 8, I read:
My conclusion on this branch of the inquiry is that the Treasury Board was induced to give its certificate by false and fraudulent representations on the part of Travers, and that if the facts I have mentioned as to the way in which the $250,000 was made up had been disclosed, the certificate of the Treasury Board would not have been given.
It is plain from the letter of the Finance Minister to Travers, of 30th November, 1906, that the Minister understood that section 13 of the Bank Act would not have been complied with if the $250,000 was made up wholly or in part of money raised on promissory notes given by subscribers for shares to the provisional directors and that he would have felt it his duty to recommend that the certificate should not be granted if he had known that part of the money had been raised in that way.
Obviously the Commissioner was anxious to exonerate the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance for having issued, on November 30, 1906, that certificate which enabled the bank to start business. But what strikes me as most peculiar in that report of the investigating commissioner is the statement to be found a little further on:
That that information had been given to the minister before the certificate was issued appears from the testimony of Sir Edmond Osier and Mr. David Henderson and is shown by the letter of the 19th October, 1906, of Mr. Leighton McCarthy to the minister,.
I do not suggest that the minister would have been justified because of the information conveyed to him in recommending that the certificate should not be granted, or that the Treasury Board because of it would not have been justified in refusing to grant it, but, having received the information, it was in my opinion incumbent on the Treasury Board to have investigated the charges that had been made before coming to a conclusion as to whether or not the certificate should be given.
It will be seen that, in this instance, the Commissioner blames the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance. But further on he endeavours once more to exonerate them. Indeed, at page 9 of the same report, will be found the following statement :
And the most that can properly be charged against the Department of Finance or the Treasury Board is an error of judgment.
Now, I fail to comprehend how the investigating Commissioner was able to reach the conclusion that there was committed a mere error of judgment in this whole business, when he says at page 8 -in a previous paragraph:
Although the information which had been conveyed to the minister had evidently im-

pressed him with the necessity for further inquiry on his part before advising- that the certificate shall be given, the only inquiry made was that contained in his letter to Travers, of the 30th November, 1906.
In my humble view, that simple letter, far from relieving the Minister of Finance of the heavy responsibility of inquiring into the facts brought to his attention by Messrs. McCarthy and others, further incriminates him, and shows conclusively that there was not only committed a simple error of judgment but that the ex-minister of Finance showed a quasi criminal neglect of the public interests confided to his care. That whole report tends to exonerate the Minister of Finance and the Department, especially when it is stated at page 10:
I am unable to find that there was any neglect of duty on the part of the department, or to see that anything more than what was done could have been done, even if Mr. Vankough-net's letter had stated, which it did not, that the promissory notes he referred to were notes that had been given in respect of shares included in the list furnished to the department when the application for the issue of the certificate of the Treasury Board was made.
It follows therefore that in two different places the investigating commissioners blames the former Government and in two places exonerates them as well.
I for one, do not find the conclusions of the investigating commissioner to be in agreement with the fact disclosed by the correspondence between Travers and the Finance Department,- previous to the issuing of the aforesaid certificate. In the first place, I am not called upon to express an opinion in respect to the conduct of Travers and the shareholders; the hon. Minister of Finance has gone fully into that last evening. The whole thing is a series of unprecedented frauds, and a scandalous exhibition such as should never ibe given by people who aspire to command the confidence of the people. I do not propose to read the whole correspondence and to draw the conclusions which flow naturally from the letters exchanged between the parties interested, that is to say Travers and the Department of Finance. However, in order to understand how the matter stands, it is necessary to look into that correspondence.
In the first place, it will be necessary to read a letter dated October 8, 1906, addressed to the hon. W. S. Fielding by L. McCarthy and which reads as follows (page 1 of the Sessional documents):
Toronto, Oct. 8, 1906.
Hon. W. S. Fielding,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa.
My dear Mr. Fielding,-I have been consulted
on behalf of a number of subscribers to the shares of the Farmers' Bank, and from the instructions I have received a number of the subscribers will dispute the bona fide character of the subscriptions. I have not time to-night to give a full statement of the grounds of this request to you, but I beg to assure you that grave conditions have arisen which will require careful consideration before the Treasury Board would grant any certificate for the organization of this bank.
I therefore ask you to be good enough to stay any action which might be taken until 1 have had an opportunity of discussing this with you. If it is not asking you to hold it too long, I would prefer not having to go to Ottawa this week, but will go any day next week which would suit your convenience. Of course if there is no immediate prospect of your granting such a certificate my seeing you at an early date will not be necessary.
Leighton McCarthy.
The wording of that letter was sufficiently clear, not only to give rise to doubts in the mind of the minister as to the regularity of the organization of the Farmers' Bank, but, moreover, to induce him to be very cautious and even to investigate all suspicious circumstances previous to issuing the certificate. It was followed by a message dated October 11, which reads as follows:
Toronto, Oct. 11, 1906.
Hon. W. S. Fielding,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa.
Please wire me assurance in reference to stay of certificate of Treasury Board mentioned in my letter of Monday night.
Leighton McCarthy.
And pray observe that the aforesaid letter was written only fifty days previous to the issuing of the certificate enabling the bank to start business. The minister acknowledges receipt of Mr. McCarthy's message in the following words:
Ottawa, October 11, 1906. Leighton McCarthy, M.P.,
Toronto.
No application yet received for the certificate referred to. Please forward your representations immediately and they will be considered when application comes.
W. S. Fielding,
Minister of Finance.
Now, he admits at the time that no request has as yet been made, but that he is on his guard, and in a letter bearing the same date as the aforesaid message, he lays further stress on the statement herein contained:
Minister of Finance, Canada.
Ottawa, October 11, 1906. Leighton G. McCarthy, Esq., M.P.,
Toronto.
My dear Mr. McCarthy,-I have your letter of the 8th instant, and your telegram to-day on the subject of the Farmers Bank.

I wired you to-day that no application had been made by the promoters for the Treasury Board certificate, and suggested that you send forward at once any representations which you may wish to make, to which we shall give all due consideration.
W. S. Fielding,
Minister of Finance.
To which Mr. McCarthy sends the following reply on October 12:
Toronto, October 1?, 1906. Hon. W. S. Fielding,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa.
My dear Mr. Fielding,-Many thanks for your telegram received last night, advising me that no application had yet been received for certificate of the Farmers Bank and asking me to forward representations immediately when they will be considered. This will receive my attention.
I am obliged to you for the telegram.
Leighton McCarthy.
But all that precedes is nothing in comparison with the following letter from Mr. McCarthy dated October 19, that is to say, only forty days previous to the issuing of the required certificate. That letter is so plain and based on such firm grounds that, after reading it, no Minister of Finance could ever issue a certificate without laying himself open to the charge, not only of lacking in judgment, but also of showing a culpable, if not a criminal neglect. The! letter reads as follows:
Toronto, Oct. 19, 1906.
Hon. W. S. Fielding,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa.
Re the Farmers Bank of Canada.
My dear Mr. Fielding,-1 beg to inclose the special endorsement upon a writ of summons in the High Court of Justice for Ontario, which will be issued by William A. Saxon, John Sproat, George Castle, William McLean, Finlay Mc-Callum, Robert Hume, James Murray, George Denoon, John McLeod, Jane Shuert, William Harris, on behaf of themseves and all other persons alleged to be subscribers for shares of the capital stock of the Farmers Bank of Canada wTho may desire to come in and be parties to this action, against the Farmers Bank of Canada, James Gallagher, John Watson, John Ferguson, Alexander Fraser, Alexander Shepherd, Lown, W. R. Travers, C. H. Smith, A. G. H. Luxton, and the Traders' Bank of Canada, and W. J. Lindsay and I respectfully request that the Treasury Board will stay any action upon the application of persons professing to act in the name of the Farmers Bank of Canada, or in the name of the provisional directors of the Farmers Bank of Canada, for a certificate under section 15 of the Bank Act on the grounds alleged in the inclosed special endorsement, and other grounds which may be disclosed upon the examination of the alleged subscribers for shares.
I have received information that the alleged subscribers for shares paid a large sum of money in cash and have signed notes for other large sums of money, and that the persons pro-

fessing to act in the name of the bank have transferred notes and received the proceeds, and that a deposit either has been made or will be made of the cash received and the proceeds of these notes, or sufficient amount to make up $250,000.
I wish you to have the kindness to acknowledge the receipt of this protest against the granting of a certificate so that I may advise the shareholders who are disputing their liability, and I would be pleased to go to Ottawa upon any appointment you may make for the further consideration of this matter.
Leighton McCarthy.
What a strong worded protest is served on him on behalf of a responsible advocate of the city of Toronto, and forty days after the minister allows the issuing of a certificate enabling this bank to start business, notwithstanding the charges which are made against it; and Mr. Meredith's report is content with stating that there has been committed an error of judgment! To my mind there is more than that, there is carelessness, remissness, if not intentional forbearance with a view to defrauding the public. And the aforesaid letter was duly received at the Finance Department, for on October 23, that is to say four days later, an answer was sent to Mr. McCarthy, which reads as follows:
Department of Finance, Canada,
Ottawa, October 23, 1906. Leighton McCarthy, K.C., MP.,
Toronto, Ont.
Dear Sir,-I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 19th inst. to Mr. Fielding's address respecting the Farmers Bank of Canada. When application is made by the Farmers Bank to the Treasury Board for a certificate to enable them to commence business, the representations contained in your leter with its enclosure will be laid before the board.
(Sgd.) T. C. Boville,
For Deputy Minister of Finance.
On the same day, Travers wrote also, and the dates are so close, that it is not possible to suppose there was an oversight on the part of the Department of Finance. The letter from Travers reads as follows:
The Farmers Bank of Canada,
Toronto, Oct. 23, 1906. Hon. Minister of Finance, and Receiver General of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Sir,-I hereby beg to enclose you certificate No. 1150 from the Bank of Montreal, Toronto, for $250,000, to be deposited to the credit of the Farmers Bank of Canada in compliance with section 13 of the Bank Act.
Please acknowledge receipt and oblige.
(Sgd.) W. R. Travers,
General Manager.
On October 24, that is the day following that on which they had written to McCarthy, an acknowledgment was sent of the papers received from Travers:

The General Manager,
The Farmers Bank of Canada,
Toronto.
Dear Sir,-I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 23rd instant, enclosing receipt and draft of the Bank of Montreal, Toronto, for the sum of $250,000 deposited by your bank in compliance with section 13 of the Bank Act.
I may say in this connection that opposition has been filed in this department to the granting of a certificate to your bank under section 14 of the Bank Act.
T. C. Boville.
To which Travers replied as follows in a letter dated October 29:
Toronto October 29,1806. The Hon. Deputy Minister of Finance,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir,-Yours of the 24th, post-marked October 26, was received here on the 27th.
I was surprised to know that any one had filed an opposition against this bank being granted a certificate.
Would you kindly do me the favour of supplying me with a copy of the said objections, ""as I do not know up to the present moment wherein we have deviated in the slightest effect from the Bank Act.
W. It. Travers,
General Manager.
I quote herewith another letter dated October 31, addressed to Mr. McCarthy, and signed Boville, which shows furthermore how suspicious the department had become in respect to the Farmers5 Bank of Canada.
Dear Sir,-Referring to your letter of the 19th instant, addressed to Mr. Fielding, on the subject of the Farmers Bank of Canada and the issue of a certificate to that bank to commence business under section 15 of the Bank Act, I noticed recently a reference in the newspapers for a judgment given by Judge Anglin in a suit relating to this matter. In view of the decision rendered, I shall be obliged if you will let me know if you still desire the protest contained in your letter to be brought before the Treasury Board upon an application of the Farmers Bank for a certificate to be considered.
T. C. Boville.
Now, on that date of October 31, that is to say, exactly one month previous to the issuing of the certificate enabling the bank to start business, a certificate granted on the application of Travers, the protest is still in the hands of the Deputy Minister, and there is enough anxiety felt over it to induce the officials to inquire from Mr. McCarthy whether he still proposes to submit the matter to the Treasury Board when the time comes to consider the application. Why bother their heads about that protest, if it was not of some importance? Why should they worry about it? Indeed it was because that certificate was of a nature to arouse suspicion in respect to the organization of the said bank, and that is further evidence that the enabling certificate should never have been issued without a thorough inquiry being made.
On November 2, a copy of McCarthy's protest is transmitted to Travers as follows :
Ottawa, Nov. 2, 1906.
W. R. Travers,
Toronto, Ont.
Dear Sir,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 29th instant, and in reply I beg to enclose herewith a copy of a letter addressed to Mr. Fielding by Mr. Leighton McCarthy by way of protest to the granting of a certificate to your bank to commence business. Of the enclosure with Mr. McCarthy's letter I have not sent you a copy as it is lengthy, and I have no doubt you already have a copy of it in your possession.
(Sgd) T. C. Boville.
True, Mr. McCarthy, on November 2, writes the following letter withdrawing his objections:
Toronto, Nov. 2, 1906. The Hon. W. S. Fielding,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-Referring to my letters of the 8th and 9 th instant, with reference to the application for a certificate made on behalf of the Farmers Bank ; I am advised by those who are instructing me that the claims made by them in the action brought have been settled by their subscriptions being taken up by some parties interested in the bank and refunding the money paid by the individuals or returning the notes which had been given. The objections which I made on their behalf to the issue of the certificate are therefore withdrawn. Would you mind therefore returning to me the papers which I forwarded to you.
(Sgd) Leighton McCarthy.
That was only twenty-eight days previous to the issuing of the certificate, and the minister, notwithstanding the withdrawal of Mr. McCarthy's protest, is open to blame for not having inquired into the whole transaction before taking so great a risk, which has had such disastrous results for those unfortunate depositors and even directors, if they are called upon to-live up to the double liability clause. The Hon. W. S. Fielding, Minister of Finance in the Dominion Government, to whom had been confided the guardianship of the public treasury, trusted by his party and by the government, having in his responsible position the supervision of the finances of the Dominion, was bound to be the more prudent that ha was in possession of a higher post of public trust. Any blame that the former minister is open to, as a consequence of that unfortunate transaction, does not fall on him personally, but as the official representative of the govern-

ment, who is responsible towards the public and bound to compensate those who have been shamefully robbed.
On November 21, we havs a further letter from Boville to Travers, which reads as follows and shows that the importance of the information supplied had not been overlooked :
Department of Finance, Canada,
Ottawa, Nov. 21, 1906. W. R. Travers, Gen. Manager,
The Farmers Bank of Canada,
Toronto, Ont.
Dear Sir,-Referring to your letter of the 23 rd October, making a deposit under section 13 of the Bank Act of the sum of $250,000. X have no doubt that you will be applying very shortly for a certificate under section 14 to commence business. In the papers to be submitted to the board in support of the application there is a list of bona fide subscribers of capital stock of the bank showing subscriptions to the extent of $500,000. Would you be so good as to have added to this list for submission to the board, a statement showing the actual amount of cash paid up by each subscriber.
(Sgd) T. C. Boville, Deputy Minister of Finance.
The CHAIRMAN of the COMMITTEE (Mr. BLONDIN: (Translation.) Will the hon. member allow me to inquire whether he proposes to discuss the whole bill?
Mr. BOULAY. (Translation.) No.
Mr.	BLONDIN.	(Translation.)	We ars
sitting in Committee of the Whole, and I think the hon. gentleman should postpone his remarks till the third reading of the Bill. I take the liberty of calling the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact, as I would not like to take the responsibility of allowing a general overhauling of the Bill at this stage of the proceedings.
Mr.	BOULAY.	(Translation.)	I	wish
simply to lay before the House some viry interesting documents in connection with this matter, so that the public may be in a position to form an opinion. Besides, I have only a couple more letters to read.
Mr.	GAUVRliAU. (Translation.)	And
those documents are so new!
Mr.	BOULAY.	(Translation.)	On	November 27, we have a letter from Travers to the Deputy Minister of Finance, enclosing the documents required under the Bank Act (page 7):
The Farmers Bank of Canada.
Toronto, Nov. 27, 1906. To the Deputy Minister of Finance,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-I have the honour herewith to forward declaration of the general manager

of the Farmers Bank of Canada setting forth facts relating to the incorporation and organization of the said bank, and also giving the names of the directors elected at the meeting of subscribers and such other particulars as are required by the Bank Act. The provisions of the Act as to subscriptions and deposit with the Receiver General having been fully complied with on behalf of the said bank, I apply for the certificate of the Treasury Board permitting the said bank to commence the business of banking.
(Sgd) W. R. Travers,
General Manager.
On November 28, Mr. Boville forwards to Mr. Newcombe thi record in the matter of the Farmers' Bank (page 28):
Ottawa, Nov. 28, 1906.
E. L. Newcombe, K.C.,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-I beg to forward you herewith a return of the application of the Farmers Bank of Canada in connection with the granting of a certificate enabling it to start business under sections 13-17 of the Bank Act.
Kindly let me know whether such documents justify the issuing by us of said certificate.
The following is Mr. Newcoinbe's answer, dated the same day, giving his opinion: Ottawa, Nov. 28, 1906.
To the Deputy Minister of Finance,
Ottawa, Ont.
Sir,-I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 28th instant, and of the inclosed papers, being the application from the Farmers Bank of Canada for a certificate to commence business,- under section 13-17 of the Bank Act, and papers in support thereof.
You ask me to advise you if on the papers submitted such certificate may legally issue.
In reply, beg to state that the statements in the statutory declaration of Mr. Walter R. Travers are sufficient, if they are accepted, to show compliance with the statutory provisions and that the evidence thus afforded is such as the Treasury Board may lawfully accept under the Act, and thereupon issue to the bank a certificate under section 14 of the Act.
Papers returned herewith.
E. D. Newcombe.
Two days after, on November 30, the Hon. W. S. Fielding writes to Travers the following letter which, not only excites some suspicion, but arouses very grave doubts in my mind:
Dept, of Finance, Canada,
Ottawa, Nov. 30, 1906.
W. R. Travers,
Genrl. Manager Farmers Bank of Canada, Russell House, Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-I regret that owing to pressing engagements yesterday, arising out of the Budget, I was unable to meet you to consider your application for the issue of a certificate to authorize the Farmers Bank of Canada to commence business. I shall be glad to see you to-day, at my office, at any time before one o'clock if you can call. Or I might be able to see you later, between four and five, at

the House of Commons, if that will he more convenient.
There is a phase of the matter which I should like to bring- to your notice so that you may consider it at once. It has been represented to us that in some previous instances where an application was in all respects apparently regular, there was actually an evasion of the intention of the Bank Act in relation to the paid-up capital. We have been told that in some cases the subscribers did not actually pay in cash but gave notes to the provisional directors which were used to raise the money. On account of information of this kind, which has reached us in relation to a previous case, we deem it proper to scan very closely every application for a certificate which comes to us. I shall be glad to have an assurance that nothing of the kind has taken place in relation to the subscriptions for the Farmers Bank, but that the amounts set forth in the application as having been paid up have in every case been bona fide cash payments.
W. S. Fielding,
Minister of Finance
The contents of this letter plainly show, not only that the minister had some doubts, but that he knew almost to a certainty that the deposit of $250,000 required under the Banking Act of Canada had not been legally effected; and should there he only that letter in the whole record, it constitutes sufficient and overwhelming evidence not only of carelessness and neglect, but, so to speak, of extraordinary forbearance under the circumstances towards the notorious manager of the Farmers Bank. And to satisfy his timorous conscience, which current gossip had somewhat perturbed and disquieted, the hon. gentleman was content with having an interview with his personal friend Travers, and a mere verbal explanation on his part is considered sufficient to justify the issue of the desired certificate so long expected and which was required to enable the bank to start business. On a mere letter of Travers, written, no doubt, after that five hours' interview, and on that same day, perhaps at that very hour, though it was already late, on that 30th day of November, possibly at six o'clock in the evening, the certificate was issued, and Travers departed quite elated at his success in this connection.
However, on that same day, November 30, in a letter which is included in the return, Mr. E. S. Clouston was already protesting against the organization of the Farmers Bank; but little heed seems to have been paid to it by the Finance Department. His letter was answered, but Travers, notwithstanding his extortions, his false reports, his false dividends and his false entries, succeeded in keeping the bank afloat until the month of December, 1910, when the catastrophe occurred which had long been expected and which the Finance Minister of the Laurier Government had contributed in bringing about. To-day we are called upon to pay the price of the faults, the carelessness, not to say the complicity of that Government, in one of the worst financial schemes which has been unloaded on this country.
Therefore, I express the opinion that the former Government through the medium of the ex-Minister of Finance, have laid themselves open to blame in issuing that certificate enabling the bank to start business, the effect being to lead people erronously to believe that all was right and that they could safely make large deposits in that bank, deposits which they never would have made if they had been in possession even of the meagre information which the department had in hand. For the department had been notified of the manoeuvres of Travers and the directors. Previous to the issue of the certificate. Travers could not start business, but once the certificate issued, the public saw no reason to withhold its support from an undertaking thus endorsed by the Dominion authorities. Under the circumstances, and after considering the statement made by the Government, I declare myself favourable to the proposal of reimbursing the deposits made in that bank.
I may be allowed, Mr. Chairman, to read a complete list of the banka which have failed in Canada since confederation. The hon. Postmaster General has given out the names of a certain number of these banks; but there are a few missing which I would like to include. I shall add a few particulars as follows, in respect to the date on which business was suspended, the amount due to the people, the payment of bank notes and deposits, as well as the total amount of the doss inflicted on the people:


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-payment:
John Howard Sinclair: Is it intended that this money shall be reserved for the widows and children and shall not be available for the creditors of the deceased depositors?


William Thomas White: That is the intention.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Upon what principle? If the losses had not been incurred by the creditors of the bank, such deposits
CM. Boulay.]
would have been available at law to the creditors of the depositors. You are rather changing the character of the assets.


William Thomas White: The payment to the depositors under the authority of this Bill is not a legal liability on the part
4 p.m. of the Government, although the matter has been argued on the analogy of legal principle. We thought it proper to provide that, in the case of death of a depositor, the money which would otherwise be paid to him under this section, should be paid to his widow and children and should not be exigible at the instance of his creditors. I suppose my hon. friend is strictly logical in saying that, had the bank not failed, the money would have been available to the creditors; but I do not think there will be any serious objection to the course here proposed.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: You are making it a pure gift by putting in that provision-


William Thomas White: It is a gift to the dependents.
Mr. MACLEANwhereas the purpose of the Bill is to restore the original financial condition of the creditors in relation to the bank. It seems to me you are not carrying out the purpose of the legislation. I do not think that the speeches made by the Minister of Finance and other hon. gentlemen

opposite contemplated such a disposition of the moneys to be paid out of the consolidated revenue account as is proposed. I think it is altogether a new idea.


William Thomas White: There is legislation upon
the statuteJbook of Canada under which money, to which a party or parties may be entitled, may be by the Government handed over to the widow and children, as we propose to do here. I know what is in the mind of my hon. friend. He thinks that, if we proceed logically upon the assumption that the Government is bound to reimburse these depositors, there is no reason why the creditors should not be protected in regard to the rights they have to the deposits so restored; but as I pointed out, there is no such legal liability upon the Government in this matter. We have argued it on the ground of legal analogy, and we think the Government is morally hound to make reparation. No objection has been taken to this provision except on the part of my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Hon. W. T. WHITE (Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of the Bill.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will the minister furnish us, at the beginning of the next session of Parliament, with a list showing the names and descriptions of the persons and the amount paid under this legislation? This Bill does not provide for that, and I do not suppose any other statute does. It might be well for Parliament to have this information.


William Thomas White: I do not see why such a
return should not be made; and if by any chance it is overlooked, if my hon. friend will move for the return, I think I can promise him that the information will be brought down. Parliament is undoubtedly entitled to it.


Mr. DEVLIN:: Does the Government intend to take any steps to recover the moneys which have been paid out illegally by the bank?


William Thomas White: That will he the duty of the liquidator. If my hon. friend has any information which is not at present before the liquidator, I shall be glad on receiving it to forward it to him. I have no knowledge of any such payments, but it is quite possible, even probable, that there were such. If so, I have no doubt the liquidator has 309J
given the matter attention, as he is a very competent man.


John Howard Sinclair: Before the Bill is read the third time, I wish to he permitted to move an amendment. In the discussion which took place the other day, the hon. Postmaster General threw out a hint that similar applications would be received in the cases of other failures of banks throughout the country. This was also referred to by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, who said that, if there were any other cases that came under the same principle, they would be considered by the Government. A number of other cases have been referred to in the course of the discussion, such as the Mechanics Bank at Montreal, the Bank of Liverpool, Nova Scotia, tlhe Bank of Prince Edward Island, La Banque Ville iMarie, and other hanks. In the case of La Banque Ville Marie, it has been drawn to the attention of the Government by my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) that there was gross negligence on the part of the former Government in not attending to the inspection of that bank and in not insisting on proper returns being made under the banking law. In the case of the Bank of Prince Edward Island, it was drawn to the attention of the Government, by questions asked by my hon. friend for Kings, Prince Edward Island (Mr. Hughes), that in that province at the time the province came into the union there were five small banks doing business. Two of them had a capital of about $100,000 each, and the others had a smaller capital. No provision was made in the Act bringing the island into the union as to what would be the fate of those banks that were carrying on business in that province at that time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member is rather wandering away from the question before the House, namely, the third reading of this Bill. It appears to me that it is not permissible to go into the principles of other banks and banking, and I think the hon. member ought to address himself to the question as to whether this Bill shall be read the third time now


John Howard Sinclair: The amendment I intend to move deals with the whole question, and I think your honour will see that I am perfectly regular in the remarks I intend making.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then it would perhaps be better if the hon. member would send

up his amendment or read it, so that the Speaker could have some idea in regard to the matter.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is it your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that on the third reading of a Bill the principle cannot be discussed as on the second reading?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No. My ruling is that the Bill can be discussed, but that the discussion of other and extraneous matters having no direct relation to the Bill is out of order. The third reading is the proper time for the Bill to be discussed and a motion made to amend it, if desired.


John Howard Sinclair: I was referring-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the hon. member send up his amendment?


John Howard Sinclair: I wish to make my argument before I submit the amendment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the Speaker could
deal more intelligently with it if he had the amendment in his hands.


Wilfrid Laurier: Even if my hon. friend has no amendment to propose, can he not discuss the Bill?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He can discuss the Bill on the third reading. But, if I understand the hon. gentleman correctly, he is dealing with banks and banking back to Confederation, including matters that, so far as I can see, have no relation to this Bill. With regard to the amendment which the hon. member proposes to make, my suggestion was that if that amendment were in the Speaker's hands the Speaker would know whether the hon. gentleman was addressing his argument to that amendment or not. The amendment might give a latitude which the Bill without the amendment would not give.


John Howard Sinclair: If I am free to discuss the Bill without an amendment, surely I am free to discuss it with an amendment. I understand Your Honour to say that I am free to discuss the principle of the Bill and to discuss it as freely in that sense as on the second reading. I will endeavour to keep myself within that ruling.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Perhaps the hon. member scarcely apprehends my meaning. An hon. member in addressing the House must address himself to the last question propounded before the House. In the case of an amendment he would be at liberty to deal with what was contained in the

amendment as well as what is contained in the main motion, which would give him wider latitude than he could have on the discussion of a motion for the third reading of a Bill. That was my object in desiring to add the amendment-that I might know whether the hon. member was keeping within the limits of the amendment and of the Bill itself.


John Howard Sinclair: I have no objection to show Your Honour the amendment. At the same time, I wish to address myself to the principle of this Bill, and to make the remarks that I was prevented from making, at the instance of the chief whip of the Government, on the occasion of the second reading. Perhaps Your Honour will remember that before the end of that discussion the hour was very late. It was necessary that the Prime Minister should be allowed to speak. It was understood between myself and the chief whip of the Government side that if I withdrew on that occasion I should be allowed to deal with the question as fully as on the second reading. I understand that is the position I am in now. I would point out also to Your Honour, that my hon. friend from Rimouski (Mr. Boulay) a few minutes ago made a speech referring generally to the whole subject matter of the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: If I might be allowed to interrupt-I think there would be no wisn to curtail the scope of the hon. gentleman's remarks.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Personally I have no
objection. But I might say that I was present during the consideration of the Bill in Committee of the Whole and the discussion was not at all in regular order. Under the rule, in Committtee of the Whole, a member speaking must address himself to the clause under consideration. But the discussion wandered over the whole Bill and other questions as well. I only wish to keep the House to the usual parliamentary business lines of discussion, which are pretty well understood; it is not my desire to curtail anything which the hon. gentleman has a right to say.


John Howard Sinclair: I should be very sorry
to do anything contrary to the ruling of the Chair. I have the greatest respect for your' Honour's opinion. But I scarcely understand why I should not be allowed to discuss on the third reading everything contained in this Bill. As I understand

that you have permitted me to go on, I will continue my remarks.
I was pointing out that at the time Prince Edward Island came into Confederation these banks were in operation, in that province. There was no Treasury Board in Prince Edward Island and no possibility of the existence of such an institution., under the local government of that province, after the province came into the Union. The [DOT] federal Government assumed charge of the banking laws. Apparently it was the duty of the federal Government to have some sort of supervision over these banks. But the banks were allowed to continue in business at their own sweet will, and to issue notes without any supervision, either on the part of the local government which had no jurisdiction, or on the part of the federal Government which had jurisdiction, but failed to exercise it. The consequence was that one of these banks, known as the Farmers Bank, and another, known as the Bank of Prince Edward Island, failed, and, I understand, the depositors lost a large amount of money. The fact was drawn to the attention of the Government, through questions .asked by my hon. friend from Kings, P.E.I. (Mr. Hughes), that that state of affairs existed in Prince Edward Island, and the Prime Minister having suggested that it was open to the depositors who lost money in any part, of Canada to make a similar claim to that made by the depositors of the Farmers Bank, I thought it was necessary that an amendment should be moved that would put the country in possession of the information with regard to these other institutions in which money has been lost in a similar way.
Now this measure is important, in view of the fact that it involves a new doctrine in Canada. The doctrine that has prevailed in this country since Confederation, and in the provinces of Canada prior to Confederation, is ' The King can do no wrong '-that the government of the country is not responsible for. a mistake made by a minister or officer of the Government. That is the doctrine that has always prevailed in this country and in the old country as well. And I submit that it is a good doctrine. We have always had a great deal of faith in the administration of the Department of Finance in Canada. Other departments of the Government on certain occasions have been besmirched with scandal, but I do not recollect that on any occasion during the history of Canada since Confederation,
there has been suspicion that there was anything crooked or wrong in the administration of the Department of Finance. That department has been managed during that period by very illustrious men. In looking over the names, I find that the department has been under the direction of such distinguished men as Sir John Rose, Sir Francis Hincks, Sir Richard Cartwright,. Sir Leonard Tilley, Sir Charles Tupper, the Hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) and the Hon. W. S. Fielding. I submit that there is not one of these statesmen, who have been honoured with the portfolio of the Department of Finance, who would have been willing to stand as godfather to the illegitimate proposal we now-find on the table of the House. I have said that we are establishing a new precedent in Canada;-may I add that it is a vicious precedent and that there is absolutely no justification for it?
We hold the present Finance Minister responsible for a transaction of this kind. The old-fashioned notion is that the Finance Minister is the guardian of the consolidated revenue of this country, but, having regard to his conduct on this and other occasions during the present session, it looks to me as if he were developing into a kind of modem Robin Hood, with ithis difference: that Robin Hood seized the property of the rich and divided it among the poor, while my hon. friend seizes the property of the taxpayers of this country, and hands it over to em-barassed millionaires and political friends.


William Thomas White: Such as the depositors of the Farmers Bank.


John Howard Sinclair: I submit that this legislation establishes a vicious and dangerous precedent and that we should not adopt it. We are tending to acceptance of the principle that a license issued by the Government involves the assumption that the persons to whom we issue that license are honest and straight, and will use properly all the powers given to them by that license, and that it is the duty of officials to ascertain this before issuing the license. I submit that that principle will apply to many other things, as well as to banks. The Secretary of State day by day is issuing charters to joint stock companies to do business in this country. The same provisions which relate to banks are found in the law relating to companies. It is necessary that the parties applying for a charter to do business as an incorporated company shall put up a certain amount of capital;

that a certain amount shall be subscribed nnd a certain amount paid in. The law, Therefore, is the same in this particular dn respect of joint stock companies as in [DOT]respect of banks. But does the Secretary [DOT]of State make any investigation with a wiew to ascertaining whether the capital so subscribed is borrowed or whether it is taken out of the till of the subscriber? No such thing; he vannot do it. A solicitor comes to his office with an affidavit similar to that made in this case, in which he states that the law has Deen complied with; he produces also a certified check for a certain amount of money. Every solicitor in Canada who has had anything to do with these matters knows that all the Secretary of State asks for is the statement of the solicitor or some reputable subscriber that the company is regularly organized. But we are adopting a principle under which we go farther, and if it turns out that any of these companies are improperly chartered; that the amount of the check is made up of money paid in for the purpose of obtaining a charter and that there is no real capital behind the company at all, we make ourselves just as liable in that case as we do in the case of banks. I admit that we ought to take greater care in the case of banks, but what I do say is that the principle is the same and if the Government is to be held liable for issuing a license in the one case, it ought to be held liable for the consequences of issuing a charter in the other.
A few days ago the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries introduced a Bill changing the law relating to pilots on the St. Lawrence river. Prior to this date the pilots were licensed by a pilotage commission. In future the pilots will be licensed by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and it will be his duty to select competent men. Suppose that a man whom he had selected upon a supposedly good recommendation of competency was put in charge of the Empress of Ireland and was responsible for the collision that took place in the St. Lawrence whereby $2,000,000 worth of property and many lives were lost, what would be the consequence? Would not the persons who sustained these losses come to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and say: This man was licensed by your department; you committed an error of judgment in licensing the incompetent or drunken man who was responsible for the wreck of this ship; consequently you are liable for the loss. A few years ago 
I submitted a claim to the late Government in regard to the loss of a schooner containing a valuable cargo on the coast of Nova Scotia. The circumstances were these: There was a sunken ledge off the port of Whitehead in that province; this ledge could not be seen at high tide and only in case of a storm could the breakers be observed. The Government for a great many years had been placing a buoy to mark the location of that sunken ledge, and prior to the occasion to which I refer a Government steamer placed a buoy fifty yards inside instead of outside the ledge, where it should have been. As a consequence, while endeavouring to round the buoy and make the port, a schooner carrying a valuable cargo struck the ledge and the schooner and cargo were lost. The Government gave me the usual answer, that the King can do no wrong; that the Government provides these aids to navigation free of charge and that consequently the Government was not responsible. They turned up some cases where claims of that kind which had been made against the Department of Marine and Fisheries had always been rejected on that ground. I had to accept the position, because I knew that that was the law, although this was a case wherein very great hardship was involved. Serious mistakes like that may occur, and it is easy to describe them as errors in judgment, as in the case now before the House.
The question of the character of Mr. Travers has been discussed by gentlemen who have spoken on this subject and it has been stated over and over again by supporters of the Government that Mr. Fielding ought to have discovered that Mr. Travers was a dishonest man. Let me ask, who suspected Mr. Travers at the time he approached the Finance Minister for this license? Was not Mr. Travers at that time a man of good reputation? Was he not known to be a successful business man in the province of Ontario? There is not a hint in the evidence that any person ever raised a question as to Mr. Travers' character until long after that date. The hon. member for Halton did not say anything reflecting on Travers' character. He does not say that he told Mr. Fielding that Mr. Travers was dishonest. If he did know anything that would justify such a statement, I feel certain that he would have made it known to Mr. Fielding. The hon. member for Halton has never been afraid to speak out in meeting. He was always an able and energetic critic when he was in oppo-

sition, and if he had a case against the late Government he would be the first man in the House to stand up and state it. The hon. member for Halton did not think that there was anything very serious wrong with Travers' character or he would have taken more action than he took on that occasion. The hon. member for West Toronto (Sir Edmund Osier) did not make any suggestion to Mr. Fielding that there was anything wrong so far as Mr. Travers' character was concerned. He seems incidentally to have expressed a pious opinion that it was not wise to license this bank because it was going into the hands of inexperienced men and into the hands of a board of directors who did not know very much about the banking business. That appears to be the substance of the warning given by the hon. member for West Toronto. At that date the hon. gentleman was a prominent director of the Dominion Bank. The Dominion Bank was a member of the clearing house in Toronto. The clearing house does not need to admit any disreputable man to membership. We fail to find that the hon. member for West Toronto took any objection to Travers. It is said the bank rather welcomed him at the time he applied for admission to the. clearing house, showing that the hon. member for West Toronto did not himself think that there was anything very bad in this case, or he would certainly have taken some action to prevent Travers from joining that association. The case of the Bankers' Association is a little different because automatically a chartered bank comes under the Bankers' Association and has a right to join it, but that does not apply to Bankers' Clearing House Association. So, when the hon. member for West Toronto failed to make any objection to the admission of the Farmers Bank as a member of the clearing house, I say that he failed to do his duty if he knew there was anything wrong about Travers. Then it was drawn to our attention that Colonel Munro, one of the prominent men of Ontario, a man who on two occasions had been a member of the local legislature of that province, whose character was very high, who was a private banker, who was well known in all of that part of the province of Ontario to be a man of very good character and of high integrity. How is it that Colonel Munro did not discover that Travers was a scoundrel, if Mr. Fielding ought to have known it when the charter was issued? Why is it that Colonel Munro afterwards became an associate of
Travers and agreed to become president of the bank that Travers shortly afterwards wrecked? If Colonel Munro could not find him out and the four or five hundered other shareholders, respectable citizens of Ontario, did not discover it; if they met year after year and elected him as director and continued him as general manager of the bank, if in all that time no person found, out that Travers was dishonest, how could it be expected that Mr. Fielding could have found it out when Travers applied for the license at the Department of Finance?


Richard Blain: What did the writ issued
by Mr. Leighton McCarthy and served on Mr. Fielding mean?


John Howard Sinclair: I do not regard that ap a very important matter. The writ wag served by parties who were dissatisfied with the way in which the bank was being financed, but the writ was withdrawn and the Department of Finance was notified that it had been withdrawn; not only that, but in the notice that came from Mr. McCarthy to the Finance Minister it was stated that other parties had taken up the stock. What more could the Finance Minister want? He did not care who had taken up the stock so long as it was taken up. It was assumed, of course, that Mr. McCarthy meant, and any person would assume he meant, that the stock had been regularly subscribed for by somebody else, and while those who had owned it retired from being shareholders, other shareholders had come in to take their places and that, it appears to me, made the matter all right. How was it that two years after the bank was organized the Hon. Matbeson, the treasurer of Ontario, deposited the money of the province with Mr. Travers? Surely if there was any place where Travers would be known it would be in Toronto, the capital city of the province of Ontario, where he resided. But the provincial treasurer of Ontario had such confidence in Travers that he deposited the funds of the province with him nearly two years after the date on which Mr. Fielding issued the certificate. All these facts make it very unreasonable for hon. gentlemen to say that Mr. Fielding ought to have found out the facts about this man's character. The Finance Minister bases his whole case on the failure of Mr. Fielding to institute an inquiry into the character of Travers. My hon. friend will remember that when he was making his statement I asked him by what legal

authority Mr. Fielding could have instituted an investigation. Could he summon those parties before him to give evidence? The minister had to admit that no such authority exists in the Bank Act. What then, could Mr. Fielding do? Was he not bound to go by the record? Hon. ministers who are listening to me know that every day they are getting advice from various quarters. We on this side of the House are giving them advice, telling them what to do. We make suggestions to them but what do they do? They go down to their offices and turn up the record when they have to arrive at a decision, and on the record they make a decision, not on statements made to them around the corridors of the House. They are bound to go by the record, that is what the late Finance Minister did and he found the record was explicit indeed. For example, we have the oath of Travers which is a specific and positive statement reading as follows:
On the twenty-third day of October, 1906, there had been actually bona fide subscribed five thousand seven hundred and fifty-seven shares of the capital stock of the Farmers Bank of Canada, and I have had personal knowledge of the applications and the subscriptions and each and all of the said subscriptions is and are on the printed form of application-a copy of which is now produced and marked exhibit ' C ' to this my declaration, and that the said subscription appeared on the stock books of the said hank, and that a sum beyond $250,000 thereof in cash has been actually paid in by the subscribers of the same.
Now shown to me and marked exhibit ' D ' to this my declaration is a list of the subscribers to the capital stock of the said bank correctly setting forth as to each subscription the name of the subscriber, his address, the number of shares subscribed for by him, the amount of such shares and the amount paid in thereon. Each of the said subscriptions is a bona fide subscription to the capital stock of the said bank.
Besides, Mr. Fielding had the statement of his deputy and I wish to point out that it is the duty of the officers of the department to ascertain that the details of the law are complied with and not the duty of the minister. It was drawn to the attention of the House that the late Minister of Finance at that time was busy preparing the Budget Speech for that year that it was difficult for him to find even a few minutes to have an interview with Travers. He depended altogether on hie officers, as the present Finance Minister depends on his officers for details of this kind and his deputy in memorandum *stated that everything was regular and

that the time had arrived when the certificate might be issued. Here is the statement of Mr. Boville the deputy minister:
The undersigned has received an application from the Farmers Bank of Canada for a certificate to commence the business of banking.
The papers are all in order and have been submitted to the Department of Justice, who have advised that the evidence contained therein is such that the Treasury Board may lawfully accept it and issue the necessary certificate.
In connection with the papers it will be noticed that in the list of shareholders the information covers the amount paid by each shareholder on his subscription. This information was supplied at the request of the undersigned as a test of the good faith of the subscribers. The number of subscribers exceeds 500 . and the stock is fairly -well distributed amongst them.
The undersigned sees no objection to the granting of the certificate required by the Bank ACta
(Sgd) T. C. Boville,
Deputy Minister of Finance. Finance Department, Ottawa,
November 30, 1906.
That is a very specific certificate from the Deputy Minister of Finance, and it is a true statement. There is no blame to be placed at the door of the deputy minister. In the face of this affidavit and of the certificate of the deputy minister, how can we say that there was any negligence on the part of the late Minister of Finance?
But the Government decided to appoint a Royal Commission. They selected a very competent man, the chief justice of this province, to conduct the inquiry, and I have no doubt that at the time of that appointment some of them at least expected a different decision from the one they got. It reminds me of the 'Biblical story of Balaam, the son of Beor, wbo was appealed to to curse the people of God, and who, instead of cursing them, blessed them. It was expected that Sir William Meredith would find Mr. Fielding guilty, but instead of that he completely exonerated Mr. Fielding of any negligence in this matter. The question for the House to ascertain is what was the proximate cause of this loss? The chief justice of Ontario in his judgment states positively that it was not the granting of the certificate, but the fraud and negligence of the manager of the bank and his associates. Here is his decision:
Notwithstanding the irregularities on the part of Travers and his misconduct in connection with the application for the certificate, which I have mentioned, the evidence satisfies me that if the bank had been prudently and honestly managed there is no reason why it should not have succeeded. The promissory notes that had been given by subscribers were for the most

part good and were subsequently paid, and while It is true that if the certificate of the Treasury Board had not been granted the money of the shareholders and depositors would not have been lost, the efficient cause of that loss was the recklessness and fraud of those entrusted with the management of the bank, and not the granting of the certificate.
Surely that is specific enough. In the face of that judgment it is idle to say that there was any negligence on the part of the exMinister of Finance. The argument has been used by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance and criticised by various speakers that if the certificate had not been issued there would have been no bank, and there being no bank there would have been no depositors, and there being no depositors there would have been no loss. That is a very fallacious argument, as can easily be seen if we go one step further back and say that if Travers had never been born he would never have been a bank promoter, and if he had never been a bank promoter he would never have come knocking at the door of Parliament for a certificate, and if there had been no certificate there would have been no Farmers Bank and no loss; therefore, the whole blame lies on the father and -mother of Travers; they are the guilty parties.


William Thomas White: The Government
had no notice with respect to the matter to which my hon. friend has alluded.


John Howard Sinclair: That is no doubt true,
and I do not know what action they could have taken if it had received notice. Possibly some way or other might have been found of meeting the Situation. The plain truth, if we must tell it, is that the Government is proposing to pay the political debts of certain supporters in the province of Ontario. A good deal of discussion took place on the second reading of this Bill as to whether or not the Minister of Labour had promised that if he were elected in 1911 he would support a measure to reimburse the depositors of the Farmers Bank. My hon. friend has admitted that he did make such a statement to the electors of his own constituency. I think I shall be able to show from the Conservative press of Ontario that he promised the same thing outside his own constituency. A few weeks ago I took the trouble of searching the files of the leading papers in that part of Ontario for the month of September, 1911, and I found that the pages of these newspapers are dotted all over with statements of that kind. In various places, meetings were held at that time at which the principal subject under discussion was the payment of the losses in connection with the Farmers Bank. I have been told by people who ought to know that the London Free Press is one of the most orthodox Conservative papers in Ontario-if I am wrong in that some hon. gentleman will correct me. I searched the files of that paper for some two or three weeks prior to the election. I found reports of several meetings that had been held in the constituencies affected and at which promises had been made by candidates. The Kerwood meeting has already been referred to. I find by the London Free Press that there were present on the platform at that meeting Hon. W. J. Hanna, Hon. T. W. Crothers, James Cobban, the Conservative candidate for West Middlesex, and George Elliot, now member for North Middlesex. These gentlemen were leaders of the Conservative party in the province of Ontario. Mr. Waddell, secretary of an organization composed of people who lost money in the Farmers Bank, appeared at the meeting, where the following questions were asked the candidates:
Would the candidate support a measure in the House of Commons to firing financial relief to the depositors in the Farmers Bank who lost by its collapse?
According to the newspaper reports, that pledge was taken by the candidates. The London Free Press devoted three columns to a graphic report of the speech of the Minister of Labour at that meeting under the following flaming head lines:
Conservative party ready to right losses in Farmers Bank due to Fielding's negligence. T. W. Crothers declares at Kerwood that country is responsible for the results that came from neglect of its official agent. Not only the depositors hut the shareholders as well should be recompensed for the financial loss they incurred in the bank crash.
It goes on to say:
Mr. Crothers gave a splendid address, dealing not only with reciprocity but also with the Farmers Bank, the Lanctot case and other matters of concern. He made it plain that the Conservative party if returned to power on the 21st would take steps to see that immediate justice was done to those who lost by the failure of the Farmers Bank, and the compensation would apply not only to the depositors hut to the shareholders as well.
It is only fair to say that the minister qualified that statement the other day on the second reading of the Bill by saying that he spoke for himself and not for the Conservative party, but the London Free Press repeatedly states in its reports that he did speak for the Conservative party.

and I have searched the files of the London Free Press in vain for any repudiation by the Minister of Labour of that statement credited to him under those flaring headlines. So that there should be no doubt about the matter, the Free Press goes on to quote Mr. Crothers' exact words:
I am in favour of indemnifying every man who lost a dollar by the operations of the management of the Farmers Bank. Some people have said that the depositors only should have their losses made good, but I hold that others are in the same position as the depositors. .	.	. We intend to see that every
man who lost will be recouped.
I also find that at the meeting at Fingal on the 4th of September, 1911, the Minister of Labour is reported as having used almost the identical language he used at the Kerwood meeting. He says:
I am in favour of indemnifying every man who lost a dollar by the operations of the management of the Farmers Bank. Some people have said that only the losses of the depositors should be made good, but I hold that others are in the same position as the depositors. .	. We intend to see that every man
who lost shall be reimbursed.


Mr. W. CHISHOLM:: Who are 'we'?


John Howard Sinclair: That is the question. Does the use of the word ' we ' mean that the hon. gentleman spoke for himself or the party to which he belongs?
Then, on another page of this newspaper, I found a reference to the election which was being held in South Huron and I will give you this extract. This extract is taken from the Free Press of the 15th of September, 1911:
In South Huron the Farmers Bank is the chief issue and Mr. M. T. McLean the member, will lose a good many supporters owing to his stand on this issue, and this riding is looked upon as a Conservative gain on September 21.
The prophecy which the Free Press made on, the 15th of September, 1911, that my good old friend1, Mr. M. Y. McLean, would be defeated on account of the Farmers Bank situation, came true, I am sorry to say. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Mr. McLean was not returned on that occasion, and I think we can safely say that this was the issue on which a number of seats were carried in the province of Ontario and that a number of hon. gentlemen hold their seats to-day in this House owing to the fact that they promised to pay the losses of the Farmers Bank at the time when they were running their elections.


Jonathan Joseph Merner: As representing South
Huron I may speak for myself.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Order.


John Howard Sinclair: I am referring to what was stated in this newspaper.


Jonathan Joseph Merner: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


John Howard Sinclair: I was pointing out that what was stated in the newspaper proved to be true.


Jonathan Joseph Merner: The Farmers Bank was
not an issue on my part. On the other side Mr. McLean used it as an issue. He got up before the people and admitted that he had voted against the resolution to appoint a commission.


John Howard Sinclair: He was honest in so
doing, and that is the reason, I suppose, of his defeat.


Jonathan Joseph Merner: But he promised that
he would do all he could to see that the depositors were reimbursed.


John Howard Sinclair: There is no proof of
that statement. I wish to put a question to you, Mr. Speaker. You are one of the oldest members of this House, you have had a greater experience in political matters than perhaps any other member within hearing of my voice. You know the election law and the proper conduct of a candidate running an election perhaps better than any other man in Canada; I wish to a3k you what would you think of a cash offer of this kind being made by any hon. gentleman on the occasion of an election. I will assume if you like that there was a claim against the Government although to my mind it makes no difference whether there was a claim or not. Is it a proper thing for an hon. gentleman under such circumstances to get up on a platform at the time of an election when he is a candidate asking for the votes of the pepple and say to them:	If you vote for me, or
for my party, I will vote for a measure that will put money into your pockets. Suppose a candidate had outstanding personal obligations. It is unfortunately true that members of Parliament like other people are sometimes in debt. Suppose a candidate under such circumstances got on the platform in the presence of a lot of electors to whom he owed money and said: If you vote for me, and if I am elected, I will pay the debt. If a candidate did that, he would be disqualified; and yet we have

a minister of the Crown getting up in his place in this House and admitting that he did make such a promise on a public platform to the electors of his constituency, and he said that he was not ashamed of doing it. I submit he should be ashamed.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what you think of a case of that kind and if you think a man is justified, even if he believes there i.s a proper claim against the Government for the payment of these losses, in standing on a public platform and making a cash offer to the people whose votes he is soliciting.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I would ask the
hon. gentleman his authority for that statement and whether, he has any one in particular in mind when he makes it. I do not ask this question with a view to embarrassing the hon. gentleman but for information and in view of the peculiar statement that was made here by a candidate already nominated who, while speaking on the second reading of this Bill the other night, said: I shall be forced, I am afraid, to vote for this Bill?


John Howard Sinclair: I have in my mind
several hon. members. There were some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who repudiated the fact that they had made such a promise. There were other gentlemen who did not say whether they had made the promise or not and there was one hon. gentleman at least who boldly admitted that he had made it, and rather boasted of it.	I wish to
submit that I think it was very improper that such a promise should be made on the occasion of an election by any person, and especially by a candidate. It reminds me of a story that is told about a candidate in Nova Scotia. He was making a personal canvass, going from house to house and asking electors if they would vote for him. He appealed to a man who had a vote, and undertook to argue the ease with him. He said: I am supporting the National Policy. The man took no interest in that argument. He then talked to him about the record of the party, but that did not seem to interest him either. He then said something about the old flag, but the man was still indifferent. Then he talked about the iniquity of truck and trade with the Yankees, but could make no impression at all upon the voter. Finally he took him around the corner of the barn and gave him $5. At once the man's eye kindled and he said: ' Mister, them's the arguments.' I submit,
Mr. Speaker, it was the same arguments that were used by hon. gentlemen opposite when they appealed to the electors of On-tari on the ground that they would support a measure to pay this $1,200,000 to the people who had lost their money through this unfortunate failure.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Is that a fair average of the Liberals of Nova Scotia?


John Howard Sinclair: I think that from what, my hon. friend (Mr. Wright) has heard me say he will understand that it is a long time since the Liberals in Nova Scotia have been canvassing people on the National Policy or in opposition to truck and trade with the Yankees. He can draw his own inference about that.	.
A good deal has been said in this discussion about the iniquity of taking promissory notes for subscriptions. I never knew that it was a crime to sign a promissory note in settlement of a debt or to subscribe for stock. Sir William Meredith does not say that there was anything illegal in the making of the promissory notes. It has been said that if Mr. Fielding had known that the promissory notes were given for subscriptions, and if he had known that these promissory notes were discounted without recourse he would have been justified in refusing the certificate. I do not think he would have been. It is somewhat irregular, but the object of the law is to see that a certain amount of capital is paid up, and when that capital is as a matter of fact paid up the spirit of the law is complied with. When Mr. Travers obtained these notes from the subscribers, took them to the trust company, endorsed them to the trust company and got the cash without recourse, and when the trust company	held the makers of
the notes for their debts, I think we can say	that Travers had the
money just as completely as if the money had been taken by each individual subscriber out of his till and paid into his hand. A sample form of the notes used in - this case is given on page 727 of the exhibits, as follows:
Toronto, June 27, 1906.

Twelve months after date I promise to pay to the order of the provisional directors of the Farmers Bank of Canada fourty five hundred dollars at the office of the Farmers Bank of Canada, Toronto, for value received.
This is signed by the subscriber and endorsed a3 follows:

Pay to the order of W. R. Travers, John Ferguson, Alex Fraser, Jas. Gallighar, A. L. Lown, John Watson, without recourse, per W. R. Travers, attorney.
(Sgd) W. R. Travers.
These notes were then turned over to the trust company and endorsed 'without recourse.' Consequently the money was in the hands of the bank directors in such a way that it could not be taken back from them. Even if those subscribers failed to pay their notes at maturity, the trust company would have no recourse on Travers or his associates to get the money back. I would consider the case very different if the notes had the usual endorsement, and if, after the six or twelve months had expired, the subscribers made default. In that case the trust company could come to Mr. Travers and call for the money, and in order to meet this call he might be compelled to take the money out of the funds of the bank. As the notes, however, are endorsed 'without recourse,' this could not happen, and I believe that is the reason why the commissioner did not find much fault with the fact that the notes were given. My hon. friend the Prime Minister drew attention to the fact that the commissioner said a breach of trust had been committed. I understand the breach of trust referred to by the commissioner was that the directors abrogated their functions; turned over the whole business to Mr. Travers, and allowed him to do just as he pleased with the notes. These directors were the trustees of the shareholders, and it was their duty to carry out the trust and not to hand that duty over to any one. There is no fraud in connection with the making of the notes at all. The fraud is in the way that the notes were handled afterwards, and in the wording of the affidavit made by Mr. Travers in which he swore that cash had been paid when, as a matter of fact, the cash was not paid at first but afterwards when he negotiated the notes and got the cash without recourse from the trust company.
We on this side of the House claim that, if there is to be legislation, it should apply not only to the Farmers Bank but to all similar cases. I have no hesitation in saying that the principle of this Bill is bad. The taxpayers of Canada should not be responsible for mistakes of this kind, if indeed there is any mistake. At the same time, under the disclosures that have been made in this debate and the facts that have been brought to the attention of the Government relating to the way

banking institutions are being financed, it might be well that a thorough investigation should take place. I have drawn attention to the fact of the situation in Prince Edward Island. My hon. friend from Kouville (Mr. Lemieux) has drawn attention to the fact that there was gross negligence on the part of the Department of Finance prior to 1896 in the case of La Banque Ville Marie. I am opposed to the legislation; but I do not think there can be any good objection to a thorough investigation.
My hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) said that the Farmers Bank was conceived in iniquity. That is my idea of this Bill. It belongs to the same breed as the bank; it is a vicious proposal, and should not receive the assent of this House. I think every business man within my hearing knows that it is questionable whether a single bank can be named, that has been started in Canada within the last twenty-five years, that has been altogether free from the same irregularity. I am able to make the statement that some of the leading banks in Canada, when they issue new stock, are quite ready to accept the notes of old subscribers for the new stock. They turn these notes into their books and call it cash and issue circulation on it. Whether this is irregular or not, it has been the practice in the old and well-established banking institutions and I do not assume to condemn it. There is nothing criminal about making a note of hand providing a man meets the same when due. If that was a criminal act a good many of us would be in the penitentiary. In view of all these facts and the disclosures that have been made, I beg to move the following resolution, seconded by Mr. Demers:
That this Bill be not now read a third time, hut be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House for the purpose of adding the following clause:
This Act shall not come into force until after an investigation by a Royal Commission into all losses incurred by depositors by reason of failures of Canadian chartered banks since July 1, 1867.


Michael Clark: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with what I understand to be your ruling I should like to put myself on record in a few words upon this question. I should like to do so in accordance with what I understand to be not a rule, which is nevertheless a tradition of Parliament, that the remarks on the third reading of a Bill should be reasonably brief.

I do not know whether to approach the merits of this question seriously. I do not know whether the Government mean the proposition seriously; that is to say, as a proposition in statesmanship. I am quite sure they mean it seriously as a proposition in electioneering. We would scarcely consider a session of Parliament normal under this Government if, towards the close, we did not have something in the nature of what I venture to call political vagrancy on the part of the province of Ontario. The first session of this Parliament saw a proposition to give $2,000,000 to a railroad that was a perfectly profitable and going concern in northern Ontario at the expense of the rest of the taxpayers of this country. That proposition was renewed last Parliament; and unfortunately .the Senate weakened in its opposition and the proposition became law, although it was a most unnecessary piece of legislation. But that piece of legislation pales in its unnecessary and unjustifiable character in the presence of this proposition.
I would like, in the closing days and, I hope, the closing hours of this session, to impress upon my hon. friend the Minister of Finance once more the seriousness of the position he holds in this country. Just consider the condition of the country today in which this proposition is brought before us. I was horrified, as a good Canadian, to read last night that in the last ten days of May, the decrease in the takings of that great undertaking, the Canadian Pacific railway, was $806,000, which is at the rate of $2,400,000 of a decrease in the takings of that great railroad in one month. That is an indication, a perfect indication, of the present condition of this country; and it is under these conditions that my hon. friend -brings forth a proposition to give away $1,200,000 of this country 's money to recoup the depositors in -a bank that failed. I venture to say, Sir, that no such outrageous, no such monstrous proposition, was ever brought before the deliberative assembly of a civilized country. I say that advisedly; if I were called upon to describe this proposition in language, I should havf to go far beyond1 the adjectives I have just used, and would inevitably bring myself under your ruling. This proposition-the iniquity of it-appeals peculiarly to western men, and I speak in the presence of my hon. friend the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers), who is a western man, and a good representative of the West. I wish he would tell the House now, in a
few straight words-and he never makes long speeches-what, in his heart of hearts, he thinks about this proposition. He has ability to conceal his thoughts, even when he speaks, that is, as great as that of anyone in the ranks of statesmen; but if he were to use a few straight words and tell us what he really thinks of this proposition, it would be a revelation, I am' sure, even to the Minister of Finance. This measure is for the relief of the electors of one section of one province, at the expense of the electors of the other eight provinces, and I appeal to the Minister of Public Works, in these last moments of the session, to re-think this question and bring his views to bear, and the real views of western Canada, upon the Minister of Finance to withdraw this legislation. Do not go through the farce of sending it to the Senate.
What is the merit of this proposition in the opinion of hon. gentlemen opposite? What is it meant for? What was the promise meant for? It was to get votes; there is no possibility of denying that. Well, what ds the proposed redemption of that promise for? It is a political proposition of the most iniquitous kind, a political proposition pure and simple. We had the principle upon which this measure was based, as it is regarded in the province of Ontario, laid down by my hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett). When a previous proposition was before the House to give -millions to a railway company, that hon. gentleman said, in answer to a suggestion of mine:	Of course this Government owes a great deal to Ontario, look at the supporters they get from Ontario. This does not appeal to western Canada, and I would impress this view upon the Minister of Public Works and equally upon the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen). Voltaire, in one of his most cynical moments, said that it is the main duty of governments to take money from one section of the community and give it to another. Well, what that great cynic said at the end of the eighteenth century, was not only a piece of cynicism but a very accurate prophecy of the moral actions of this Government. It is their principal form of ability-to take money from one section of the community and give it to another. I appeal to my hon. friends from the West to join with me in resisting this raid upon the electors of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba; and equally I appeal to the representatives of Quebec and the Maritime provinces to resist

this raid upon them for the benefit of the supporters of the party that happens to find itself in power, for the vote of one particular province, the province of Ontario.
On the merits of this question before the House-or rather on its demerits, for as I have said its merits do not exist for western Canada-surely nothing less than temerity actuates the ministers from Ontario and their supporters, to come to the West and ask for the support of this proposition. Sir, at the very time when these promises were being made to Ontario, what was Ontario doing, and what have her representatives been doing since for the people of the West, which has to contribute a large share of this money for the depositors of the bank? They were refusing us the opportunity of making the money. The Minister of Finance has been compared to various Scriptural and other characters of a more or less questionable nature, but his attitude on this subject reminds me of Pharoah at one period of his career. The hon. gentlemen will remember that at one time Pharoah gave [DOT] .the poor Israelitish helots, straw to make the bricks that he demanded of them. But he grew worse as he went along, and the time came when he said to the children of Israel: Gather your straw where you can, but do not fail to bring your whole tale of bricks. So the Minister of Finance and his supporters say to the people of the West: You shall not make money, but what little money you do make we must have the whole tale of it for the people who voted us into power in Ontario.
On the merits of the question: Does the Minister of Finance intend to repair all the mistakes of previous Administrations in this country, or even the mistakes of the Administration that preceded his own in power? Does he take upon his shoulders duties of that arduous nature-and he so very young? I pity him if he is going along these lines to. discover and to right the errors even of the previous Government. I am not going to admit the errors. I have not, as I have indicated from time to time, too much confidence in my hon. friend's finance, and it appears to me that there are grounds, furnished in the very excellent speech of my hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Nickle) why we should not have too much confidence in his law. I rather think the hon. member for Kingston had the better of him in that bout on a question of law. I am going to continue to get the better of him in finance and economic science in argument anyhow. If he is beaten in the realm of law by the hon. member for Kingston, and in the

realm of finance and economics by others, I do not know where his versatile genius is going to lead him to get off at. Does he really set out to repair the errors of previous Administrations? The principle is utterly vicious; the Administration is dead; its acts are dead-that seems to be the common sense of it. These men made an unfortunate investment, as the result of the Act of the previous Administration, and they should stand by the result. I wonder at the citizens of Ontario allowing their minister to bring this proposition before Parliament. If there is one thing more than another that in my twelve and a-half years' residence in Canada I have learned to admire in the average Canadian, it is that he takes the kicks and cuffs of adverse fortune without unmanly squealing. When the average Canadian gets down in business, I notice he soon tries to get up. I wonder that they allow a proposition to be brought before Parliament that they should have the results of their own indiscretion-to say the least of it-made up to them as a gift from the rest of the nation. That is a fine proposition. It is a premium upon indiscretion on the part of the depositors. What is it that causes people to put their money into faulty concerns? It is the prospect of large interest. We have had it stated here very confidently this afternoon, that one per cent extra interest was offered these depositors. I see my hon. friend from Bruce (Mr. Hugh Clark) shaking his head. I say the statement has been made here very confidently, and not successfully contradicted, that extra interest was promised these men. From the moral standpoint, in going into this thing at all they were actuated by greed, and the Government comes forward to reward them for having gambled for one per cent extra interest by making up to them the loss of the original deposits. That is from the moral standpoint; from the intellectual standpoint where is the defence of these men in coming to Parliament? Where is the defence of the Government in coming before Parliament for them with a proposition of this kind? Morally they were actuated by greed; intellectually they were actuated by indiscretion, and this proposal is a premium upon indiscretion added to greed. On the part of conductors of banks, it is an encouragement of fraud. I submit that not only by the fear of punishment are the managers of institutions like this deterred from wrongdoing. A great deterring in-

fluence in such cases is the knowledge, which exists in that part of all men that is good, that if they do wrong they will hurt others. I submit that statesmen and legislators should take cognizance of the force of that statement: that a wise deterrent is put in us and in men of prominence by Providence that if they do wrong in positions of trust they will hurt other people. But if the Government come along and say: look at these poor widows and orphans, we must relieve them; if the Government take this attitude, they take away that deterring inAuence and they encourage fraud on the part of the conductors of such institutions.
This proposal is not only a premium on indiscretion and greed on the part of depositors and an encouragement to fraud on the part of those conducting the institution, but it provides an absolutely vicious precedent, and that is, of course, by far the most serious aspect of the case from the point of view of the interests of the nation. It establishes a precedent. Does my hon. friend think that a change of government at the next election is an impossibility? It is not an impossibility; it is a very great probability if the Canadian PaciAc railway receipts go down to the tune of $2,500,000 a month much longer, as they are doing at the present moment. It is a very great probability; and let me say to my hon. friend the member for South Victoria (Mr. Barnard) that if the conditions in British Columbia get much worse than they are at the present moment, a change of government is quite probable. I notice that my hon. friend smiles; he is always good-natured, and I am glad to make some answer to his smile. I had a letter the other day from one of the oldest residents of the province- he has been there thirty-one years-and he says that any period of previous depression in British Columbia is skinned by miles by this one. He says that he understands that the Government are waiting on Providence to trim the Senate, but that Providence is ' sure ' trimming them. It is not an impossibility that the Government may go out at the next election, and I put it to my hon. friend, in the event of their going out, what does he expect will be the result of this legislation if it passes into law? I put the question to my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I would like him to make a speech in defence of something that is brought forward by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, but I value his reputation so much that I would not like to see him make a speech in defence of this legislation. It would test even his dialectic ability to put this thing forward in a good light, and I would advise him to follow the rule which he and I have followed to a considerable extent this year, that of maintaining a discreet silence in the House except on odd occasions. What does he think will be the effect of this legislation supposing there is a change of government? Do you think that the people of other provinces, let us say the province of Quebec, who are probably not wholly unamenable to political debauchery; does he think that they will not beneAt by the experience of the people of the province of Ontario? Has my hon. friend not heard in the course of the present debate questions asked and points raised about banks that have failed in Quebec? Is the Government prepared to open out a long future vista of proceedings of this nefarious character? If they are, then I for one want to tell them that they are doing something which is nothing short of holding out a temptation to politicians to go before the electors with debauching propositions that actual money will be made up to men who have lost, provided they return a certain party to .power, il put it to the Government, could anything be more deleterious to the public life, could anything be more degrading to public men; could anything be more demoralizing to the electorate of Canada?
This legislation establishes a vicious precedent, and it is opposed to the wishes of the majority of the people of this country. I do not think that a member of the Government having a sense of responsibility would dare to rise in his place and say that he would wish to see this question, from the point of view of party success, submitted to the electors from Halifax to Vancouver upon its merits. <1 say that, except from the most violent partisans, it would not get a vote outside of the province of Ontario, and I think sufficiently of the political integrity of Ontario to believe that such a proposition would be voted down in that province as well. On these grounds: that it is a premium on indiscretion and greed; that it is an encouragement of fraud; that it establishes a vicious precedent, the end of which we cannot possibly see; that it is opposed to the wishes of the great majority of the people of this country, I venture, on my personal responsibility, to express the hoipe that the Senate, as at present constituted, will add

to the number of grounds which it has for the gratitude of this countiy by saving the nation from what is nothing less than an act of political burglary.


William Thomas White: I do not propose to debate further the principle involved in this measure. I agree with the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Michael Clark) that the discussion upon third reading ought to be a3 brief as possible. I have heard my hon. friend the member for Red Deer upon many occasions in this House on which matters of moment and importance were under consideration. I have seen him keep his seat when large expenditures were being voted for the public purposes; I have seen him undisturbed by votes involving large donations to railway companies by way of subsidies. His voice has been silent upon more than one occasion when guarantees to such companies were under consideration by the House: I have never heard him rise to such a height of indignation as he did this afternoon, when the question before the House is whether this country, to use the words of his right hon. leader, is big enough to do simple justice to the depositors of this bank, which, on the evidence before the House, should not have been allowed to open its doors for business. I think that my hon. friend's eloquence might be much better employed than against the just claims of these people, many of whom have been reduced to the most abject poverty by the depredations of this bank throughout the province of Ontario.
My hon. friend refers to the grant made last year to the Ontario Government in respect of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway Company as a political outrage. I have never heard my hon friend protest against any grant by way of subsidy to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, or to the Canadian Northern Railway Company. If Mackenzie and Mann had built the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway and had opened up a rich district to the north, no question would have arisen; they would have received a subsidy. But when the province of Ontario has had the courage to embark upon an enterprise which has opened up one of the richest districts in Canada, the voice of my hon. friend is heard in indignant protest. Millions for the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, millions foT the Canadian Northern railway by way of subsidy, but not one dollar for the province

of Ontario with respect to its public enterprise.


Michael Clark: The other is a federal undertaking.


William Thomas White: I must say I fail to follow the argument of my hon. friend. It is well known that subsidies have been justified in the past by all governments to railway companies which open up a virgin territory, and if ever there was a case of a pioneer road opening up such a territory, a road whose construction has been justified by the result, it was the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway. I say that the province of Ontario did not come here as a suppliant in this matter, they came as a matter of right. They said in substance: You are giving subsidies to the Canadian Northern railway, you are giving subsidies to the Canadian Pacific railway; all that we ask is that you put us on the same basis as private enterprise and give a subsidy to this road which is government-owned. I find very little sympathy on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite in connection with public ownership. Now my hon. friend has asked me if I am going to take all the mistakes of the late Administration on my shoulders. In answer I say I am no Atlas and do not pretend to pose as one. I shall take their mistakes neither on my back nor on my conscience-and the latter would be as heavy a load as the former. Now we come to the amendment of my hon. friend from Guysborough, and I think the House will agree that it is a most extraordinary amendment indeed. He provides in it that this Act shall not come into force until after an investigation by a royal commission into all losses incurred by depositors by reason of failures of Canadian chartered banks since July 1, 1867. That would be a very large order. I have before me here a list of twenty-four banks that have failed or gone into liquidation since 1867. The amendment of my hon. friend involves an investigation into all the affairs of these banks. I observe that some of them were incorporated as long ago as between 1830 and 1840, so that the investigation which this amendment has in view would involve some twenty-four banks and would extend in time over a period of about eighty years. I think that if that were undertaken by the Government this Bill would come into force about the date of the battle of Armageddon and, as the hon. Solicitor General pointed out, the legislation in this case of the Farmers Bank is not to depend

in any way upon the result. Let me put this to my hon. friend. Supposing that an individual has a just claim of a certain kind against the Dominion. What would he think of the Dominion taking this position: We will not pay this claim until we have held an inquiry, summoning before us every other citizen of Canada, to see if he has a similar claim and what the merits of it are. That is about as logical as this amendment.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Oh, no.


William Thomas White: Let me put it in this way. Supposing this is a just claim, and the Government says it is a claim which we are morally bound to meet.


Mr. PARDEE:: A political claim.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend may say a political claim, but we do not say so. Supposing this is a claim which the Government feels it is incumbent on it to pay.


John Howard Sinclair: My hon. friend can get over that difficulty by making the>
Act general, providing for payment of all just claims.


William Thomas White: Is there any reason why we should cause these depositors to wait for the reinbursement to which they are entitled on the ground of equity and justice, until we have held an investigation into all banks that have failed in the Dominion of Canada since 1867 ? I think my hon. friend will see that the amendment involves an absurdity and cannot by any possibility be justified. I would submit that in the case of any application being made to the Government for relief such as this, a prima facie case must be established on the part of those putting forward the claim. A prima facie case was made out in the case of the Farmers Bank before a commission of inquiry was instituted. Verbal and written evidence had been laid before the House, an exhaustive debate had been held on the subject and a very strong prima facie case made out. Then a commission was appointed to investigate the affairs of the bank as to its organization, as to the issue of the certificate, and as to the subsequent conduct of its affairs. That report has been before us and has been under discussion.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Does not the minister pay any attention to what is said by Mr. Justice Meredith, that the failure was not due to the fault of Mr. Fielding, but to the fault of the board of directors ?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend has been absent from the House. That contention was put forward and disposed of without any difficulty.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Not at all, only in the mind of the minister.


William Thomas White: Sir William Meredith made a most specific finding that it was the duty of the Treasury Board to have made an inquiry.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: And did not the chief justice find that Mr. Fielding was not in fault but that the failure was due entirely to the mismanagement of the manager of the bank.


William Thomas White: No, he found it was incumbent on the Treasury Board to have made a certain investigation which they failed to make. If that investigation had been made the certificate would not have been issued.	.	[DOT]


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Notwithstanding that fact, the failure was due to mismanagement and not to Mr. Fielding.


William Thomas White: I am dealing with the finding of the commission, and if my hon. friend reads it he will find that, in the opinion of the commissioner, it was the duty of the Treasury Board to make an investigation which they failed to make. If they had made that investigation they would have discovered the character of Travers, they would have discovered the irregularities complained of, and this bank would never have been started on its ill-fated career.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: It would have stopped Travers investing in the Keely mine?


William Thomas White: Travers would not have been manager. They would have discovered his character in the investigation which the Chief Justice says it was incumbent on the Treasury Board to have made. My hon. friend cannot get away from that.


Mr. PROULX:: Why did not the directors who engaged Travers make the investigation ?


William Thomas White: Why didn't they? I am sure I cannot tell. The fact is that they did not.


Edmond Proulx: That was not the business of Mr. Fielding.


William Thomas White: I have heard all kinds of arguments put forward here to show the alleged absurdity of the contention that if



this bank had not been started there would not have been any loss. I heard it stated in this House that you might as well have said that if the Empress of Ireland had not been constructed the loss of life would not have taken place in the recent catastrophe. But let me put this forward: Supposing that, as a matter of fact, it was the statutory duty of this Government to see that no ship was built, let us say unless with horizontal bulkheads instead of transverse bulkheads. Let us assume that the Government did permit a ship to be built in that way and that a catastrophe had been brought about by reason of the ship being so built. I am not at all certain that there would not be a moral claim on the Government in connection with a dereliction of duty in the superintending of the building of that ship.


William Pugsley: But supposing that the disaster did not result from that but from some other cause?


William Thomas White: What did these Farmers
Bank losses result from? They resulted from the fraud, dishonesty and mismanagement of Travers. If the Treasury Board had made the investigation which the commissioner finds it was incumbent upon them to have made, the bank with Travers at its head would never have opened its doors for business. There is a clear connection between the failure of the Treasury Board to have made that investigation and the lossess which subsequently resulted to the unfortunate depositors.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Suppose this supposititious ship with the bulkheads not properly built, becomes a wreck. What happens then?


William Thomas White: It would depend upon all the facts of the case. We have had the facts in this case investigated and the commissioner finds that the Treasury Board was negligent. There is no doubt about that.


William Pugsley: There was no negligence.


William Thomas White: Let me ask a question of my hon. friend, who is a good lawyer. If it is incumbent upon a board to make a certain inquiry and they fail to make that inquiry is not that negligence?


Wilfrid Laurier: The chief justice found that it was an error of judgment.


William Thomas White: Does my right hon. friend mean to say that an error of judgment is not negligence? My right hon. friend knows

that every man is held to exercise the judgment which the average man should exercise, and that if he fails'to exercise that judgment he is negligent. Failure to discharge a duty is negligence at common law, and in this case the chief justice found that the Treasury Board was negligent in not having made the inquiry to which he refers, and which would have disclosed all the facts including the character of Travers. It is clearly established that the Treasury Board should have done a certain thing which they failed to do. If they had done it we would not now be discussing the matter of the losses, for there would have been none.


Edmond Proulx: Did not the chief justice say that notwithstanding the irregularities that preceded the granting of the certificate he did not see any reason why the bank should not have been a success with good management.


William Thomas White: Precisely. My hon. friend fails to see that that is a very strong argument in favour of the position we are taking. He says if the bank had been well managed it would have succeeded. I say so too, but it could not have been well managed with Travers at its head, and if the Treasury Board had done its duty Travers would not have been at its head.


Edmond Proulx: Mr. Fielding was not
responsible for the engagement of Travers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member for
Leeds (Mr. White) has the floor and is entitled to be heard.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend from Guys-borough made an argument unusual for him just now. He said that I was gathering up the money from the poor people of this country and turning it over to a few millionaires. That was not a particularly happy illustration in this case. So far as I know there are no millionaires among the unfortunate depositors of the Farmers Bank. There were some 7,000 depositors with an average deposit of $167.


John Howard Sinclair: I was referring to the
Canadian Northern.


William Thomas White: In many cases it was all these unfortunate people had, so my hon. friend need not have any qualms of conscience on the ground that we are handing this money over to millionaires. I do not desire to again go over the ground which has been covered so many times in

the course of this debate. The amendment of my hon. friend must, I think, be rejected. There is no reason why justice to these depositors should wait upon an investigation in the cause of every bank failure in this country. It is not the intention of the Government to reimburse the depositors of all failed banks merely because they have failed. If there is any case analogous to the case of the Farmers Bank in which there has been negligence in connection with the issue of the certificate, and a prima facie case is made out it will be the duty of the Government to take all the facts into consideration. So far as I can see there is no logic in the amendment of my hon1. friend. In the amendment he does not dissent from the view which has been reached 'by the House -although he does in his speech-that aid should be granted these depositors, but he suggests that that aid should wait until a prolonged inquiry has been made. I submit that it is entirely unnecessary on any ground for such delay to take place, and I put forward the view that a prima facie case must be made out for relief at the hands of the Government in the case of any institution, before we would be justified in going to the expense of an inquiry.
Mr. GEORGE A. ELLIOT (North Middlesex) :	I had not intended to make a
speech on this question, but after the remarks of the hon. member for Guysborough I think I am within my rights in making a few statements in regard to the meeting to which he has referred. He has told the House that this party is making a political question of the Farmers Bank, and that the hon. the Minister of Labour, the Hon. Mr. Hanna, myself and others who spoke at the Kerwood meeting made direct pledges to the depositors living in that locality. I was present at that meeting, made a short speech, and heard what was said, and I remember distinctly the remarks made by the Hon. Minister of Labour on that occasion. In speaking of the Farmers Bank he said that in the House during the session of 1911 he had taken the stand that the depositors of that bank should be reimbursed; that had it not been for the negligence of the Finance Minister and the Treasury Board the certificate would never have been issued, and consequently the people would not have lost their money. As far as he was concerned, he thought and was willing that 310J
the depositors should be recouped to the full extent of their losses.
I did not make any direct pledge to the meeting. I did say that if I were elected I would use my influence in getting this money for the depositors. Last year, on the floor of this House, the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mt. Ross) in speaking on the Bank Act said that there were twenty-eight members in this House as the result of promises made to the electors prior to the election of 1911. He went on to say in the course of that address that he had not made any promises to the people at that time. Perhaps it would be interesting to the House if I referred to the hon. member's speech of that time to see exactly what he said. In speaking of the pledges and promises made by the different candidates in the different constituencies and of the pressure that had been brought to bear upon the candidates he said:
The depositors and their committees urged on the different candidates all through Ontario the making of that promise.
For my own part, I thought it was an unfair advantage to take of any man, and I refused to make that promise.
The hon. member for West Middlesex was very anxious to get in right with the depositors of the Farmers Bank at that particular time, and consequently he wrote a few letters one of which I have in my hand addressed to Mr. Wm. Waddell of Kerwood.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the date?


Mr. ELLIOT:: It is dated Strathroy, September 5, 1911, just about the right time, and it reads as follows:
Wm. Waddell, Esq.,
Kerwood, Ont.
Dear Mr. Waddell,
Tour communication of August 29 received in regard to the Farmers Bank depositors. I may say that I have been in favour of a measure designed to bring financial relief to depositors if it is along fair and reasonable lines.
I think that the legislation now proposed must be along fair and reasonable lines, because the hon. gentleman, Mr. Ross, has supported it.
If I am elected to the House of Commons, if I can do anything to help the people who have suffered by this ruinous failure in any reasonable way at all, I shall consider it not only my duty but a priviege to do so, as I number many of them amongst my warmest friends.
Just imagine the hon. member for North Middlesex in 1911 voting against a resolution for the appointment of a commission

of investigation with a view to giving relief to his warmest friends.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who signs that?


John Campbell Elliott: This letter is signed * Yours faithfully, Duncan C. Ross.'


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I suppose it would only be fair to the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Ross) to put Mr. Waddell s letter on record as well. I notice that the letter of the hon. member for West Middlesex is in reply to Mr. Waddell s letter.


John Campbell Elliott: The hon. member for West Middlesex went on to say that there weTe 600 families reported throughout the province of Ontario to have been left destitute and, further, that a great many in his constituency, or in that section, had to move west and start life anew. He makes a promise to the people in 1911, and then hon. gentlemen opposite turn around and criticise this Government and those supporting it for making pledges to the people in order to secure election to this House.
Mr. DUNCAN C. ROSS: Would the hon. gentleman send me across that letter?


John Campbell Elliott: You can see this letter
after a while.


An hon. MEMBER:: Does the hon. gentleman deny writing it?


Mr. ROSS:: Send it across. [DOT]


John Campbell Elliott: Does the hon. gentleman
deny writing a letter of that kind?


James Hamilton Ross: Let me see the letter, and I will tell you.


John Campbell Elliott: All I have to say is that the hon. member for West Middlesex-


James Hamilton Ross: Has the hon. member a letter to that effect?


John Campbell Elliott: I have the letter here.


James Hamilton Ross: I would like the hon. gentleman to send it across if he has no objection.


John Dowsley Reid: You can read it in
' Hansard.'


George Perry Graham: But he wants to see it all. (Letter sent to Mr. Ross).
At six o'clock, the House took recess.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 215, for the relief of Alberta Ring.

Mr. Morphy."
Bill No. 216, for the relief of Bertha Lucinda Graham.-Mr. Blain.
Bill No. 219, for the relief of John Robinson.-Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance) for the third reading of Bill No. 185, for the relief of the depositors of the Farmers Bank of Canada, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Sinclair, resumed.
John Campbell Elliott: 
John Campbell Elliott: I deny that assertion; I did say at that time that if I were elected I would do what I could to bring relief to the depositors of the Farmers Bank.


James Hamilton Ross: I do not know that there is much difference between the statement which I made and the statement made by my hon. friend. However, I did not promise absolutely to vote for any measure that would be brought forward for the reimbursement of the Farmers Bank depositors, and what I am saying now is amply borne out by my remarks as they appear in ' Hansard ' of 1912-13. On more occasions than one at public meetings I was asked: Will you vote to reimburse the depositors of the Farmers Bank ? I said: I will not make any promise that I will vote for any proposal to reimburse the depositors of the Farmers Bank; I do not think that it is fair for you to ask a public man to make a definite promise to support a proposal before he knows what that proposal will be. I said: My sympathies are all with you; I feel that great suffering has been caused by the failure of this bank. If when I know the facts more fully, a measure is introduced which I think is fair and which my judgment approves, I will use my discretion as your representative as to whether or not I shall support it, and

if you do not want to vote for me on that basis, vote for the other man. I can bring a host of witnesses to corroborate what I say in that regard.


John Campbell Elliott: Does the hon. member for West Middlesex deny having written that letter ?


James Hamilton Ross: My hon. friend has sought to lead the House to believe that he has in his possession a letter written by me, but it turns out that he has only a copy; I do not know whether it is a copy or not.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Hamilton Ross: My hon. friend said that he had a letter written by the hon. member for West Middlesex; has he that letter ?


John Campbell Elliott: If the hon. member had been in the House when the debate was resumed, he would have heard me explain that I did have the original, that I had read the original letter, of which this is an exact copy.


James Hamilton Ross: The hon. member did not give the original letter. At any rate, I do not care, for there is nothing in the letter which I am ashamed of; the letter bears out exactly what I say. I said to Mr. Waddell: My sympathies are with the depositors of the Farmers Bank, and if any reasonable measure for relief is submitted and has my approval, I shall be glad to support it.


John Campbell Elliott: Then my hon. friend
admits that he wrote the letter?


James Hamilton Ross: If my hon. friend will show me the original, I will admit it. But, as I say, I am ashamed of nothing in that letter. My hon. friend is rather secretive about the matter; if he has the original, let him send it across the floor of the House. In 1913 they wanted me to promise absolutely, if I were returned to Parliament, to support a measure for the reimbursement of the depositors of the Farmers Bank, but I said: no, I will not; I will reserve my judgment. If I think the proposal put before Parliament is reasonable; if it appeals to my judgment as being fair and right, that will be another matter. I said: I am going to retain the power, if you elect me, to do what I think is right and just, as I think any representative in the House of Commons should do. Let me read what I said in 1913:
The depositors and their committees urged on the different candidates ail through Ontario the making of that promise. For my own part,

I thought it was an unfair advantage to take of any man, and I refused to make that promise. I told my people that X would come back to this House, and if a Bill was introduced that I thought was fair I would support it; if it was not fair in my opinion I would oppose it, and that X would do the best I honestly could for them.
That is as far as I would go and as far as I did go, either publicly or privately, and the letter which the hon. member for North Middlesex read bears out my statement exactly. My hon. friend said that he was at a meeting in Kerwood and that the hon. Minister of Labour did not make a promise of reimbursement. I would refer my hon. friend to the report of his own organ in that regard. It was told by more than one man that promises were made not only that the depositors would be reimbursed, but that the shareholders would be reimbursed also, and that the hon. Minister of Labour went so far as to say: I am sorry for you people, and I think that you ought to get interest both on your deposits and on the money that you lost as shareholders from the day the bank went into liquidation up to the present time. A brother of the gentleman from whom my hon. friend got this letter, Mr. Waddell, asked the minister at that time, as I am informed:	Will you give
your promissory note for it? Of course the hon. Minister of Labour did not give his promissory note.
I am not supporting relief to the depositors of the Farmers Bank because I think that Mr. Fielding was to blame. I do not think that Mr. Fielding was to blame at all. I think that the finding of the commissioner absolutely vindicates the Finance Minister of that day. He said that it was not the issuing of the certificate that caused the losses to the depositors of the Farmers Bank, but the recklessness and hishonesty of Mr. Travers. That was clearly pointed out by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) the other night, quite to the discomfiture of the hon. Minister of Finance. I support this measure to afford relief to the depositors of the Farmers Bank on the ground of common humanity. If an accident happened to 6,000 people in the province of Ontario by fire or flood or famine, this Parliament would rush to their assistance without delay. For my own part, I do not care how distress befalls my people, whether it be by failure of a bank, or fire, flood or famine, I am always prepared to givb them relief which is generous and just, and I think that this is a case where the relief is both generous and just.

I do not support this legislation for the reasons given by the Government, for I do not think that there is a shred of reasonableness in some of the arguments which they have made,	but I support it
on	ordinary	humanitarian grounds.
I think this country is large enough and the banks have privileges enough that they should be compelled to give an absolute guarantee to depositors who place money in their hands in trust. We all know that the depositor gets about two and a half per cent interest on his money. The banks enjoy privileges which are not enjoyed by banks in any other country in the world, and they pay not one cent for these privileges. I say that these banks could not carry on business were it not for the great deposits they receive from the thrift, industry and care of the farmers and artisans of this country and this Government, the Government that preceded them, any Government that may follow, is in duty bound to make some provision so that the bank and the Bankers' Association of this country shall absolutely protect the depositors in chartered banks from loss. For these two reasons, on the ground of common humanity and on the ground that I believe as a matter of banking principle that depositors should be protected, I voted for the relief of these depositors, and I think that the people of my county will justify me in that vote.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Guysborough, addressing the House this afternoon, more than once took my name in vain, I desire to say a word or two before this motion is put to the House and, referring particularly to this matter, I want to call the attention of the House to the marked distinction between the records of hon. gentlemen sitting on the other side of the House and those sitting on this side. We have an idea that a public pledge should be as sacredly carried out as a private one. We on this side of the House are of opinion that a public man has no more right to betray public confidence than a private individual has to trifle with private trusts. Gentlemen on the other side of the House sat in the cold shades of Opposition for eighteen years and during that time they made promises, publio promises to the people of the country. They were returned to power in 1896 and they continued in power for fifteen years; and during the whole of that time they never attempted to carry out but one of the
many promises they had made while in Opposition. When in Opposition they told us, the present leader of the Opposition declared to the people of this country, that if he were returned to power he would reduce the public expenditure by $3,000,000 or $4,000,000 a year. He came into power in 1896 and immediately proceeded to double the expenditure of the country. He told the people that if placed in power he would hold the public land for the actual settler. He came into power and distributed it by hundreds of thousands of acres-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the hon member is mapping out a route which is wandering away from the third reading of the Bill. I would therefore ask him to keep t< the subject.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: We have been accused of making promises. I wanted to show that we made this promise when in Opposition.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: On the Farmers Bank?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Just keep still. Yes, touching the Farmers Bank; and I wanted to point out the distinction between the course taken by the party on this side of the House when they came into power in 1911 and the course taken by hon. gentle-,men opposite when they came into power in 1896.


James Hamilton Ross: Did the hon. minister promise, in Kerwood, to reimburse the shareholders?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Mr. Speaker, I think I very fully answered that question the day before yesterday. I do not mind answering it now. I said the day before yesterday, and I want to say now, that our view was that pledges made while we were in Opposition ought to be carried out when we came into power, and we proceeded at the very first session of the House after we came into power to implement the promises we made when in Opposition. One of the promises we made when in Opposition, in substance, was that we would appoint a commission to inquire into the affairs of the Farmers Bank, and, if the report upon that inquiry justified us in so acting, we would do something for the depositors of tihe Farmers Bank. So that we are just now carrying out the promise we made when in Opposition. I then expressed the conviction that Parliament should do something to relieve the depositors of the Farmers Bank. Since I became

a member of this House my custom was, before I became too busy as a minister, to go through my constituency after every session and call the attention of the electors to the material points of what had been said and done during the session. After the dissolution of the House in 1911 I took the same course, and, among other things, I called their attention to what had been done in this House respecting the Farmers Bank. I always spoke for myself; I mentioned no other gentleman's name or his views or expressions in this House. I pointed out to my constituents that in March, 1911, when there was no election in sight, I declared that my conviction was that Parliament should do something to relieve the depositors from the losses they had sustained in moneys misappropriated and squandered by the manager of that bank. In speaking to my constituents in that town I repeated these words, and do not wish to take back a word I uttered, nor am I ashamed of a word I uttered, as the hon. member for Guysborough would try to lead this House to believe. I pointed out to them what I said when there was no election in view. I said I had not changed my views, and, if re-elected, I would do all in my power to see that their losses were recouped. :I made that statement on my own behalf, mentioning nobody else, not assuming to speak for the party. I did not profit any by it; I was simply doing what I had done after every session since I became a member of this House. What are the facts? You will pardon a personal reference. In 1906 I was elected by a majority of 518. In 1911 I was elected by a majority of 987, and the only polling subdivision in my constituency where my majority fell off was the polling subdivision where there was a branch of the Farmers Bank. Let me tell you how that came about. My opponent, amongst others, came to Ottawa a short time before the election on behalf of those interested in the Farmers Bank in that constituency. He met with others here. He saw the Finance Minister, Mr. Fielding. I do not know what the Finance Minister told him, and I do not know personally what he told the electors when he went back; but I was informed, and the result of the polls there convinced me that there was truth in it, that he told a number of my supporters generally that he had been down to Ottawa, that he had seen the Finance Minister, and that the Finance Minister had told him that if the Laurier Govern-
ment were sustained at the polls they would reimburse the depositors of the Farmers Bank. I do not want any one to go away with the idea that I am stating that as being the truth, because, personally, I do not know it, but I heard it. I do state as a fact that there was some influence at work in that particular polling subdivision, because it was the only one in the riding where my majority was reduced.
Several hon. gentlemen opposite have given us hypothetical cases alleged to be analogous to this one. For instance, my hon. friend from Guyeiborough (Mr. iSin-clair) said: Suppose the Minister of Marine and Fisheries were to appoint a man, who had been highly recommended to him as a pilot on the St, Lawrence. The (pilot takes the ship which collides with another vessel, as happened to the Empress of Ireland the other day, and sinks. Would this Government, he asked, think of reimbursing the owners of that vessel? I submit that the cases are not analogous at all. Let me give an analogous case. Suppose a man applied to the Minister of Marine for a position as pilot, and that four or five reputable men were to tell the minister before he made the appointment that the applicant was a man who used intoxicating liquors to excess, and that in consequence he frequently became inincapable both physically and mentally. The minister calls in the man and says: I am told by four or five gentlemen of standing that you are in the habit of becoming incapable both physically and mentally by reason of the excessive use of intoxicating liquors; what are the facts? The applicant says:	There is not a word of truth in it;
I have been a total abstainer ever since I left the cradle. Very well, says the minister, I will appoint you as a pilot. He is appointed and takes a ship from Montreal down the St. Lawrence, but through an excessive use of intoxicants while on the boat he becomes incapable of navigating the ship, and the ship goes to the bottom. Suppose that these had beeh the facts in connection with the Empress of Ireland. I venture to say that in that case the indignation of the people of this country would have been so intense as to drive the Minister of Marine and Fisheries from public life for the rest of his days. *That would be an analogous case to the one now under discussion. The evidence shows that warning after warning had been given to the ex-Minister of Finance that Travers was a dishonest man, and

that he had been guilty of fraud and perjury. Mr. Fielding knew that, perhaps not actually but as a matter of law. Mr. Fielding would have known these facts if he had acted as a man of ordinary prudence would in dealing with his own personal affairs. If he had acted in this matter as I venture to say he would have acted had he been personally interested in it, he would have followed up these warnings and discovered the character of Travers, who was applying for the certificate. As I said the other day, Travers was in substance the Farmers Bank, and the ex-Minister of Finance the Treasury Board, and if the Hon. Mr. Fielding had followed up the warnings, as the learned commissioner said it was his duty to do, he would have discovered two things: First, that the subscribers to the capital stock of the Farmers Bank had not paid in $250,000 in cash; and secondly, the very much more important fact that Mr. Travers was a man who had been found guilty of both fraud and perjury. Here is the situation. You have the ex-Minister of Finance knowing as a matter of law, because he was bound to know what it was his duty to ascertain, that this man was guilty of fraud and perjury, and yet he puts him in a position where he had control of hundreds of thousands of dollars of the people for whom the ex-Minister of Finance was in a sense the trustee; so that you have a trustee guilty of a gross breach of trust. As I said the other day, I am not imputing any wilful wrong-doing to the ex-Minister of Finance. I am not saying that he actually knew these facts, but courts of law treat trustees as if they actually knew what it was their duty to ascertain. I will give an illustration, if I may be pardoned a personal reference. A short time ago I had a very important position to fill, and I was on the eve of appointing a gentleman who had been recommended to me, when it came to my ears as a rumour that this man was in the habit of getting on a spree and remaining there for two or three weeks at a time. I at once made an inquiry, and was satisfied that the rumour which had come to my ears was well founded. That man has not been appointed, and if the ex-Minister of Finance, in the interests of the public, had taken that sort of position, we would have had no such wrecking of the Farmers Bank as has caused so much loss and suffering to the people of this country.
Mr. FRANCIS N. MeCREA (Sherbrooke):
I had not intended to &ay anything on this question, but as it is of such an extraordinary nature I cannot allow it to pass without offering a few remarks. This legislation is extraordinary in more respects than one. There is no precedent for it either in this House nor, so far as I know, in any civilized country in the world. It is also extraordinary in respect of the parties who are the main movers in asking this House and the country to reimburse the depositors of the Farmers Bank. We are told that because the ex-Minister of Finance neglected his duty it is incumbent upon the Government to make good the losses *sustained. Before the late Government went out of office, this question came up in the House and was debated at some length, and I understand that some hon. gentlemen claimed on that occasion that the depositors should be reimbursed. With the exception of the letters of Leighton MeCarthy, the ex-Minister of Finance had reoeived no intimation beyond mere street gossip as to the condition of affairs in comr mention with the Farmers Bank.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: As the hon. gentleman was not in the House at that time, perhaps he will pardon me putting him right. As a matter of fact this House'had ordered the Finance Minister to bring down all the correspondence and papers in connection with the Farmers Bank, and we had before us then a book which I have here now containing all the correspondence; so that we had information at that time.
Mr. MeCREA: Not before the certificate was given.	*


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Oh, no, but you were
referring to the discussion.
Mr. MeCREA; So far as I can gather from what has been said in the course of this debate the only written complaint made to the ex-Minister of Finance was by Leighton McCarthy, and when the ex-minister asked him to furnish details and full information Mr. McCarthy replied that the depositors with whom he was concerned had been satisfied, and consequently he would withdraw his charges. Outside of that, there is nothing beyond meeting the ex-Minister of Finance on the street corners and telling him to hold up the certificate. It is true that the Bankers Association did send a written protest; but the

license had been issued before that protest was received, and, according to the opinion of Commissioner Meredith who investigated, could not be recalled by the minister.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The hon. gentleman has referred to a letter said to have been written by the ex-Finance Minister to Mr. McCarthy, asking him for particulars. Would he be kind enough to read that letter ? It was not brought down in the return. There is no such letter.


Mr. McCREA:: I said that Mr. McCarthy withdrew his charges, the parties for whom he was acting having been settled with. Consequently, he asked to have the document returned to him. That was the only written document I have heard mentioned here as having been put before the minister.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: You only read part of it; read the whole letter.


Francis N. McCrea: This Government appointed a commissioner, a man of their own choosing, to hear the evidence both verbal and written. This commissioner has made his report. He exonerates the ex-Minister of Finance from any imputation of breach of faith, and winds up by saying that the most that could be charged against him is possibly an error of judgment. Now, if this Government are going to legislate that every time a minister of the Crown commits a probable error of judgment the country must pay for it, what will become of the country ? What will become of this country if the electors are going to be told that for every error of judgment that this Government may commit the country will have to be responsible and will have to pay ?
But a more extraordinary part of this question is this:	I was looking over the
list of the counties affected by this legislation, and I find that they number twenty-five. The Minister of Labour has told us that it was a part of the Conservative platform before the elections, and they made pledges and promises. Were those pledges and promises extended beyond the counties affected? I heard nothing of them in my county. No pledges were held out to the people of the province of Quebec that if the Conservatives were returned to power they would reimburse the depositors of the Farmers Bank. That goes to prove what we have always said-that this Government got into office by a combination of promises, each promise made to suit a locality.
A still further strange part of this legislation is the fact that the Finance Minister 
who brings it forward represents a county affected by this failure. It is true that he was returned in a by-election by acclamation and perhaps did not have to make any promises except to endorse those that had been made by others. But he realizes that he has to go back to his county for re-election and must redeem the pledges of his party before he does. In an ordinary case in court, say in a criminal case to be tried before a jury, if it can be shown that the parties summoned as jurymen are interested in the case, they are challenged for cause and ordered to stand aside and not allowed to serve; but we have twenty-five members sitting in this House who pledged themselves at the last election that if their party came into power they would implement these promises, right or wrong.


An hon. MEMBER:: Name them.


Francis N. McCrea: Now, I am perhaps a
little old in years though young in politics; but my idea of this matter of politics has been that if a candidate holds out any promises or resorts to any corruption, he has to do it in such a way that the public will not hear or know of it, or he will be disqualified. But here we have a bunch of candidates, men who represent counties in this House, telling us that they have made promises	to their	constituents	in the
past and were elected on the strength of those	promises, and furthermore
telling us	that	if they	returnedto their	counties	without	fulfilling
their promises, they could not be re-elected. Not only have they made promises to the electors for the past election, but they are making further promises for a future election. This is something that ought to disqualify these men, in my way of thinking.
I do not like to be harsh, and if I did I do not know terms strong enough to condemn this legislation. If I were to use such terms as harsh as I think should be applied to such legislation, you would call me to order, Mr. Speaker, and you would probably be justified. This legislation is pernicious, it is wrong, and the generations not yet born will hear of it and suffer from it if it is put on the statute book.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):: 1 do not wish to take more than a few moments, but I think the question is of sufficient importance to require fair discussion. I cannot quite agree with the reasons assigned by the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Ross) for supporting this Bill. I cannot agree that merely

because there has been a great loss the country must come to the rescue of those who have lost. That is not good legislation unless we make it general. If the Government make a general declaration and say, we will recoup all depositors in banks that have failed, well and good. Nor do I accept the reasons given by the Minister of Finance as sufficient. He gives legal reasons, or what might be called legal reasons, why this should be done. As I understand the Minister of Finance, he would indicate that there is a legal responsibility resting upon Canada, unless we are relieved of that legal responsibility by some special rights which we have but which the ordinary individual does not have. I notice that in introducing this Bill he was asked by the leader of the Opposition:
Sir Wilfrid Laurier:	Are you going to proceed legally on this question?
Mr. White:	No, because, as I have said, the
negligence cannot be established as against the Crown, or as against a minister of the Crown acting in his capacity as minister. What I have sought to do is to show that on legal analogy the action of the Government is justifiable by reason of the fact that the negligence to which I have referred on the part of the Treasury Board was the primary and original cause of the loss of this money to the depositors.
In another place he says:
The Government's course is not based upon its legal liabilities, although I think on legal principles the Government is bound to reimburse these depositors.
He gives as a reason for that responsibility the fact, as he alleges, that the negligence to which I have referred on the pait of the Treasury Board was the primary and original cause of the loss of this moniv by the depositors. I am rather astonished that the minister should lay down the principle that the primary and original cause is necessarily a cause which would he sufficient to justify the court in find'.ng againsl the defendant, i think the principle of law is quite plain on the question of the sort of negligence which would entitle the court to give relief and I think I am right-in saying that the commissioner, from whom the minister quoted, never used the word ' negligence ' in connection with his refer ence to the board, and that therefore the minister has put in a term which the commissioner never used.
Not to take too much time with legal definitions, I think that all lawyers will agree with me that there must be some proximate or, as the commissioner says, efficient, cause of injury to enable the plaintiff to recover. That is a very different thing from the primary and original cause. A person who claims damages because of some primary and original cause generally fails because the damages are too remote. Some of us are accustomed to legal definitions as to what negligence there must be in order to bring a successful action. But let me read one or two:
The negligence must be the proximate cause of the injury.
And again:
The damage must be the legal and natural consequence of the word spoken or the action performed.
We know that the commissioner has found that the action of the department was not the proximate cause. He states himself clearly what the efficient cause, as he calls it, is, and he tells us that the efficient cause, the proximate cause, the thing which caused the damage, was t'he mismanagement of the bank and not the giving of the certificate.
Something has been said about the political reasons for this measure. I noticed in looking up a magazine friendly to the Government, a very sympathetic article on this Bill in which the writer lays the blame entirely on -the late Government, but he adds:
Then too, It must be remembered that the promise of restoring their money to the depositors was clearly made by the Conservatives in their election campaign in 1911.
That is the whole thing in a nutshell, and the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) pretty nearly puts it as strongly. The minister is putting the Bill before the House to carry out the promises which were made by the Ontario Conservative candidates, and we are told by the minister that they must redeem their pledges. I wonder how we in the West are going to come out. Does the same obliga-9 p.m. tion rest on the Government in regard to the natural resources of the West ? We have never heard anything about that. It seems to me that we have just as much right to have the promises made to us redeemed as the people of Ontario have. The present Government is certainly making a distinction all along in favour of the provinces that supported them against the provinces that opposed them, which is neither good legislation nor sound policy. There is one thing in the commissioner's report which has been referred to more than once in this House;

that is where the commissioner speaks of an error of judgment. He says:
The most that can properly be charged against the Department of Finance or the Treasury Board is an error of judgment.
The Minister of Finance, in his speech when introducing this Bill, said that this remark was made in reference to the charge of fraud in obtaining the certificate. If T am wrong the minister can correct me, but he certainly said in his speech that this remark of the commissioner was made in reference to the charge of improper action in obtaining the certificate. Let us look at that matter. As you will find on pages 8 and 9 of his report, the commissioner deals with the fact that Mr. Travers had made an improper statement which had led the Treasury Board to believe that certain moneys were paid in cash which were not as a matter of fact paid in cash. The commissioner deals very fully with that, then goes on to deal with the other matter to which the minister has referred, and then sums up in regard to everything with the words which I have used:
The most that can properly be charged against the Department of Finance or the Treasury Board is an error of judgment.
I think my hon. friend will see that that remark of the commissioner must have referred to their action in not making what he considered sufficient investigation. How could it possibly refer to the charge of fraud, how could it possibly refer to the charge that some one had been approached and bought up ? Let us look at what he says in regard to that:
An unsuccessful attempt was made to show that money had been used by Travers to procure the issue of the certificate.
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance told us that the statement of the commissioner in regard to an error of judgment referred to this. Would this be an error of judgment even if the statement were true ? If it were not true, where is the error of judgment ? The error of judgment could have no possible connection with that, and the minister knows it.


William Thomas White: Read the paragraph.


Levi Thomson: I will read the whole thing:
As I have already pointed out, Travers in his reply did not give the assurance for which the minister had asked, viz., an assurance that nothing of the kind had taken place in relation to the subscriptions for the Farmers Bank, but that the amounts set forth in the application as

having been paid up have in every case been bona fide cash payments.
Unfortunately, Travers' reply appears to have been treated by the department as containing the assurance for which the minister had asked.
I very much doubt whether in the circumstances it would have been right to have depended upon the word of Travers, even if he had given the assurance for which the minister had asked. The information which had been conveyed to the minister had come from gentlemen of standing, and if it was accurate the declaration Travers had made was untrue, and it would seem to have been almost an idle thing to ask for an assurance that there was no foundation for the statements that had been made to the minister from the very man whose honesty was in question, and unwise to have acted on that assurance.
It is true that, as Mr. Fielding stated in evidence, Travers, so far as he knew, was a reputable banker; but that was not, in my opinion, a sufficient reason for not having instituted an inquiry as to the matters which had been called to his attention. Such an inquiry could easily have been made, and the delay occasioned by it would have been inconsiderable, and such an inquiry would, undoubtedly, have resulted in the discovery of the manner in which the $100,000 had been raised and in the refusal of the Treasury Board to give the certificate.
An unsuccessful attempt was made to show that money had been used by Travers to procure the issue of the certificate. In support of it Travers testified to the issue of a cheque for $3,000 which he said was placed in an envelope addressed to Mr. Peter Ryan and sent to Mr. Ryan's room in the Russell House, at Ottawa, and afterwards presented and cashed.
That Ryan received this cheque or had any connection with it if it was used for the purpose stated by Travers, was disproved.
There is, in my opinion, no ground for supposing that any improper influence was used to induce the Treasury Board to give the certificate or to induce the Minister of Finance to recommend the granting of it, and the most that can properly be charged against the Department of Finance or the Treasury Board is an error of judgment.
How can the minister say that this error of judgment had any connection whatever with the charge of fraud? Fraud and error of judgment are two entirely distinct-things. Any one knows that this statement of the commissioner refers to the first part of the complaint, not to the fraud. Surely the minister knows that.


William Thomas White: I did not intend to say anything to the contrary. I did not allege it was fraud.
' Mr. THOMSON: The minister said most positively, in introducing this Bill, that the remark regarding the error of judgment had reference to the charge of fraud.


William Thomas White: It follows immediately upon what was stated.


Levi Thomson: It follows immediately upon both statements, and it is a summing up. I grant that the paragraphing of this part of the report is not very good.


Mr. HENDERSON:: That is a pity.


Levi Thomson: The minister has tried to convey the impression that there would be a legal liability on a private individual under similar circumstances. Let us deal with the remark of the commissioner that the most that can properly be said in regard to this is that it is an error of judgment. Can the minister show us a judgment delivered by any judge in the civilized world in which he has stated that a matter is an error of judgment and in which he has then found for the plaintiff? He cannot do it. The finding of the commissioner is that at the worst it is an error of judgment.


William Thomas White: Would my hon. friend read that again? The error of judgment, as I understand it, related to the action of the Department of Finance. In another part the commissioner finds that it was incumbent upon the Treasury Board to do something which it did not do, aamely, to hold an inquiry.


Levi Thomson: The commissioner refers both to the minister and the Department of Finance.


William Thomas White: He refers to the Department of Finance?


Levi Thomson: The commissioner says:
The most that can properly be charged against the Department of Finance or the Treasury Board is an error of judgment.
Does the minister seriously intend to recoup the people of Canada for every error of judgment made my himself and his predecessors? If not, where does the Government stand in regard to the matter? I believe the Government were guilty of a very serious error of judgment when, last fall, they did not place wheat on the free [DOT]list, and in that way take advantage of the opportunity which the United States gave them, lit would have saved millions to the people of Canada if they had done so.


David Henderson: Is that an error of judgment on their part?


Levi Thomson: The minister said most positively:
No certificate-no bank and no Travers-no bank or no Travers- no loss to depositors.
That has been dealt with somewhat by my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), and I do not want to go into that any further.
My impression is that the minister has not the power to insist upon a certain person being placed in charge of a bank. If I am wrong, the minister can correct me. Then how could the department have insisted that Travers should not have been engaged? There is no question that the directors would have re-engaged Travers, even if his actions had been brought to their attention, because they knew what he had done. There was not an act that Travers had done up to that time of which the directors who appointed him were hot cognizant. I do not know if we are to take action against the directors to recover what the depositors have lost. Surely the directors are more responsible than the Department of Finance, if it is a matter of Travers being engaged.
It is quite plain that it is not because of any obligation, moral or legal, that is resting upon this Government that this Bill is introduced. I can imagine very well that the minister, every night before he retires to his peaceful couch, utters a very serious prayer that the 'Senate may come to his relief and throw this Bill out.


William Thomas White: Oh, no.


Levi Thomson: Whether the Senate will pull his chestnuts out of the fire or not remains to be seen. I cannot imagine for a moment that the minister really wants this Bill to become liaw. I cannot imagine he has so little regard for what should be on the statute-books of Canada as to want that, and I think those of us who have the interest of the country at heart will vote against this Bill.
Amendment (Mr. Sinclair) negatived, on division.
Bill read the third time and passed, on division.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Right Hon. R. L. Borden (Prime Minister), Bill No. 226, to guarantee the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Blondin ini the Chair.
Robert Laird Borden: Before we take up the
Bill, it might be proper that I should make

bonds at 4 per cent; we proposed to them that the Government should not be called upon to implement those bonds and that the Government should not be called upon to pay interest for seven years without recourse. In view of their representations as to the difficulty of making the net earnings equal the fixed charges for a certain period of years, we proposed that a sum sufficient to cover the interest for three years should be included in the mortgage. After a good deal of discussion and negotiation, participated in by myself and several of my colleagues, that arrangement was arrived at.
It is proper for me to submit to the committee a statement which has been prepared by Mr. H. T. Ross, of the Finance Department, showing how the $16,000,000 is arrived at. Perhaps I had better just read the memorandum as Mr. Ross has given it to me:
Memorandum showing how the sum of $16,000,000 mentioned in Grand Trunk Pacific resolutions will be applied:
(1)	Amount required to pay three-fourths of cost of construction work as defined in Trust Deed of June 10, 1905, in respect of Mountain Section, inclusive of interest until completion of Mountain Section on bonds issued in respect thereof under deeds set forth in Schedules (a) and (b),
Cap. 98, Acts of 1905	$10,715,496
(2)	Interest until completion upon advances made in respect of the Mountain Section under the Grand Trunk Pacific -Loan Act, 1913-
$8,807,563.13	at 4 per cent __________ 680,383
(3)	Interest for approximately 41 years on $16,000,000 at 4 per
cent	 2,720,000
(4)	Discount and flotation charges
on issue of	$ie,uuu,uoo	 1,440,000

In connection with item (1) the company under date of February 6, 1914, point out that after the rails are connected there will be substantial expenditures for what is construction work within the meaning of the deed of trust required during 1914 and 1915 in addition to the estimates contained in item (1). There will be additional stations, section houses, tank houses, etc., improving water supply, road crossings, freight houses, additional ballasting, and generally construction expense incident to a new road bed. These additional items are estimated to amount to $2,000,000 three-fourths of this being $1,500,000.
The interest, according to the general practice in respect to railway construction, is chargeable as part of the cost of construction under the agreement of 1903-4. I do not know that there is anything further of value that I could give to the committee. I have a statement of the various charges upon the road by way of mortgage up to the fMr. Borden. 1
present time. I will send a* copy over to my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition so that he may have it before him in case he desires to make any observations.
In conclusion, I can only say that in view of the obligations that the country certainly entered into in 190310 p.m. 1904, we came to the conclusion that the proposed arrangement is, under all the circumstances, a reasonable arrangement, and therefore we submit it with a good deal of confidence to the judgment of the House.


George Perry Graham: 
[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-guarantee:
Wilfrid Laurier: Is the Government, after having looked into the matter, satisfied that the sum of $16,000,000 will enable the company to complete the road ?


Robert Laird Borden: In addition to what must be provided by the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Government is satisfied that, with this aid and what the Grand Trunk Pacific is going to raise, the company will be in a position to complete the road ?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand from the statement given by my right hon. friend that the amount necessary to complete three-quarters of the mountain section is $10,500,000 or thereabouts ?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: The rails have now been laid upon the whole road. $10,500,000 seems to be a very large amount of money for the work to be done yet, namely, the stations and the tanks and for incidental expenses.


Robert Laird Borden: That amount also includes the terminals at Prince Rupert, which will form a very large part of the expense.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-bonds to secured by trust deeds:
Wilfrid Laurier: When is it expected that the road will be ready for traffic ?


Robert Laird Borden: Next autumn. That is what the correspondence stated.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-payments under guarantee by His Majesty not to discharge liability of company:
Robert Laird Borden: This is a usual provision.


George Perry Graham: I suppose that Mr. Schreiber still remains the Government engineer for the inspection of this work ?


Robert Laird Borden: He is the chief superintending engineer, and he has a staff of men engaged in this work all the time.


George Perry Graham: Are they going out there this summer ?


John Dowsley Reid: Within a short time he will be over the road.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Canals-staff and repairs, $1,400,000.
['All right.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Reid, the House adjourned at 12.35 a.m. Saturday.\nSaturday, June 6, 1914.']
William Chisholm: I desire to get some
information with regard to a proposed diversion of the Intercolonial, and the surveys made. I desire to know if the survey parties examined the proposed diversion running from ILinwood through Cape Jack and the village of Harbour au Bouche. A petition was sent to the Government some time ago from the residents of that place, praying for this diversion, and it was sent to the department. I do not know how the department is disposed to view it. Speaking generally, that portion of the eastern extension from New Glasgow to the strait of Canso, goes through the very poorest part of the country. I do not know how it was, but when that road was run regard seems to have been had to the engineering or to the contractor's interest rather than to the convenience of the people, particularly from Linwood to Mulgrave, distant two or three miles from the village of Harbour au Bouche. That village is one of the prettiest places in the eastern part of Nova Scotia, a thriving fishing village where considerable business is done. A strange thing is that when the road was built it did not go through the village. The proposition is to run from Linwood through - Cape Jack and Harbour au Bouche. I ob-

served from the papers that were brought down in response to a motion made by myself some time ago, that in 1890 an application was made for this diversion. A survey was made on that occasion and a report presented which, I confess, when I read it, I thought a startling report.


John Dowsley Reid: What is the date of it?


William Chisholm: It is dated October 1, 1892. This was when Sir John Thompson represented Antigonish. It was at his request that the survey was made. I observe that there was considerable delay in having it made. There did'not appear to be any desire at Moncton to comply with the prayer of the petitions sent in by residents of the district referred to. A letter of the 2nd September, 1892, says:
Have the survey made at once, as promised by the minister, no delay admissible.
So the survey was made, and, under date of October 1, 1892, Mr. P. S. Archibald reports as follows:
Oct. 1st, 1892.
D. Pottinger, Esq.,
Chief Superintendent,
Moncton.
Dear Sir,-As instructed by Mr. Schreiber's letter of the 19th August last, I have had a survey made for the proposed diversion of the line via Harbour au Bouche Village, and under another cover I enclose you plans and profiles. I also enclose herewith an estimate of the cost, amounting to $62,273.39. Instead of shortening the line as was supposed, it will lengthen it by the blue line 4.14 miles, and by the red line 3.54 miles. The gradients you will observe too, by the profile, are very unfavourable. I have not considered it worth while to lay down the location, or send you a profile of the red line; I can do so if you wish.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) P. S. Archibald.
Then there was a detailed statement of the cost. I call the attention of the acting minister to this report, as he might be inclined to think that the change proposed is not in the interest of the road as such, and does not meet the requirements of the people in this district. The report says that the line will not be shortened. I was surprised at that. But even if the distance were a little longer, it is only three or four miles. But the report says also that the gradients would be very unfavourable. Of course, we must treat with due respect the reports of engineers, but I am sure the people down there will find it hard to believe that they could not run a line from Linwood through Cape Jack and Harbour au Bouche without getting better grades and curves than those in the present road. It

does seem to me, in reading the correspondence, observing the delay in making the survey, the tone of the report and other things-reading between the lines-there was no desire at that time to make the change. There seemed to be a disposition to switch off the application. I can understand that. At that time the traffic was comparatively small and the revenues of the road were very much lower than they are to-day. The department would consider an expenditure of	$62,000 or thereabouts wasted	if	it were merely
to improve the railway accommodation for the people at that time. Things have changed, however, and I hope that the minister will not be influenced in any way by the report which was made in 1892. I hope that the survey parties now working on the Intercolonial railway will make a careful survey with a view to meeting the wishes of the people in those districts. I feel confident that if a careful survey is made, a good line will be obtained which will be of great convenience to the people. I do not wish to take up the time of the committee in elaborating on the character of the country and the improved facilities which this change would give; the facts are correctly set forth in the petition which is before the minister. This change would effect another improvement in that there is a bad grade between Linwood and a point some miles east of Harbour au Bouche. I would like to ask the minister if he knows whether the survey parties have dealt with the matter referred to in the petition of the residents of Linwood and Harbour au Bouche-


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot say whether or not there is a survey party in that district at the present time. I do know, however, that the general manager has survey parties out along the Intercolonial railway, who are working with a view to improving grades along the line. It may be necessary at some points to divert the road from its present course; as I understand it, at the place mentioned by my hon. friend it may be necessary, in order to carry out his wishes, that a diversion of the road be made. However, when the survey parties have completed all the necessary work along the line, this matter will be considered and everything will be done which is necessary to improve the roadbed of the Intercolonial railway.


Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE:: The management of Intercolonial railway have decided
to put an additional train on the line during the coming summer season. This train, I understand, will be composed exclusively of sleeping cars for the benefit of passengers going to the various summer resorts along the St. Lawrence. There is going to be one sleeper for Riviere Ouelle, another for Rivifere du Loup, another for C'acouna, another for Bic and Rimouski and another for Little Metis. I do not object to the running of this train; I think it will be a great improvement, but the people of the village of Kamouraska are complaining that this will discriminate against one of the finest summer resorts on the St. Lawrence river. I think that there are more tourists summering at Kamouraska than there are at any of the points that are to be served by this train called the St. Lawrence Special. I would ask the minister to use his influence with the manager of the Intercolonial railway with a view to having another sleeper put on this train for St. Paschal, where passengers for Kamouraska get off. St.. Paschal is the county town of the riding; it has a population of over 3,000 people and these people certainly deserve to have a sleeper put on the train for this place. I would call the attention of the minister to a statement made by his manager and published in the newspapers recently to the effect that the best paying section of the Intercolonial is that between Levis and Riviere du Loup, so that I hope the department will not be discriminatory in this matter.


John Dowsley Reid: As 1 understand the' hon.
gentleman, he wishes another sleeper put on the train from Montreal east to St. Paschal.


Ernest Lapointe: For the benefit of
Kamouraska.


John Dowsley Reid: Surely the Intercolonial in
running trains from Montreal east will put on a sleeper at any time, if there are a sufficient number of passengers to justify their doing so.


Ernest Lapointe: This is a new train,
and there is no sleeper for the section of the country to which I have referred. The train is going to run three days, in the week going down and three days in the week coming up. It is especially on Friday nights going down and Sunday nights coming up that it would be convenient for passengers to and from Kamouraska to have a sleeper on the train.


John Dowsley Reid: I shall be very glad to take the matter up with the general manager with a view to seeing whether the wishes of the hon. member can be carried out.


Mr. BURNHAM:: I believe that under
this item we are to discuss the Trent Valley Canal report. On account of the illness of Mr. Stratton, the former member for Peterborough, I had no intention of bringing the matter up, but members of the Opposition have seemed to think it desirable that the matter should be discussed; therefore I have much pleasure in complying with their request.
The report which was made on the investigation at the instance of the Department of Railways and Canals disclosed a most extraordinary state of affairs in the Trent district. It showed not only looseness but corruption. I have the opinion that those who have been, as it were, caught in the act, those who have been the instruments of this corruption, are not most to blame. I propose to show that the whole tenor of the conduct of affairs in the administration in the Trent canal in the Peterborough district wras of such a character that no employee could hold his job and not do what he was told to do by those in authority over him, who demanded that he should do as they wished, and what they wished was corrupt from top to bottom. I have no desire to make any political capital out of this matter. I do not think that the Liberal party as a party can be blamed for what took place at Peterborough; it was rather due to the general frailty of human nature. Several Conservatives were mixed up in the matter, which shows the complete impartiality of the report and of the manner in which the investigation was made.
One of the most extraordinary things connected with this whole affair from beginning to end was the giving away by the Liberal Government of a property valued at $500,000 for one dollar a year for fifty years to a band of favourites. That, I think, is enough to show anybody the character of the administration of the Trent Valley canal. I shall now proceed to show more in detail what that means. On the main line of the Trent waterway at a place called Burleigh falls, where there is a fall about twenty-eight feet high-that is the height of the locks-there is a magnificent water-power. With the exception of the water-power at Healey falls it is without doubt the finest water-power on the whole Trent system and is a morsel

on which engineers had been looking for many years. Some years ago I asked an eminent New York electrical engineer who happened to be in the neighbourhood what power could be developed cheaply at Burleigh falls. He said:	Considering the extent of the fore bay, the steadiness of the flow, etc., as well as the height of the falls, I should say that not less than 6,000 horse-power at minimum flow; but of course you can, on account of the character of the neighbourhood, at very little expense, raise that to at least 8,000 horse-power, that would be an easy matter. The most unpractised eye could see that this is the case, the water flows from Lovesick lake into Stoney lake and in its passage flows over Burleigh falls, and also through two small streams called Perry's creek. These are the three means of escape for the water into Stoney lake. The main course of the stream falling into Stoney lake is dammed back for the purposes of navigation by a Government dam which cost a very large amount. I am within the mark when I say that it cost $100,000; I think it cost much more. The Government have to maintain that dam and to keep the water at this height in order to make the waterpower at Burleigh falls a very remunerative affair, all that has to be done is to build across the apertures of PeTry's creek two short dams, and I am within the mark when I say they can be built for $5,000 apiece at the very outside. The cost of development of the water-power, of course, would vary according to t'he amount of power you wish to develop. The full development of 6,000 horse-power could be attained by an expenditure, all told, of $30,000. So that the gift by the Government to this private company of this waterpower at Burleigh falls was a gift of 6,000 horse-power at minimum flow at one dollar a year for fifty years, which would cost them $30,000. The lease was made by the late Hon. A. G. Blair when he was Minister of Railways. It was confirmed by the late Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), that is the assignment was confirmed, in 1910.


George Perry Graham: The assignment to whom?


John Hampden Burnham: The assignment in trust to Ewing and Ross, the assignment of the lease. The history of this was that Mr. Blair really did not want to grant this lease; he suspected that it was not right and did not want to grant it. But, what

are you going to do when men high in the councils of the Liberal party write letters demanding practically that this be done? The Central Ontario Power Company, Limited, which took over this property irom Culverwell, or which he concocted for the purpose of taking it over, had amongst its stockholders the Hon. Richaid Har-court, late Minister of Education at Toronto, who had $10,000 stock. Then we had also the late Postmaster General, Sir William Mulock. Sir William Mulock wrote:
With further reference to the application of J. A. Culverwell for a water-power privilege in the county of Victoria, I think on the line of the Trent canal, after careful conisderation and full inquiry I recommend this application to your favourable consideration.
Yours truly,
W. Mulock.
Hon. Richard Harcourt, at one time Minister of Education for Ontario, writes:

Dear Mr. Blair,
In the application of J. Alexander Culverwell of Toronto on Buleigh falls, kindly see correspondence. Our arrangements can be completed and satisfactorily closed on Monday provided we hear from you tomorrow. New York bankers-
New York bankers? New York grandmothers, the whole thing was being managed by friends of the Government in Canada:
New York bankers will be in Toronto on Monday to close but nothing can be done until we hear from you. Will you wire J. Alexander Culverwell on Monday sure. I may not be in Toronto until Thursday evening.
Yours truly,	*
R. Harcourt.
P.S.-I am personally interested in the matter.
These are the eminent gentlemen who are looking after the interests of the country. Mr. Harcourt writes again:
Dear Mr. Blair,	.
Mr. J. Alexander Culverwell of Toronto, an electrical engineer, has had some correspondence with your office late last February and since that time. It is important that his application shall be disposed of. I am interested in the company he is forming and will be glad if you will settle up the matter.
Certainly, he has $10,000 stock in it, which got its value by the late Government giving away the property of the people of this country, and he proposes to realize on it as soon as possible. Is it any wonder that the poor wretches employed on the Trent Valley canal think they might get a few rake-offs of candles, cigars and bottles of whisky when a no/ble example like this
is set them. My respect for these gentlemen is an inverse ratio to the amounts they get out of the swindle. Sir William Mulock writes to Mr. Blair as follows:
Dear Mr. Blair,
In case this 'matter may have escaped your attention I desire to remind you that I will be glad if you can make a satisfactory arrangement with Mr. Culverwell.
Senator McHugh also had to have a finger in the pie. He wrote:
I have had a request to urge on the department the completion of an arrangement with Mr. J. A. Culverwell. The delay is hindering the organization of the company. I would be pleased to have this matter receive your early attention.
Then, the mayor of Lindsay and George McHugh, the senator, also concocted an epistle which they forwarded to Mr. Blair. Mr. Blair agreed, and handed over this magnificent asset to J. Alexander Culverwell, who is about as astute a, man as I know, and to the Central Ontario Power [DOT]Company, which, of course, consisted of a lot otf financial giants, including the Hon. Richard Harcourt. Let us look at the lease. The date of authorization was November 4, 1899. (The hon. member read part of the lease.) This asset was ultimately assigned to the Central Ontario Power Company, and then bonded to Ewing and Ross under a total bondage of $760,000.
This iniquity could not have been perpetrated except with the consent of the Minister of Railways and Canals. This magnificent water-power is given away for fifty years for the magnificent sum of one dollar a year, and we may not even get that by the provisions of the last clause I have read. The lease allows damage if not unnecessary. Of course, any lawyer knows that if damage were done and it could be shown that it was not unnecessary it would be like the Farmers Bank-away she goes. The Government of this country proposes to hand over this magnificent water-power to this company for the sum of one dollar a year. Is it any wonder that the people of this country are beginning to get tired of the way they are being treated? It is hardly possible that this kind of thing can go on. That is the state of affairs along the Trent Valley canal and it is something we should take cognizance of.
But how is it with the poor creatures who have perhaps taken a little more than they should have, infringed the moral law or done something of that sort? These poor

wretches are all suspected. They have all got into serious trouble, their last hope is about gone. The man who used to represent Peterborough but who now, unfortunately, is ill, and who should have looked after the interest of that district, suffered this to go on. Yet, I do not find any recommendation for his suspension in the report, and in that respect the report is astray. The report also shows that as to the pay sheet some very strange things have happened. There was a Miss Carr, who was employed in the office of A. H. Stratton and E. S. Clarry, one the brother of the Hon. Mr. Stratton, who used to represent West Peterborough, and the other the Government accountant at the Trent Valley Canal office. This girl was put on the Government pay-list as a labourer. She was down on the pay-list as having worked on the dam, as having shoved logs about, as having done some of the things which only a big husky man could do, something which she as a matter of fact had never done. But she was put down as a labourer on the pay-list in order to pay an account contracted by Messrs. Stratton and Clarry; the pay-sheet was put through the Government office here, and the pay was extracted from the treasury and handed over to these gentlemen to pay their account with. I believe it is understood that prosecution is to follow. All these cases must unquestionably be run down; public opinion demands it. I hope the minister is listening. These cases must be followed up to the bitter end. It is intolerable that the treasury of the country should be rifled in this manner and the culprits escape. We find that one Clark, who was an accountant of Mr. J. R. Stratton in the Peterborough Examiner office, was put on the pay-list as another man w'orking out in the country on the dams, with saw-logs and all the rest of it, and Mr. Stratton's accounts were paid by means of this false pay-sheet. Mr. Stratton was liable for $2,000 a day for allowing that to go on while sitting as a member of this House and the consequence is that his estate will no doubt be requested to hand over a certain sum to make up that deficiency. It will be an extraordinary thing if it is not.
From the date of the Gamey transaction, the Farmers Bank and the Burleigh Falls scandal, Peterborough has been dragged in the mud and blazoned all over this blooming country as the centre of folly and fraud. I wish to say that the people of Peterborough are really, for the most part, a decent and

respectable people. It is true that there are some people amongst them who belong to the Conservative party, or say they do, for political purposes or financial purposes, who transfer their allegiance when necessary to the Liberal party, and that there are members of the Liberal party who, when necessary, will transfer their apparent allegiance to the Conservative party. The two sets of men acting together, by reason of their political influence, turn the keys in the door of favouritism on the part of the leaders of both parties. That is the way the thing is worked. We have people like that in Peterborough. We have a lot of people-there is no question about that-who are perfectly satisfied if they can only make, a few dollars illegally, or improperly. If they can get a few bottles of 11 p.m. whisky from the Government or steal a few sandwiches or cigars, they are perfectly happy because they do not have to pay for them.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: And you call them decent people ?


John Hampden Burnham: No, I say these are not decent people. I am very pleased to think that the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Gauvreau) has such a lively sense of what is right.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: That is what you said.
Mr. 'BURNHAM: I know, and I am very glad to see that the hon. member observed it. I have as much respect as anybody for the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham1) and I do not wish to say anything unbecoming of him. I believe that he does what he thinks best for the interests of the country, but he and the Hon. Mr. Blair were both deceived. The iniquity was originated and perpetrated at Peterborough. If at the present time a state of things such as this could transpire, while I am representing Peterborough, I would be to blame and I would be willing to take the blame. I do not wish to transfer the blame to other people's shoulders. When I came in, I found among other things, that there had been concocted what I would call the rottenest sort of graft on a small scale that I have ever seen. The Government pays once a month, about the fifteenth, so that if you are a casual employee and have earned any money you have to wait until the Government cheque comes in before you can get your pay. A great many of these poor men have been perhaps a long time out of employment, they have little saved, their families are large, they want their money in the very

worst way, and a dollar bill in ready money looks as big as ten if you have to wait for it. I found that some men in this Trent Valley Canal office were taking powers of attorney from these poor wretches, going to the bank, shaving their notes and handing these poor devils the balance. I said:	I will crucify you if you do not
stop that. I said:	It is a cruel, rotten
system and it must be stopped. They lied about it when I asked them whether they were still doing it; they said no, that they had stopped it. I went to the bank and asked the bank about it. They said that it was perfectly wrong. I had hard work to get the head office here to believe it. They said:	It is impossible, because we
have provided a fund for that purpose. I sent a wire to the office here saying:	I
have a case now; come at once. Down came the auditor and he found that what I had told him was perfectly true. When I made complaints I could not get these complaints acted upon, because these rascals at Peterborough would know three or four days after I had made the complaint that I had made it. The whole thing was headed off and I could not do anything. In the Times newspaper of Peterborough of February 8, 1909, there is an article eulogizing Mr. Graham, the late Minister of Railways and Canals, for his railway management. The proprietors of the newspaper are put on the pay sheet of the department, to pay for the article, so the Government paid for it. That is just a little instance, but it shows how these things are done. They go on the pay sheet as labourers. No investigation is held. If you happen to be rascal enough to have contrived a system of powers of attorney, you can forge any one's name you like, because, When the evidence is taken respecting the power of attorney and it is asked:	Is this the case
to which it applied? the man who gave the power of attorney knows nothing about it. The whole thing is concocted in such a way that it is impossible to deal with it, and the system of rascality becomes so general that it cannot be uncovered. This Government, and this Parliament, may consider themselves lucky that Mr. Ferguson was able to find out as much as he did.


Edmond Proulx: It cost a lot of money.


John Hampden Burnham: Yes, it cost a lot of money. Possibly the hon. member for Prescott begrudges the spending of that
money; he would like to see this rascality go on and this country soaked and sucked of the last dollar that it has rather than that this money should be spent.


George Perry Graham: He is not so bad as that.


John Hampden Burnham: Oh, no.


Edmond Proulx: It could have been unearthed by an official of the department.


John Hampden Burnham: My hon. friend objects to the unearthing. He objects to the facts, simply because an employee of the department has not unearthed them. What has that to do with the matter? When a murder is committed, the deed is done; the unearthing of the murderer does not prevent the crime from having been committed. There is no use in putting up such excuses as that, because I am not going to be bluffed by them.


Edmond Proulx: I do not mean to say that Mr. Ferguson should not have been appointed as commissioner.


John Hampden Burnham: We will appoint you as commissioner.


Edmond Proulx: We are objecting to the expenditure of $900.


John Hampden Burnham: Well, then, I will pay back the $900 if you think it should be done.
The statement was made that this canal management in Peterborough was not being run as a political concern; that that part of the report was entirely uncalled-for and improper. I think I can enlighten the House in that respect. Mr. Stratton was the member, and in 1909 he wrote certain lettrs. (The hon. member then read the letters).
What could poor McClellan do in the face of Mr. Stratton's letter, but give this man an order? He is a member of the Conservative organization in Peterborough, and was always considered a good Conservative. Therefore, this order must be all the more promptly fulfilled, if it was going [DOT] to do any good before the election-' a bumper one for the election '-that sounds good. It speaks for itself, as Mr. Stratton says, and I think it does.
There was a letter from Mr. Stratton under date of April 17, 1909, as a consequence of which they went and interviewed Mr. Brown. You may well fancy that a lot of things were done which would affect Mr. McClellan's conscience, and possibly Mr. Stratton's ,and possibly Mr. Brown's.

Nevertheless who would get the blame? Poor McClellan would get every bit of it; but I am trying t-o give Mr. Stratton some of it now.
On the 10th of July, 1909, he writes Mr. McClellan again. This is rather curious, because these letters are all marked personal. They were put on Mr. McClellan's personal file; Mr. McClellan gave me his order to get the file, and I have the information first-hand. These lettre were not intended for the public file. They are all marked personal. I have the written permission of Mr. McClellan, who owns these letters, to read them.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Do you think it is fair to read a personal private letter? I appeal to the honesty of the hon. member.


John Hampden Burnham: Seeing that he has
given me permission to read them, I think it is perfectly fair.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: It is only a question of honesty.


John Hampden Burnham: I am glad to see that my hon. friend thinks the letters are pretty damaging.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: They may damage
yourself.


George Perry Graham: It is the reading of them that is damaging.


John Hampden Burnham: When I get letters and am authorized to use them, I think I am at perfect liberty to do so.


William Chisholm: What about the sender?


John Hampden Burnham: The sender does not own a letter after it is sent.


William Chisholm: It is a matter of taste.


John Hampden Burnham: Yee, it is a matter of taste. In this case it is also a matter of smell.	*


William Chisholm: What does the minister think?


John Hampden Burnham: The minister has
nothing to do with it. These letters are owned by Mr. McClellan.
A lot of work was done by way of dredging in the slip at Peterborough that had no more to do with the canal than this House has, and an immense sum of money was spent. Here are letters from Mr. Stratton telling Mr. McClellan to go on and have these things done and to hurry them up. One day I sent word to the

department asking them if they intended to allow the country to be bled continually by all these thieves and robbers connected with the whole system there, or if they were going to try to stop it. A question was put on the Order Paper, and the whole thing was closed down in five minutes. I never saw anything stop so quickly. There was never another shovelful taken out. They had been digging out this private slip at immense expense. They raised the dam to make a higher head for a private company. That is the sort of stuff that poor McClellan is blamed for. I just wish to point these things out, because we must do some sort of justice to poor McClellan.
I have spoken of Miss Carr. It cannot be denied that Miss Carr's name was repeatedly put on the pay-list-in November, December, April, January, August, September, October, 1907-8-for the purpose of payments of this kind. She was put on as a ' labourer ' and was paid sums of $6.25, $4, $5, $6, and so on. Of course, she never got a cent of it. But I think the most barefaced thing that was done was the putting on the accountant in Stratton's own office, to be paid as a labourer on the Trent canal. I have no time or inclination to go into all these bills about liquors and cigars, and all that rot. That is bad enough. We have the time checks. I was very much amused at the time checks of Robert Shaw. He is warden of the county and also reeve of the township of Harvey. He was put on as labourer at several places that are a long, long way from where he lives or ever worked. But I have no doubt he got his pay; he would be hardly likely to allow his name to go on a thing in which there was money and not get it. That is the kind of gum-game they played. A little authentic evidence is advisable, and as I happen to have it by me I would like to give you the benefit of it. I do not wish to take up too much time-


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Hear, hear.


John Hampden Burnham: I have no doubt the
hon. gentleman finds it too much.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I am not alone. Ask the ministers.


John Hampden Burnham: I have here extracts
from the report of the Privy Council in reference te the lease. I have also the assignment of the Central Ontario Power Company to Ewing and Ross, which was approved and confirmed by the exjMinister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), continuing the lease at one dollar per annum

'and involving a total of $750,000. Now let me say, had the property at Burleigh falls been turned to the public account, it would have netted at that time all that these men expected to make out of it, which, as you see, was not less than $500,000. Fortunately, the present Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane) came and stood upon the dam at Burleigh falls and I pointed this matter out to him and said:	Surely, you
are not going to allow this thing to go on, he said: Certainly not; this is fraud of the first water, and I will have it cancelled immediately, and he gave an order that nothing was to be allowed to be done with the lease of that property, and nothing has been done since. So that sum has been saved there. When a few hundred dollars damages are paid around the neighbourhood and the water was raised, as it must be raised for the immense new lock that is to be built there, the old lock would have furnished excellent wheel pits.


John Howard Sinclair: Is the minister making any use of it now?


John Hampden Burnham: No, but I will tell you what is going to happen:	this is being
handed over by the Dominion to the HydroElectric Commmission of Ontario and the Hydro-Elecrtic Commission is going to make use of it.


George Perry Graham: What authority is there for that statement?


John Hampden Burnham: Mr. Beck.


George Perry Graham: It has been denied in
this House.


John Hampden Burnham: All I can say is that Mr. Beck says he is getting it.


George Perry Graham: And the Government has denied it.


John Hampden Burnham: I cannot help that.
But that is merely a matter of detail. The point is that it has been taken out of the hands of private parties and restored to the public domain. I may be in error about a few details; I am not in the confidence of the minister. Mr. Beck told me in the precincts of this House, and I know from both sides that he is now taking an account of the property of the Seymour Power Company and about thirty others, in order that the Hydro-Electric may buy out the whole system of power in the Trent district and furnish hydro-electric power to the people of that district as they are furnishing it elsewhere.


George Perry Graham: I think you will find
that matter is in the courts-a part of it at least.


John Hampden Burnham: This I will say, and I think the hon. gentleman will agree with me
that Burleigh falls should never have been handed over by the Government to private parties at one dollar a year. That is the gravamen of my case-that when the late Government handed over to private parties for fifty years at a dollar a year, this enormous water-power, they simply betrayed the people of this country. Innocently or otherwise, if you like. I do not wish as I say, to make a charge of moral obliquity because I do not believe any exists here. I do not believe that Mr. Blair or Mr. Graham would do it, but when people make money and you do not know how they make it; there is a nigger in the woodpile.


Richard Blain: What was the date of the lease for fifty years?


John Hampden Burnham: It began in 1899; the date of the lease is February 2, 1900, and it was to continue until 1959.


John Howard Sinclair: Does my hon. friend say that the minister was at liberty to cancel this lease and take the property back any time he pleased?


John Hampden Burnham: No.


John Howard Sinclair: How did he manage to do it?


John Hampden Burnham: If I were minister and you walked off with $500,000 or $600,000 worth of property and I were told that it was given to you, I would take it away from you.


John Howard Sinclair: I suppose the minister sat on the dam, waived his hand, and the property came back. I wanted to know how he got it.


John Hampden Burnham: When there was a rumour afloat that for legal reasons they were about to make a beginning at the development, officials of the Government were sent to stop it; not to allow it to proceed under any consideration. Hon. gentlemen will find that magnificent waterpower, putting it at the lowest estimate was worth $10 a year clear profit for 6,000 horse-power at the minimum flow of water, or $60,000 a year for fifty years.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend has
spoken at some length, and with a great deal of heat, but he has kept away very

largely from the subject that I thought he was going to discuss, the report of the commissioner. He has dealt altogether with Burleigh falls, in respect of which a lease was made some fifteen or sixteen years ago.
I do not recall the circumstances connected with this lease, but I may mention the fact that fifteen or sixteen years ago waterpower in the Trent district, where these Burleigh falls are, was not considered of very great value. Men who looked further ahead than, perhaps, some other people, had gone up to the Trent district as well as through other districts and got control of a great many water-powers. The result is that this lease was given to a man named Culverwell, I understand, on condition that he give up claim to other powers he had secured. The Ontario Government some years ago practically gave up many of the rights they had along the Trent Valley system to the Dominion Government toy Order in Council, making no mention about retaining any rights to any of the water-powers. The reason why they did so was that they had bben compelled to maintain the dams to make provisions whereby lumbermen could float their logs. Ultimately, by Order in Council, the provincial Government turned over to the Dominion Government certain rights along the Trent Valley system and this Government took control of it from that time for the purposes of the Trent canal. The last right that the Ontario Government had was in respect of Healey's falls, and they leased that right to this same Culverwell when the present Minister of Bailways was Minister of Lands and Mines. When the time came that this Government proceeded to develop the power along that line, the lease was cancelled by the Ontario Government; and we had to make some settlement, and it was with the same Culverwell. I point out these facts merely to show that these water-powers years ago were not considered to be as valuable as they are now deemed to be. That, however, has nothing to do with the report of the commissioner, Mr. Ferguson. It is alleged that these people were put on the pay-roll for certain purposes. They knew nothing about their names being put on the pay-roll; they got checks, and swear that they performed the services for which they -were paid.
Mr. SAM. SHARPE:	What would be
the object of concealment and of changing

the system if they rendered honest service?


George Perry Graham: They did render honest service; there is no doubt about that.


John Hampden Burnham: Certainly.


George Perry Graham: There was no concealment by the parties who got the money; they were perfectly honest.


John Hampden Burnham: It was the TasCal behind them that I was talking about.


George Perry Graham: I want to point out that hon. gentlemen must not think those who got the money did not perform actual service; there was nothing irregular on their part in their getting the checks in that way.


John Hampden Burnham: That is a little farfetched. The clerk who was in the examining office never did a day's work, but he was on the pay-roll.


George Perry Graham: That will come out in
the report; the hon. member for South Wellington has the affidavite and papers in. connection with this matter. Miss CaTt, to whom the hon. gentleman refers, is now married and lives in Peterborough and the commissioner neveT tried to get her evidence and never gave one of these people an opportunity to give evidence.
Mr. 8AM. SHARPE: There is a woman in the engineers department.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will remember that the woman may have been put there on the pay roll.


John Hampden Burnham: W. F. Nelson was the first one called.


George Perry Graham: Never mind, my hon.
friend will get all of this. He left it alone when he was talking. Miss Carr, to whom he has referred, has made an affidavit that she performed services, regular, legitimate services and got her pay for it and that is all she knows about it. If she was put on the pay-Toll she does not know anything about it; she says that the commissioner never tried to find her although she was living in Peterborough. I shall not discuss the matter further because the hon. member for South Wellington has all the-affidavits, papers, etc. So faT as I am concerned I court the fullest inquiry into any act of mine concerning it. If the hon. member looks into the report of the commissioner he will find that his name ia

mentioned, as well as mine. One of the charges of extravagance made by the commissioner, as in 1911, is said in an affidavit to have been in 1913 and the man concerned was never an employee of the late Government. One of the very things in connection with which extravagance is charged is a grocery bill and there is an affidavit saying that it was for a trip on which the hon. member for Peterborough was a guest.


John Hampden Burnham: The man who made
that affidavit is a liar.


George Perry Graham: I do not say that it is
true but we had better wait until we get all the information.


John Hampden Burnham: I know these Peterborough affidavits well enough.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend does not believe his own citizens after his own eulogy of them. These affidavits will be produced by the hon. member for South Wellington to-morrow and we can discuss the matter further.


John Dowsley Reid: I may say to the hon. member for South Renfrew that about ten o'clock I spoke to the hon. member for South Wellington and we then understood that theee Estimates would not come on until to-morrow. I have been trying to find him ever since. It will be better to allow the Estimate to stand .and take it up to-morrow.
Item stands.
Intercolonial railway-working expenses,

Air. BOUiLAY (Rimouski): (Translation..) Air. Chairman, considering the lateness of the hour, it is not my intention to retain the committee very long. I wish to offer a few remarks concerning the management of the Government railway, having been for a number of years connected with the running of that railway line, and, for the last forty years, having been living in the valley of the Alatapedia, through which the Intercolonial runs over a distance exceeding one hundred and twenty miles. When I settled in that valley about thirty years ago, the fine parishes which may be seen to-day along the line of the Intercolonial had just been opened. I witnessed the growth of these thriving settlements, as a consequence of the building of the railway. As I stated previously, I have been myself an employee of the Intercolonial for about ten years,
and then a patron of the road for a great number of years.
I am thoroughly acquainted with the working of the whole Intercolonial system, having taken a deep interest in the matter. What I propose doing to-night is to disclose a state of things which is not generally known in the country, for if the facts were known to the public and at headquarters in Ottawa, I am satisfied that the province of Quebec would obtain, fairer treatment.
The province of Quebec is being discriminated against to an extraordinary extent in connection with the management of the Intercolonial. That condition of things has lasted forty years. Unfortunately very few people of influence have spoken out in vindication of the rights of the province of Quebec as regards the management of the Intercolonial. When that line of railway was built through the. Matapadia valley, there was, as I have stated, only a very sparse settlement along the line, and of course the influence these settlers exerted was restricted in proportion to their numbers. But to-day the population of that district reaches 25,000 or 30,000 souls, and it has the right to claim fair treatment from the managers of the railway.
In order that hon. gentlemen may fully realize to what extent we are being discriminated against, I may say that the mileage of the Intercolonial in the province of Quebec is 491 miles; that is more than half the total length of the main line. Of course, that railway, all told, has a mileage of 1,467 miles, but that includes all the branch lines. There are then 491 miles of that railway line in the province of Quebec. That means incidentally that in the matter of the manning of that railway, we are far from getting the consideration to which we are entitled on the basis of population. The Maritime provinces, including New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, have a total population of 1,150,000, while the province of Quebec has a population of over two millions, which means a difference in our favour of eight or nine hundred thousand souls. That would entitle us to an equal share, to say the least, of the patronage in connection with that line. Now we shall see that the province of Quebec is far from receiving that proportion, and people will thus realize what treatment has been dealt out to us by the management of the Intercolonial within the lust forty years. That condition of things has never been properly brought to light,

but I hope that my statement of the case will induce those who are in control of the road to seriously consider the matter.
In order to collect further data, I asked several questions during this session, and the answers given enable me to supply some interesting particulars. For instance, I inquired what was last year the amount of traffic on that railway in the province of Quebec, between Campbellton and Montreal; what was the proportion of that same traffic for the Maritime provinces, from Campbellton to Halifax, exclusive of Prince Edward Island. The answer I received was not what I asked for, since it pointed out the amount of the traffic for the month of December, 1913, only, and not for the whole year. That statement does not impart a correct idea of the traffic of the province of Quebec during the whole year, especially as regards the valley of the Matapedia, between Campbellton and Ste. Flavie. That is the period of the year when traffic is at its lowest, as it consists in the main of shipments of lumber, of which a very small quantity is shipped in December. Lumber is shipped during the summer months, and not in December. So, that statement does not represent the correct proportion of the traffic originating in the province of Quebec. Nevertheless it goes to show that the province of Quebec supplies one-half the earnings of the Intercdlondal. Thus, for the month of December the traffic in the province of Quebec yielded $183,000, while in the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia combined it yielded $375,000: that is to say that both provinces combined yield barely as much revenue as the province of Quebec, though traffic over the branch lines is comprised in that statement. So that the province of Quebec by itself yields about one-half of the total earnings. Why then, when it comes to patronage, is she not fairly dealt with, on the basis of population?


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: (Translation.) Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question? The Hon. Mr. Emmerson, on May 5 last, introduced a motion to the effect that the management of the Intercolonial was unjust and oppressive for the men in the service of the Intercolonial, and did not the hon. gentleman vote against that motion?


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation.) I stated
at the time that, considering the lateness of the hour, I would say only a few words, reserving my right to later on address the

House at greater length and to explain the situation as I understand it. That is what I am trying to do this evening. Reverting to the province of Quebec, if it is averred that it yields one-half the total passenger and freight receipts, should it not be entitled to fair dealing at the hands of the Intercolonial management? I do not think this Government is more to blame than its predecessor in that respect, considering it is the first time I disclose how things are managed on the Intercolonial, which particulars were unknown to them. I am appealing for fairer treatment on behalf of the province of Quebec, and once these facts are disclosed, I trust the justice of our claims will be recognized.
Under the former Administration, the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Gauvreau) must have complained. Surely he must. However his complaint did not bear much fruit. For, according to the answer to my inquiry concerning the number of men employed, their names and salaries, I was given the names of forty-nine men drawing large salaries. And out of those forty-nine, how many do you think belong to the province of Quebec? Twenty, do you think, or at least, ten? You are still far astray. There are only three of those men who are from the province of Quebec. The forty-six others hail from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and other parts.
My intention is not to speak disparagingly of our New Brunswick or Nova Scotia friends; since they are allowed to help themselves to such a large share of the booty, I cannot blame them for making the best of their opportunities. They are intelligent and shrewd, and their province can turn out as good officials as the province of Quebec; but, with all due respect to our Maritime provinces friends, I think we have in the province of Quebec as good accountants and chief clerks as they have themselves. I was anxious to disclose that condition of things and to show the situation in its true light. We are rather tired, especially in my county, of the way things are going on, and if no change is forthcoming, I for one will'not relent in my vindication of the just claims of my constituents. I shall do so more particularly for the sake of the people of Rimouski whom I have the honour to represent in this House. I have shown that we are discriminated against as regards the number of men employed. But there is another matter to which I would like to draw the attention of the minister.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: (Translation.) Before the hon. gentleman passes on to another subject, may I inquire from him why he did not set a good example and express his displeasure at the action of the Government in putting out the only French-Canadian official in the employ of the Intercolonial, Mr. Caron?


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation.) I may say to the hon. member and to his friends that it was incumbent on them to follow that course. Why did he not himself have the courage to speak out in behalf of Mr. Caron?


Mr. TOBIN:: (Translation.) Who was it appointed him?


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation.) If the
hon. gentleman expects the supporters of the Government to take that stand, it must be because he is not himself plucky enough to raise his voice in protest.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: (Translation.) I must say to the hon. member for Rimouski that he must have been absent from the House, or else it is quite true that there are none so deaf as those who will not hear. As a matter of fact, on this side of the House, we have all on several occasions protested against that dismissal, and requested that he be reinstated. Now, if you, a Government supporter, have not protested against such a course, how can you be admitted to complain to-day? You should at least be silent now.


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation.! When
did the hon. member for Temiscouata ever utter a word of protest? You may go through the whole series of 'Hansard', you will not find a word of protest, either on his part or any other hon. member from the province of Quebec.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: (Translation.) My only answer is that I am not like the hon. member for Rimouski, willing to take up the time of the House making speeches on this or that or the other thing, speeches which nobody may ever take the pains to read. I am content with working as best I can in the interest of my constituents, and I have an organ to keep them posted.


Mr. ETHIER:: (Translation.) My hon. friend from Rimouski in reflecting on the course followed by the hon. member from Temiscouata reflects on the course followed by every member from the province of Quebec. Be inquires why every hon. gentleman did not enter bis protest? I shall ask 312
him in turn: who appointed Mr. Caron? It was the Liberal party. Who relieved him of office? It was the Conservative party whose supporter you are. Did the hon. gentleman enter his protest with his leaders against the dismissal of a French-Canadian in the person of Mr. Caron?


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation.) There was no need for -any one entering a protest, since the hon. member for L'Islet had done
so.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: (Translation.) Who was appointed to take Mr. Caron's place?


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation.) Is the
hon. member aware whether Mr. Caron has been replaced or not?


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: (Translation.) I am not under examination; I am putting a question to the hon. gentleman. Who has been appointed in Mr. Caron's place? The member for Rimouski poses as the champion of the French tongue and of the French-Canadians. Who has been appointed, with his tacit consent, to replace Mr. Caron?


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation.) I reiterate my previous answer: the hon. gentleman seems unaware that Mr. Caron has not been replaced.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: (Translation.) While we are dealing with the question of dismissals and the protection of the French language, does the hon. member for Rimouski know of the dismissal of a man by the name of Dube, and will he state whether he entered his protest or not? I put the same question in respect to the dismissal of a man by the name of Leblanc. Will he say by whom these two French-Canadians were replaced, for, if we are to go by his statement, they are under his care. Were they replaced by French-Canadians ?


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation.) If the hon. gentleman was at all familiar with the facts, he would know that Leblanc was replaced by a good French-Canadian of the county of Matane, Mr. Coulombe, and Mr. Dube by Mr. Colclough, a French-Ca'na-dian, born in Bic. Now, if I may be allowed, I shall resume my speech-


Edmund William Tobin: (Translation.) Will the
hon. member allow me to interrupt him?


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation.) No, if the hon. member wishes to speak, lei him wait till I am through.
There is another matter concerning which the people of Quebec are being dis-
REVIS* EDITION


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: (Translation.) With the permission of the hon. gentleman, I shall ask him if, as a question of justice, he does not think that it would have been preferable for him to find out what were the wages paid under the Liberal Administration, so as to be in a position to compare the wages of to-day with the wages in former times? I agree with his views on that point, but it seems to me he would in that way have made a stronger case.


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation.) The hon. gentleman must have heard my opening remarks; if I did not inquire about that, it was because I already had that information in hand. For I know what has been going on for the last forty years, and consequently I did no need to have those data of former years to compare them with the present rate of wages, and appeal to the Minister of Railways to set matters right. I wrote myself to the minister requesting to increase the rate of wages to $1.75 per diem. That was still five cents less than what is paid in New Brunswick. I got an acknowledgment of my letter, in which it was stated

that the matter would be looked into. I have not had occasion to meet the minister in the meantime, but I hope that during this session the matter will reach a settlement.
I had some official data in reference to the subject; but they were juggled away by a friend of the province of Quebec, who is at the same time a practical joker. However, I can dispense with these data.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: (Translation.) I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. member for Rimouski has just launched out of a rather grievous charge, and I enter my protest against the vagueness of his statement. He contended that a representative of the province of Quebec had pilfered his notes. If actually some practical joker played such a trick on him, I hope he will restrict his charge to his side of the House.


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation.) I am free to say that the hon. gentleman is not the suspected one. I did not say the whole House.


Edmund William Tobin: (Translation.) On what
side of the House do you think he is?


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation.) I rather
think he belongs to this side, but that is of little consequence.
Let us now pass on to another grievance. Now and then there are investigations in connection with the Intercolonial carried on in the province of Quebec. Who are those appointed to carry on such investigations? Are they people from the province of Quebec? No. They are people from Moncton who do neither speak nor understand a word of French, the tongue of the witnesses summoned before these commissioners. Is that fair?


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: (Translation.) Are these
commissioners appointed by the Opposition or by the Government?


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation.) That sort of thing has been going on for the last forty years. I protested with all my might against that policy and urged that a change be effected. There is still something else which it is worth while to point out. That may seem odd, but here it is. In the valley of the Matapedia when a New Brunswick man is there and wishes to take a train for Campbellton, if there be no regular train, do you know what takes place? He has only to telegraph to Campbellton, and he is granted a permit. If a man from the province of Quebec makes a similar application, it is refused. And that has been the

495T>
practice for years. I do not say the Government should be held responsible on that account; those who settle the matter are the officials, the despatchers, as they are called. But it is another case of discrimination against the province of Quebec. It is very probable that the Government never heard of the matter.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: (Translation.) Most
shameful!


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation.) Having
previously pointed out the difference in the rate of wages to the detriment of labourers in the province of Quebec, I shall now refer to another grievance. There are seventy-eight men employed on the buffet cars travelling between Quebec and Halifax, and do you know how many of these are from the province of Quebec? Not a single one.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: (Translation.) What a shame!


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation.) On the sleepers there are twenty-six conductors; out of that number the province of Quebec has only four. What is the situation of these men? These sleeping cars travel between Halifax and Montreal. Four conductors are from the province of Quebec. These conductors are supposed to have charge of a passenger train. No holidays are granted to these men, not even a single day in Montreal; they reach there in the evening and must be with their train again in the morning; while, in Halifax, they have two days' leave awaiting their train. These men have in vain tried to have their holiday in Montreal, but it has been refused them, on the ground that it would impair the efficiency of the service if those two holidays were not spent in Halifax. The Intercolonial pays the rent of their room, which puts the road to an expenditure of about twenty-five dollars per month. True, that may seem small to the Government, but why not act fairly by the citizens of Montreal? Why refuse to grant their request, when there is no practical interest or necessity which requires it? Why impose such hardship on these citizens?


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: (Translation.) Are the sleepers under the control of the Government?


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation.) I see the hon. gentleman is not very well posted.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: (Translation.) Please
answer my question; I would like to get that information.
312i


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation.) For the
information of my hon. friend, I may say that, for over twenty years, the sleepers have been the property of the Government and under the control of the Intercolonial.
Referring once more to those who are employed on the buffet cars, why are they largely from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, while there are so few from the province of Quebec? It is because the holidays are granted in Halifax. When I wrote to the management of the Intercolonial about it, the answer was that the efficiency of the service required that this holiday should be taken in Halifax. Shortly after, the Ocean Limited, which runs between Montreal and Halifax, was called off, and what I had been requesting was carried out during two months this winter, without the service being inconvenienced, which shows that the suggestion is quite practical. Were such a change effected, we would get our proper share of patronage. If that holiday were granted in Montreal, there would be numbers of young people who would be glad to accept these positions, on account of the pay, the salaries ranging from $90 to $100 per month. But the holiday falling while the car is in Halifax, these young men are bound to refuse these positions.
Now, there is another question to which I desire to draw the attention of the minister. Mr. Gutelius has been appointed general manager of the Intercolonial, and I may state in passing that he is a perfect gentleman. I have had the pleasure of making his acquaintance. But he is endeavouring in his own way to make a success of the Intercolonial, and he has thought fit to substitute what is called ' standard rules ' for the old-time regulations.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: (Translation.) Does the hon. gentleman approve of the views of Mr. Gutelius?


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation.) The question is rather a broad one; if the hon. gentleman wishes to take it up when I am through with my remarks, I shall be glad to answer him.
I wish to refer to the circulation of trains. Far many years certain rules had been in force on the Intercolonial. On the 1st of June last the management decided to enforce the ' standard rules.' I cannot say whether the effect will be to improve the service; but I have fears that many accidents will result. I beg to call the minister's attention to the fact, hoping at the

same time that my fears will prove to be groundless. The men are called upon to familiarize themselves with new regulations; now, every change in the rules is unfortunately productive of accidents.
I am here expressing the views of the men. They would have much preferred that the old regulations with which they were all familiar had been retained, as they were perfectly safe and of a nature to protect the travelling public against all risk.
I trust that Mr. Gutelius, who is a first-rate administrator, will see to it that these regulations are only gradually enforced, in order that the men may little by little become familiar with their working, and accidents avoided.
I shall not deal at greater length with this subject, though there are many other issues that require consideration in connection with the Intercolonial. But the matter has been so much discussed by hon. gentlemen on either side, that the House must be pretty well posted in respect to the requirements of that railway.
My intention in making these remarks, as I stated a moment ago, is not to find fault with this Government any more than with the other-rather less than with the other- since we have been in power only three years; but to show to the satisfaction of the country, how the province of Quebec is being discriminated against in the matter of employment and salary. I appeal for fairer treatment, and I hope we will get it. The better paid men could be appointed from the province of Quebec in as great numbers as from the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, for, with all due respect, we have men as well qualified as they have to fill these positions. If the same facilities were offered to citizens of the province of Quebec, I am satisfied they would accept such positions with pleasure.
Before concluding my remarks, I was desirous to answer the inquiry made by the hon. member for Two Mountains, but since he has left the House before I got through- and it matters little to me-I shall dispense with taking up that question, and he may get posted by applying to the hon. member from Temiscouata, or any one else to his liking.
Mr. J, D. REID: I am sorry I do not understand the French language sufficiently well to answer my hon. friend as fully as I would like, but I shall read his speech and may be able to give him more information later. 1 understand that the hon. member claims that discrimination has been exer-

cised against the province of Quebec in the matter of selecting employees for the Intercolonial. He has stated that, out of 49 men employed in prominent positions, only three come from Quebec. He also complains that labourers employed on the Intercolonial in the province of New Brunswick are receiving $1.80 a day, while in Quebec they are only being paid $1.50. As I understand it, the track men are paid the same rate of wages all along the line, but, where additional labour is required, the employees taken on are paid at the rate prevailing in that locality in whatever province it may happen to be. In some provinces, no doubt, the rate of wages for common labour is higher than in others, and that accounts for the difference in pay of which my hon. friend has complained.
I do not believe the management of the 'Intercolonial have any intention of discriminating in any way against the province of Quebec. The hon. member has also complained that- none of the 78 employees in the dining car service come from the province of Quebec, and that only four of the 26 sleeping car conductors come from that province. It is impossible for me to answer the hon. gentleman on this point until I have a little more information, but I shall refer to the matter when the Estimates are again before the House. I understand he also complains that the Pullman conductors have to wait at Halifax instead of at Montreal. As my hon. friend knows, there are divisional points in every railway system. A train starting from a divisional point like Montreal, goes to, say, Halifax, and then comes back to Montreal, or vice versa. If Halifax is the starting point of the train, the employees would have to make their headquarters there. It matters little to the management of the Intercolonial whether these employees lay off at Montreal or Halifax, except, of course, that they must be ready to leave when the train starts. The hon. member also mentioned that some of the employees are	dissatisfied	with the
standard rules. From information I have from the management of the Intercolonial, I do not agree with the hon. member in that.	Of course, it is a
well known fact that the standard rules have been in force from Montreal to Levis for some years, and that from Levis to Moncton there has been in existence a set of rules that have grown up with the Intercolonial. I understand that the management sent out twelve or fifteen men along

the line to explain these rules to the employees, and I have heard from the leading men in the service, outside altogether of the management, that with very few exceptions the men are satisfied with the change, and feel that it is better for the service and for themselves to adopt the standard rules that are in existence on all the other railways in Canada. The management of the Intercolonial are making it as easy as possible for the employees to familiarize themselves with the new rules and pass the prescribed examination, and in the meantime the men continue in the positions they have been holding. In addition to that, the management have provided that any employees who are not able to pass, the examination shall be retained in the service in positions satisfactory to them. Every member of this House will agree with me that the men employed on the trains, where lives are at stake, must be fully qualified men. I may give a little illustration of how this examination works. A short time ago an engineer apparently in good health and strength found when he came to take the examination that he could not pass the eyesight test. Of course it would be unsafe to have a man of that kind in charge of a train for the reason that he might run past a station, and have a collision resulting in great loss of life. I only mention that to show that the standard rules and the examination in connection therewith have proved to us that certain employees are not qualified.
On account of my limited knowledge of French, I am not in a position to answer my hon. friend more fully, but, as I said before, I will read his remarks and try to give him a more complete answer at the next sitting of the House.


George Perry Graham: We were discussing yesterday the plans for the Champlain market at Quebec, but there does not seem to be any sketch by which we can tell the dimensions of the building. We would like to have some information with regard to that. We would also like to have the agreement with the Canadian Northern Railway Company for the purchase of the line from the main line of the National (Transcontinental to the St. Malo shops.
. Mr. REID:	The negotiations for that
piece of line, five or eight miles long, from the viaduct to St. Malo shops have been going on for some time with the Canadian (Northern Railway Company and finally an offer was made of $175,000 for the line. The Transcontinental Taihvav. or the Government, are to pay $175,000 for that piece of dine. The Canadian Northern claimed that 'it. cost $50,000 a mile and they held out for that price but the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) would not agree to that price claiming that it was not worth it and that we really did not require the road. Finally an arrangement was made by which $175,000 was the price fixed for that portion of the line. This agreement has only been arrived at verbally. I was present when the arrangement was made. I am sorry that I will not be able to bring down any agreement or any correspondence but the hon. member can take what I have stated to be the fact.


George Perry Graham: It has not been legally closed then?


John Dowsley Reid: No.


George Perry Graham: In order to do that my hon. friend will have to have a statute passed or an. item placed in the Estimates. These are the two things that my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition has asked for; first, the dimensions of the Champlain Market station.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


George Perry Graham: What my hon. friend has said with regard to the purchase of this line will appear in ' Hansard ' and the leader of the Opposition can see it in the morning.


John Dowsley Reid: As to an Act being necessary for the purchase of this line, Major Leonard, with whom I discussed it, claimed that it was really not a completed line and he had some idea that it could be legally taken over without legislation. Whether it can or can not be, there will not be any legislation introduced this session. But my hon. friend the member for South Renfrew can take it for granted that it is a settled fact that $175,000 is the amount agreed upon for that portion of the line, whatever the length may be, from the Transcontinental railway at, I think, Viaduct station, to St. Malo. I was present when the Minister of Railways and Canals agreed to pay it. There is no correspondence as far as I know, because it was all done verbally, and it was only yesterday that an understanding was arrived at as to the amount to be paid.


George Perry Graham: It was not done by the commissioner ?


John Dowsley Reid: No, it was done by the minister, who is over the commissioner.
Railways and Canals-Chargeable to collection of revenue-Canals-Trent canal-Staff-payments to the Seymour Power and Electric Company for electric energy, etc., supplied the Trent Valley Woollen Manufacturing Company, $6,800.


George Perry Graham: This was an extraordinary bargain made about 1911, and my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Em-merson) wanted to say something about it. I suppose that upon some item in the Supplementary Estimates my hon. friend will be allowed to discuss that ?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, we can take it up on the general item.


George Perry Graham: All right.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Reid, the House adjourned at 12.35 a.m. Saturday.
Saturday, June 6, 1914.