1914-05-27

THE ROYAL ASSENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPEAKER read a communication on behalf of the Governor General's Secretary, announcing that the Right Honourable Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Royal Highness the Governor General, would proceed to the Senate Chamber on Wednesday, the 27th instant, at 4.15 p.m., for the purpose of giving the Royal Assent to certain Bills.

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

Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Is a new armoury being constructed in Amherst, N.S.? If so, at what cost?
2.	Is Amherst the headquarters of the 93rd Battalion? If not, where is the headquarters of said battalion?
3.	How many members of the said battalion reside in Amherst?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:
1.	To be answered by Department of Public Works.
2.	No, of 'A* Company. The headquarters of the 93rd regiment are at Springhill, N.S.
3.	One major, one captain, four lieutenants and the non-commissioned officers and men of 'A* company. It is intended to raise a city corps in Amherst.


CAP AUX CORBEAUX WHARF.
*Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	What is the total amount spent for the repairing or reconstruction of the wharf at Cap aux Corbeaux, Baie St. Paul, county of Charlevoix, during the year 1913?
2.	Out of that amount what sum of money has been spent for the purchase of the wood necessary for such work?
3.	' What are the full names and addresses of the parties entrusted by the department with the. purchase of such wood?
4.	What is the full name and address of each of the parties who sold wood intended for such work?
5.	What quantity of wood did each of them sell?
6.	What price was paid per foot or otherwise to each of them for the wood sold, and the total sum paid to each of them?
7.	Was such sum of money paid directly to the seller himself in every instance?
8.	If it "was paid through a third party, what is the name and address of such third party in each case?
9.	How many mooring posts have been delivered on said wharf while the work was in progress?
10.	What was the cost of each of these posts?
11.	What is the full name and address of each of the parties who sold such posts to the department?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	$5,674.12.
2.	$2,458.39.
3.	The district engineer and J. Octave Lavoie, general foreman; headquarters, Quebec city.
4.	5 and 6. Gaudreault and Bouchard, Baie St. Paul, Quebec, 1,416 ft. B.M. spruce at $16, $22.65; 110 scantling, 678 ft. B.M. at $16, $10.84-$33.49.
Odilon Boily, Baie St. Paul, Quebec, 470 ft. B.M. spruce, 2 in. by 4 in., at $18, 271
$8.46; 2,500 ft. B.M. spruce, 1 in., at $18, $45-$53.46.
H. Girard, Baie St. Paul, Quebec, 1,112 ft. B.M. spruce, at $17-$18.90.
Polycarpe Oimon, Baie St. Paul, Quebec, 333 ft. B.M. spruce, at $16-$5.32.
T. Boulianne', Baie St. Paul, Quebec, 3,530 ft. sheathing, at $26, $91.78; 192 ft. lumber, 13 ft. 15J in. by 3 in., at $28, $5.38; 2 pieces of cedar at $1 each, $2; 8 knees at $8 each, $64-$163.16.
J. H. Gignac, Limite, Quebec, 1 piece B.O. fir, 30 ft., 12 in.-12 in., 360 ft., at $55, $19.80.
J. A. Forget, Baie St. Paul, Quebec, 3,290 lineal ft. spruce, at 18c, $592.20 ; 4 pieces, 24 ft. 3 in., 8 in.-8 in., 97 ft., at 16c, $15.52; 4 pieces, 30 ft., 8 in.-8 in., 120 ft., at 18c, $21.60; 6 pieces, 24 ft. 3 in., 7 in.-7 in.,
145	ft. 6 in., at 16c, $23.30 ; 4 pieces, 30 ft., 7 in.-7 in., 120 ft., at 18c, $21.60; 10 pieces, 10 ft., 7 in.-7 in., 100 ft., at 12c., $12; 4 pieces, 30 ft., 7 in.-6 in., 120 ft., at 18c, $21.60; 3 pieces, 10 ft., 6 in.-6 in., 30 ft., at 11c, $3.30; 2 pieces, 24 ft., 8 in.-6 in., 48 ft., at 16c, $7.68; 18 pieces, 32 ft., 7 in.- 3 in., 576 ft., at 13c, $74.88 ; 22 pieces, 7 ft., 7 in.-3 in., 154 ft., at 7c, $10.78; 18 pieces, 20 ft., 5 in.-3 in., 360 ft., at 8c, $28.80; 18 pieces, 18 ft., 5 in.-3 in., 324 ft., at 8c, $25.92 ; 4 pieces, 24 ft., 5 in.-3 in., 96 ft., at 8c, $7.68; 9 pieces, 16 ft., 7 in.-7 in.,
146	ft., at 15c, $21.90; 15 pieces, 21 ft.,
7	in.-3 in., 315 ft., at 9c, $28.35; 18 pieces, 12 ft., 5 in.-3 in., 216 ft., at 7c, $15.12; 75 pieces, 10 ft., 5 in.-3 in., 937 ft., at $21.50, $20.14; 20 pieces, 4 ft. 6 in., 5 in.- 3 in., 116 ft., at $21.50, $2.47; 30 pieces,
8	ft., 5 in.-3 in., 300 ft., at $21.50, $6.45; 100 pieces, 12 ft., 4 in.-3 in., 200 ft., at 8c, $25.80 ; 8 pieces, 7 ft., 7 in.-3 in., 56 ft., at 8c, $4.48; 3 pieces, 28 ft., 7 in.-3 in., 84 ft., at 13c, $10.92; 22 pieces, 10 ft. 4 in., 7 in.-3 in., 227 ft., at 10c, $22.70 ; 4,790 ft. lumber at $25, $119.75; 2,734 ft. clapboard at $25, $68.35 ; 3,304 ft. lumber at $26, $85.90; 500 ft. lumber (undressed) at $19, $9.50; 19,594 ft. at $22, $431.06 ; 28 ft. pieces at 78c, $21.84; 328 ft. spruce, 12 ft. 7 in. (dressed) at $26, $12.74; . 30,000 shingles at $3.25, $97.50; 735 ft. spruce, 12 ft., 5 in.-li in., at $26, $19.11; 882 ft. lumber, 12 ft., 7 in.-3 in., at $22, $19.40; 306 ft. lumber, 12 ft'., 6 in.-3 in., at $22, $6.73; 112 ft. base-board at 5ic, $6.16; 202 ft. frise, 6 in., $11.11; 600 ft. spruce at $25, $15; 108 ft. moulding, 3J, at 8c, $3.24; 392 ft. French moulding at 4Jc, $15.68; 14 sashes and frames at $10, $140; 4 sashes and frames at $6, $24-$2,132.26.



7 and 8. Yes.
9, 10 and 11. J. A. Forget, Baie St. Paul, Quebec, 5 mooring posts, 23 in. diameter, 12 ft., at $6.40, $32. Total for lumber, $2,458.39.
HIaPLE leaf steamship line.


Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: 1.	Has the Minister of Customs received from Boards of Trade in British Columbia, representations asking for the appointment of a Canadian customs inspector in New York, in connection with the operation of the Maple Leaf Line of steamships operating between New York and Vancouver?
2.	What action has been taken by the minister in connection with such appointment?
3.	If no action has been taken, what are the reasons for failure to grant such request?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	None.
3.	The object of the appointment was to divert the shipment of Canadian goods to British Columbia through the port of New York. The boards of trade have been advised as to the reasons why no appointment has been made in this connection.


WEEDON PUBLIC BUILDING.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Does the Government intend to proceed with the construction of the public building at Weedon, county of Wolfe, this year?
2.	If so, have tenders been called for?
3.	If not, when does the Government intend to call for tenders for the said building?


Mr. ROGERS:: As there is no appropriation available, it is not customary to give such information until the Estimates are laid before Parliament.


RICHMOND DRILL HALL.
Mr. TOBIN:: Is it the intention of the' Government to erect a drill hall at Richmond, county of Richmond? If so, when?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	Under consideration.


DISRAELI PUBLIC BUILDING.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to proceed with the construction of the public building at Disraeli this year?
2.	If so, has the land been purchased to be used as a site for the said building, from whom and at what price?
3.	Have tenders been called for the construction?
4.	If not, when does the Government intend to call for the said tenders?


Robert Rogers: 1	and 4. The matter is under consideration.
2	and 3. No.


WOTTON PUBLIC BUILDING.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Has the Government been requested to erect a public building at Wotton, county of Wolfe?
2.	If so, from whom have such requests been received?
3.	Have such requests been considered and when will action be taken in connection therewith?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Dr. John Hayes of Richmond and Dr. A. Thibault of Wotton, Quebec.
3.	The request is now receiving consideration.


EAST ANGUS PUBLIC BUILDING.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Has the Government given the contract for the construction of a public building at East Angus, county of Compton?
2.	Were tenders called for said work?
3.	If so, how many were received and what are the names of the tenderers and the amount of each tender?
4.	To whom was the contract awarded and for what amount?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Three tenders were received:	Loomis
and Dakin, Limited, $32,500; Weston and Little, $36,020.97; John Quinlan, $39,400.
4.	To Loomis and Dakin, Limited, the lowest tenderers, for $32,500.


SHELLFISH COMMISSION.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: 1.	At what date did the Shellfish Commission, appointed by the present Government, commence its work?
2.	At what date was the work completed?
3.	What was the per diem allowance given to each member of the commission?
4.	What is the full name and post-office address of each member of the said commission?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	September 3, 1912.
2.	May 24, 1913.
3.	$20 per diem, excepting chairman.
4.	Professor Edward Ernest Prince, Ottawa, Ontario; Richard O'Leary, Riehibucto, New Brunswick; Hon. John McLean, Souris, Prince Edward Island; Samuel Young Wilson, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
May 27, 1914


ONTARIO FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Is the Ontario Fire Insurance Company, having an office at No. 310 Holden Building, Vancouver, doing business in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario?
2.	If not, is it the intention of the Government to insist upon this company paying to its policyholders, in the above-mentioned provinces, the losses they have sustained, and refunding the premiums on policies which may still be in force?
Mr. W T. WHITE:
1.	No. The license of this company for the transaction of new business was cancelled on November 21, 1913.
2.	The .company is in liquidation and its assets will be distributed among its policyholders and other creditors throughout Canada, by the liquidator under the direction of the Court. The Trust and Guarantee Company, Calgary, is the permanent liquidator


BATHURST HARBOUR.
Mr. TUEGEON:: 1.	Has a contract been let lor the dredging in Bathurst harbour during this summer?
2.	If so, what is the quantity to be dredged, and what is the price per cubic yard?


Mr. EOGEES:: 1.	Yes.
2.	600,000 cubic yards at 30 cents per cubic yard, place measurement.


Mr. TUEGEON:: 1.	Did the Department of Marine and Fisheries issue instructions to have Bathurst harbour channel lighted with lanterns last year?
2.	If so, was the work given by tender?
3.	What was the amount of the contract, and by whom was the work done?
4.	If not by tender, how and by whom was it done?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by Nos. 2 and 4.
4.	Jos. I. Doucet, $3.75; Jno. Lanyne, $2; W. J. Kent and Company, Limited, $23.24; Wilfrid Lamb, $55; total, $83.99.


*CAPE BEETON EAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. KYTE:: I wish to call the attention of the right hon. First Minister to a statement which appeared in the Sydney Post of May 22, as follows:
It is believed in well-informed circles that negotiations are about complete between the Dominion Government and the owners of the Cape Breton railway, which runs from Point Tupper to St. Peters, and that within a few
27li
months the Cape Breton Railway Company will sell and transfer its property to the Dominion Government. The purpose of the Government, it is believed, is to begin almost in the immediate future to carry the line from St. Peters through the southeast portion of the island, and to bring it into Sydney, with a branch to Louis-burg.
I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister if these negotiations have taken place and if the Government have determined to take over the Cape Breton railway and extend it to Sydney and Louislburg.


Mr. BOEDEN:: There have been no negotiations, so far as I am aware; possibly some have taken place on the part of the Minister of Eailways and Canals. I will make inquiries.


IMMIGEATION OF HINDUS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. OLIVEE:: I wish to repeat my inquiry of yesterday in regard to the disposition of the Hindu immigrants recently arrived at Vancouver. What steps have been taken towards their admittance or exclusion?


Frederick William Borden: The Minister of the Interior is not here at the moment. I understand that all steps required by and in accordance with the law and the regulations made under the law have been taken and are being taken. I will ask the Minister of the Interior to give further information on the subject when there is an opportunity. I think I gathered from the minister's conversation that some twenty men who were not affected by the regulations, but who were returning to Canada, had been admitted; that certain physical tests appUed to some of the others would prevent their admittance, and that the law and the regulations made under the law would be enforced so far as the others are concerned.


Frank Oliver: The information I desired was whether the Government intended to rest their case on that provision of the immigration law which excludes appeal to the courts, or do they intend to permit an appeal to the courts? No doubt appeals to the courts will be made. Will the Government allow those appeals, or will they stand upon the letter of the statute?


Frederick William Borden: The Government have no control over the courts in any way. It is always open to the courts to construe the provisions of the statute, and if any particular court should come to the conclusion that notwithstanding the particular pro-
4291}

vision of the statute the jurisdiction of the court could still be exercised, the remedy of the Government would be by appeal from that, if an appeal were available.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: The question is: Will the Government, if there is an appeal to the court, for instance, by way of habeas corpus, resist the application, or will they allow the habeas corpus to issue?


Mr. BORDEN:: If any habeas corpus were applied for, the Government would be ready to proceed. If it would be a case in which a writ of habeas corpus should not be applied for, the Government would resist it to the best of their ability. Of course, my hon. friend understands that we cannot suggest and do not desire to control the action of the courts.


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly not; but, if I understood my hon. friend's question, it is: Does the statute as drawn prevent the issuing of a writ of habeas corpus so far as it can do so? No doubt the parties brought in who are British subjects will apply for a habeas corpus. The question is: Will the Government hold to the letter of the statute, or will they allow the habeas corpus to go through?


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that in previous applications that point was taken and insisted upon; and of course we can insist upon it again.


Frank Oliver: On former occasions the Government did not resist the application, and as a result sixteen men were allowed in. As a further result these four hundred are now coming.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It seems to me that a discussion of this matter back and forth on the floor of the House is out of order. It would be competent to ask a question and to answer it.


Robert Laird Borden: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I am not fully familiar with the details of the case to which my hon. friend alludes; but I can assure him that the Government were represented in some cases and did oppose the proceedings. There may have been some cases in which they did not appear. I was not aware of that.


Frank Oliver: It was on that point that I wished information, and in discussing the matter with the minister I would like the Prime Minister to take that up.


INQUIRY FOR REPORT.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: The Minister of
Militia and Defence (Mr. Sam. Hughes) is with us to-day, and I wish to remind him that it is now almost four months since he told us that Colonel Cruickshanks and several other colonels were preparing a report of the trip to Europe last summer of the minister with his entourage. We are getting near the end of the session and this report has not yet been brought down. The first thing we know Colonel Roosevelt will have his report out-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it would be open to the hon. member to ask whether the report is available or not.


James Joseph Hughes: -but we do not want Colonel Roosevelt or any other Yankee to get ahead of our colonel-	'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order.


James Joseph Hughes: -and I would like to know when the report will be ready. Would the minister be pleased to tell me when the report will be submitted to the House?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: The report would not be submitted to the House.


James Joseph Hughes: For the use of members; that would be all right.


An hon. MEMBER:: Such members as are colonels.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: The report is intended primarily for distribution among the officers of the service, but it will be laid before the House when it is ready. There are a number of maps to be prepared, which takes time. As soon as. the maps are ready, the report will be distributed to the members of Parliament and the officers.


CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY AGREEMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Consideration in 'Committee of resolutions respecting the Canadian Northern railway, resumed from Tuesday, May 26, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 14:
That no shares of the capital stock of the respective companies mentioned in the first schedule hereto, other than the Canadian Northern, beyond the amounts heretofore issued, shall be issued without the consent of the Governor in Council.
Mr. PUGSLEY:: Why should that not
read 'without the consent of Parliament'? These constituent companies ace all to form part of the Canadian Northern Railway system and it has been stated over and over again by my hon. friend the Solicitor General that, whatever might be the shares of these constituent companies, they are to be represented by the stock of the Canadian Northern railway. Therefore there ought not to be any power vested in the Governor in Council to increase the capital stock of those companies. I do not see why they should be increased at all. It seems to me that there should be an absolute prohibition upon any increase, or, if there is to be an increase in the future, it should be by Act of Parliament. Discretion should not be vested in the Governor in Council in reference to the capital stock of these constituent companies. I would move that for the words * Governor in Council ' there should be substituted the words ' the Parliament of Canada


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I cannot see what purpose can be effected by the amendment. The shares of the subsidiary companies pass into the treasury of the Canadian Northern railway and in that way a limitation is fixed on the total capitalization. Even if an increase were made I do not know that there is any likelihood of any difficulty arising because it does not increase the capital stock of the company.
I may draw attention also to this fact, that as the law now stands it is not the Parliament of Canada that consents to an increase in capitalization, but the Governor in Council. I do not see why an exception should be made here, especially as in this case the likelihood of an increase is much less than in the ordinary case. If it should be desirable to increase the capitalization of one of the subsidiary companies, the total capitalization of the united concern is not thereby increased at all. The precaution that is now taken, I think, is quite sufficient, and I submit -and I think my hon. friend will agree with me-that even if the clause passes as it stands, the approval of the Railway Commissioners would be a condition precedent to the consent of the Governor in Council. The ordinary law in the Railway Act would still apply.


William Pugsley: Capitalization is created in two ways. One is by the issue of capital stock, and the other is by the creation of debentures or debenture stock. Parliament contemplates that the money
for any railway enterprise shall be raised in either one or other or both of these ways. I quite understand that if the bond issue were being reduced, these companies might be given the opportunity to increase their capital stock, but in this case it is proposed to increase the bond issue by Act of Parliament by the enormous sum of $45,000,000. This is the time when the capitalization should be decreased, and that is the object of the amendment of which I gave notice yesterday. We have before us in this paragraph the suggestion that the capitalization of these constituent companies may be increased by the Governor in Council. I do not think Parliament should vest that right in the Governor in Council. It is true that sometimes Parliament allows capital stock to be increased by the Governor in Council, but ordinarily Parliament reserves to itself the right to fix and limit the capital stock. These companies are being brought into the Canadian Northern system, and my hon. friend says that he cannot see any reason why there should be any increase. I ask, then, why under this clause explicit authority is given the Governor in Council to increase the capitalization? If the time should ever arise when it would be in the public interest to increase the capital stock of these constituent companies, they should come to Parliament where the matter could be fully discussed in the light of public opinion and a proper decision arrived at. I think it is very objectionable indeed to give power to the Governor in Council to increase the capital stock of the subsidiary or constituent companies.


Arthur Meighen: I think the proposition on which the hon. gentleman bases his suggestion is not right. Ordinarily, Parliament does not reserve to itself the right to increase the capital stock. That is now v ithin the jurisdiction of the Railway Commissioners, who recommend to the Governor in Council, and the Governor in Council approves or disapproves. In this Bill we have gone further, and made an exception. We say it is important that the capital stock of the amalgamated-and I use the word not in its technical sense-company should be limited to $100,000,000, and that only by the consent of Parliament should that be increased. But the increasing of the capital of the subsidiary company is a mere domestic arrangement, resulting not at all in the increase of the profit-earning power of the amalgamated concerns, resulting not at all, I repeat, in the increase

of the capitalization of the amalgamated concern. Its capitalization alone has the right, if any capitalization has a right, to call for dividends. If any contingency should arise to make it necessary to increase the stock of a subsidiary company, it being a mere domestic arrangement, there is additional reason why the power should be given to the Governor in Council.


William Pugsley: If it is a mere domestic arrangement why is power given to the Board of Railway Commissioners in the case of public utilities such as railways, telephones, etc.?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman has missed my point. In this case all the subsidiary companies are united, and the total capitalization arrived at and made stationary and increasable only by the Parliament of Canada. Therefore, I say that the increasing of the capital of the subsidiary companies is a mere domestic arrangement for the united company. 1 do not say that in ordinary cases there is any domestic arrangement at all. In the ordinary case Parliament and the country is interested.


William Pugsley: Is this proposal a domestic arrangement ?


Arthur Meighen: This is a public arrangement; but the increasing of the capitalization of the companies embodied in the united company is a domestic arrangement of the united company.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend has drawn a herring across the trail by introducing the term, ' domestic arrangement.' My hon. friend has stated that the capital stock of this enterprise has been limited to $100,000,000, but we find that the stock of the company has been increased from $77,000,000 to $100,000,000 and that the parent company is also the owner of $81,000,000 of stock in the constituent companies; so that this enterprise has now $100,000,000 of its own, and $81,000,000 of stock of the subsidiary companies. My hon. friend told us yesterday that this stock is not alive, that it has to remain in the treasury of the Canadian Northern, but to-day we find that this stock which my hon. friend says is to remain in the treasury of the Canadian Northern and which they have no power to sell-to which I disagree-can be increased for domestic or other purposes. Why should it be increased at all if it is to remain forever in the coffers of the Canadian Northern? According to my hon. friend, the stock is to remain 
in the treasury of the Canadian Northern as so many blocks of stone; but now we are giving the subsidiary companies power to apply to the Governor in Council for an increase in their capitalization. That would make their stock alive. This provision is not at all consistent with the argument advanced by my hon. friend yesterday that this stock was to be mobilized in the treasury of the Canadian Northern and never taken out. If the capitalization of these subsidiary companies is to be increased it is for some purpose, and the only purpose can be to draw dividends.


Arthur Meighen: That may be, but my words are strictly correct still. If it does draw dividends it means that much less on something else. I give my right hon. friend credit for being perfectly sincere in his doubts on this matter. I will try and put it in another way to convince my hon. friend.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am open to conviction.


Arthur Meighen: My right hon. friend
still seems to think that the $68,000,000 of stock brought into the Canadian Northern and the $100,000,000 of stock in the Canadian Northern proper would all have the right to call for dividends. Suppose that we assume, which of course is not strictly correct, that all the stock has the right to earn five per cent interest. My hon. friend contends that the $68,000,000 that is brought into the treasury and the $100,000,000 is entitled to five per cent. The $68,000,000 at five per cent would produce a revenue of $3,600,000. That $3,600,000 goes into the treasury of the Canadian Northern so that it only leaves $1,400,000 more to earn to get five per cent on the other stock, or a total of $5,000,000 in dividends, which is five per cent on the $100,000,000 alone. When the $100,000,000 earns five per cent the other is earning nothing. But if the other is earning five per cent then there is only $32,000,000 of the $100,000,000 of earning stock left to get five per cent on. If we assume that the stock is entitled to five per cent, there can only be five per cent on the $100,000,000 earned no matter how you look at it. Well, then, the $100,000,000 is all that is entitled to earn a dividend. I am glad to see that my right hon. friend thf leader of the Opposition appreciates the way in which I am putting it.


Wilfrid Laurier: And I appreciate what you do not put also.


Arthur Meighen: If my right hon. friend suggests that I will try and meet his wishes. If we consider that five per cent is an adequate dividend that would amount to $5,000,000 which is five per cent on $100,000,000 and when that is earned, for dividend purposes, the $68,000,000 is wiped out. I connot imagine what would be the domestic contingency that would call for an increase in the capitalization of one of these companies, but even if the capital should be increased to $78,000,000


William Pugsley: Who framed this clause to provide for it?


Arthur Meighen: -what would be the
difference? The $100,000,000 still remains the capitalization of these united concerns and they are only entitled to five per cent on it. The public are not interested; it is a domestic concern. There is much less call here for interposing the Parliament of Canada between an increase and no increase than there is under the Railway Act. My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) asked me who framed the clause. This clause was framed by the Government of Canada for the protection of the people of Canada.


Wilfrid Laurier: I said that I appreciated fully what my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) was just arguing, and I told him also that I appreciated as well what he did not put before Parliament and the country. My hon. friend says that the company would only be able to pay dividends on $100,000,000. If the company produce a revenue of $10,000,000, that would be a dividend of ten per cent upon a capitalization of $100,000,000. But if the company instead of paying the dividend upon a capitalization of $100,000,000, drew it from a capitalization of $181,000,000, that would be a dividend of a little more than five per cent. This is a very old trick well known to those who assisted my 'hon. friend to draft these resolutions. My hon. friend told us that this company wants to have the stock restricted to $100,000,000 and nothing more and at the same time to have in their possession this additional stock amounting to $81,000,000 and to have power to increase it to any figure they think proper. What can be the object of that? If my hon. friend is sincere in his expressed desire to have the stock of this company limited to $100,000,000, and nothing else, I fail to see why there should be this provision under which the company, who are the owners of the stock, may come to the Government and ask to have the stock of the subsidiary companies amounting to $81,000,000 increased for some domestic reason. The reason is very obvious. It is a well known practice in finance, when dividends become so large as to disturb the public mind and provoke discussion, to increase the stock and reduce the rate of dividend and if that is not the object in this case I fail to see what the object ie.	.


Frank Oliver: The Solicitor General has repeated, perhaps forty times, that the stock of the subsidiary companies is wiped out by becoming the property of the Canadian Northern.


Arthur Meighen: I never said that yet.


Frank Oliver: I wish to get at a basis of agreement with the Solicitor General.


Arthur Meighen: I said that for purposes of dividends the whole stock was reduced to $68,000,000 and that this $68,000,000, for purposes of dividends, is being wiped out and $23,000,000 of stock is being substituted for it.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend, at the
last moment, used the very words * wiped out for purposes of dividends.'


Arthur Meighen: For purposes of dividends.	,


Frank Oliver: It is only for purposes of dividends then, I presume. The Canadian Northern is a corporate entity. Its ownership represents certain physical assets. Each of these subsidiary companies is a corporate entity and it has in its ownership certain physical assets. The physical assets of the Canadian Northern Railway Company are separate and distinct from the physical assets' of the subsidiary companies. The Canadian Northern has a certain amount of stock upon which the physical assets of that company may be presumed at some time to earn dividends and the more you increase the amount of that stock the more stock there is to look for dividends from the earnings upon the physical assets of the Canadian' Northern Railway Company. The same condition prevails absolutely in regard to the individual subsidiary companies. Each is a corporate entity, each has certain physical assets, each has certain rights of earning, and the stock of each has a right to claim dividends- on these earnings. The fact that the stock of these subsidiary companies is placed in the treasury of the Canadian Northern Rail-

way Company to form part of the security for the guarantee of $45,000,000 by this Government does not in. any degree change the relationship of the Canadian Northern Railway Company in its aright to earn dividends upon its physical assets or the right of these subsidiary companies to earn dividends upon their physical assets to the measure of the stock issued in respect of the Canadian Northern. Railway Company on the one hand and the subsidiary companies on the other. My point is that the contention which my hon. friend has put up that there is some change in relationship between these several companies because of this legislation is utterly fallacious and absolutely without foundation as far as the terms of these resolutions are concerned. If his intention is, as he has expressed it to the House1, then he should revise these resolutions in order to embody the same expression in the resolutions. He has not done this; he refuses to do it. The insertion of this section is plain evidence of the continuance as separate entities of these subsidiary companies with the right to earn dividends out of their operation for the benefit of their stock. There is no other purpose in1 providing for an increase in the stock of each of these companies except it be a means to draw more dividends and there is no reason in suggesting that the dividends of these subsidiary companies are in any way merged in the dividends of the Canadian Northern which is a separate corporate entity holding separate stock and entitled to separate earnings upon the physical assets of the company.
In further support of that contention, these resolutions provide that there may and shall, under certain conditions, be mortgages placed upon the subsidiary companies in consideration of moneys advanced through this guarantee. The interest on these advances must be provided out of the separate earnings of those subsidiary companies, or otherwise there is no sense in taking a mortgage upon them. At any rate there is no possibility of the interest on such a mortgage being provided for unless the subsidiary company upon which that mortgage is taken has a separate corporate entity, having separate physical assets and separate earning powers, with a view to profits upon the shares of that company.


Robert Laird Borden: There is a difference of
opinion between my hon. friend and myself on that point, and I do not know that we shall advance the argument very much by each one reiterating at great length his conclusions upon the subject. It has been taken for granted in this debate that consideration of the oustanding amount of stock will have a very great influence upon the fixing of railway rates in this country. I am not inclined to accept that view. Judging from principles which have been laid down	in this	country	and in	theUnited States, the	question	of rates islikely to Ibe determined in future by the amount of fixed charges which of course must be taken into consideration, and apart from that, by consideration of the physical value of the road and of the service it renders to the	public.	To my mind, it	is avery simple	matter;	the only	stock of	any
one of these companies which can get into the hands of the public is the stock of the Canadian Northern railway, and the argument, as I understand it is, that those who have purchased that stock at a certain price will be entitled to come to the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada and claim that the rates should be fixed at such amount as will provide, not only for the fixed charges on the road but for a reasonable return upon the investment they have made in the stock. Let us see how that will work out. The stock of not one of these subsidiary companies ever can get into the hands of the public, under the provisions of the resolutioin as we understand them.


Frank Oliver: We will suppose, for the sake of argument, that the stock which already exists is provided by issuing capital into the hands of the public. Is. it the purpose of this section that further stock shall be issued or may be issued that would get into the hands of the public?


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly not, and it
cannot under the terms of this resolution as I understand them. We understand the resolution to mean that and nothing more nor less than that, and if it is not plain to my hon. friend it can be made plain. This stock of the subsidiary companies cannot get into* the hands of the public. A certain portion of the stock of the Canadian Northern may get into the hands of the public, and let us suppose that the holders should come with the representation that the rates should be so fixed as not only to provide for

interest charges but also to provide for reasonable return to them upon their stock. Let us say that dividends have been declared upon the stock of the subsidiary companies and that the earnings, would justify such dividends. What is the result? The result is that these dividends go into the treasury of the Canadian Northern railway and are available with the other earnings of that railway for the purpose of declaring a dividend, and when that dividend is declared it must, according to the premise, be a reasonable return, and therefore the earnings of that road plus the dividend to be derived from the stock of the subsidiary companies, according to the premise from which we start, never could amount to more than, a reasonable return upon the stogk at which Canadian Northern railway is capitalized. That is as clear to me as any proposition that has ever been debated in this House. This stock of the Canadian Northern railway does not reach the public. When they are considering the earnings of the whole system with respect to the provision of a reasonable return upon the stock in the hands of the public, they must take into consideration not only the direct earnings of the parent company but the: income derived from these dividends, which are really a part of those earnings, and therefore, in the net result, it is upon one hundred millions and one hundred millions alone that you must measure your case when you go to the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada to determine the rates which will, according to the contention of hon. gentlemen opposite, justify the holders of the stock in asking that the rates shall be so fixed as to yield them a reasonable return.


William Pugsley: Assuming that my right hon. friend is correct, this resolution simply provides for the transfer to His Majesty of the shares which are mentioned in the first part of the second schedule. Take for instance the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company:	there is authority by
statute to issue fifty million dollars of stock. Suppose that stock were issued to the extent of fifty millions, the only portion which by the terms of this resolution His Majesty would have a lien on would be ten million dollars, the forty millions would be entirely free from any charge under this resolution, because section 2, paragraph b, says:
Grant a first, fixed, and specific mortgage oi charge upon the shares mentioned in the first part of the second schedule hereto.
If you look at the first part of the second schedule, you will find that the amount of shares specifically mentioned, which is to go to His Majesty, is $10,000,000. Why should the Government ask this Parliament to authorize the Governor in Council to increase these shares when the very moment they are increased the extra shares.do not belong to His Majesty at all but to the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and may be issued to the public and may therefore become shares on which dividends should and might be paid.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman think that the Canadian Northern Ontario Company is in any different position from those named in the first part of- the second schedule ?


William Pugsley: I do not think there is any difference, but I took that for an example. Take the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan: although there are bonds to the extent of five million dollars against that road the share capital is only $201,000. There has been no inconvenience in the stock being for such a small amount except as an argument to go before the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, or as an argument to go to the investors. If you are dealing with the matter simply from the standpoint of a domestic arrangement, it makes no difference whether the capital stock of the company is one hundred thousand or one hundred million or ten thousand dollars, but it is when you go to the Board of Railway Commissioners and you are asking the board to allow you to impose a burden upon the people of Canada in the way of tolls, that it becomes important as to the amount of the capital stock. So, when you go to the investor and ask him to invest in shares, it is important what is the amount of the capital stock. The Solicitor General says it is merely a matter of domestic arrangement, and it cannot make the slightest difference to the public what is the amount of the capital stock, as amongst the shareholders themselves it is purely a question of proportion and division. This idea that it is beyond possibility that some reason might be advanced in the future why the capital stock of the constituent companies should be increased strikes me .as absurd; and the hon. gentleman will never make me believe that txiis clause was framed by the Government of Canada. It was framed, I believe, by Mr. Lash, the very able solicitor and counsel of the Canadian Northern Railway Company. Mr. Lash is a far-seeeing man; and.

looking ahead and realizing what burdens the people of the West can bear with the resources of that great country and what earnings it may be .possible to wrench from those people, he foresees that the time may come when it will be desirable to increase these issues on the plea of re-funding the securities of the road and to go to the public with a vast amount of new capital stock which investors may be asked to subscribe for. For instance, the capital of the Canadian Northern Ontario may be in creased from $10,000,000 to $50,000,000, and that of the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan which now has issued $201,000, representing 250 miles of road, might be increased to $3,000,000 or $4,000,000; and so with all these companies. He might well then come to the Government and to Parliament and say: We have got through the Governor in Council an increase in the capital stock of these constituent companies to $200,000,000 or $300,000,000, and now we want to make a re-issue; we want to re-fund the securities and consolidate all these loans into one system, wiping out the stoek of all these constituent companies; and he might well ask this Parliament to increase the capital stock of the company from $100,000,000 to $200,000,000 or $300,000,000, which might be represented by the existing stock of the Canadian Northern railway and by the increased stock of these constituent companies. And if he could get into the Government a gentleman, so ingenious and able as my hon. friend the Solicitor General, he might be able to persuade the majority of Parliament that that would be just the correct thing to do, just as he has succeeded in doing in this case. He has succeeded in persuading a trustful majority of Parliament, not over-zealous for the public interest-I will not say much of that, but it is a trustful majority-that this legislation is right. But, when we are increasing the fixed charges upon this road, when we are increasing the possibilities of laying burdens upon the people who have to use the road to get their products to market, when we are adding water to the extent of $50,000,000 to the stock of the Canadian Northern railway, why should we give to the Governor in Council the power to yield to the request of these gentlemen who control the Canadian -Northern railway and increase the capital stock of these constituent companies?


Mr. BUENHAM:: Would the hon. gentleman be pleased to say where that three-fifths comes in? Will he excuse my extreme

ignorance and tell me how he argues at one' moment that Mackenzie and Mann have taken a three-fifths share, and at the next that they have added $68,000,000?


William Pugsley: I would not say that
the hon. gentleman's ignorance is extreme. Eelatively it is no greater than has been displayed in other quarters in this House. Therefore he does not do himself justice when he suggests that his ignorance is extreme. This matter, it strikes me, is of very serious importance to the people. The Solicitor General talks of it as a 'domestic arrangement.' But, when you are dealing with a great transportation system, you are not dealing with a mere matter of domestic arrangement between the shareholders themselves. The difficulty that arises is this. If you have the capital stock of these constituent companies increased, then, when they come to the Board of Eailway Commissioners and ,say:	We have a certain
amount of stock of the parent company, but we have a large amount of stock of these various constituent companies which have been paid for, which has ibeen earned by Mackenzie and Mann by the sweat of their brows and the wearing out of their intellects, which represents years of toil and the expenditure of a vast amount of money which it is not possible for one representing the Government to arrive at, the result of that appeal may be a very serious matter for the public. Therefore, I
12 noon, appeal to the hon. the Solicitor General. I know how difficult it is for him to yield to a suggestion of the Opposition. There are reasons which make him feel that he would sooner be wrong and continue wrong than to admit that a member on this side could put forward a suggestion that is worthy of consideration. But let me appeal to him to rise to the consideration of what is in the public interest and to declare now that the stock of these constituent companies shall not be increased at any time unless and until they come to Parliament, where the reasons can be given and the matter can be discussed in the eyes of the people, and a conclusion arrived at which will be in the public interest. That is all that I am asking for, so far as my amendment is concerned- that they shall not be able to go in secret to the Governor in Council and get this increase, but that if they want the increase they shall come to Parliament and have the reasons presented and the matter fully

discussed by the representatives of the people.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: Before the
Solicitor General speaks, I would ask him whether, in view of the fact that there is now before Parliament a Bill to regulate the capitalization of railway companies, the provision placing the regulation of capitalization in the hands of the Board of Railway Commissioners will apply to this legislation now before the House or not, or whether this legislation will be outside of the general provision that is to be in the Railway Act.


Arthur Meighen: Answering first the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean): The provisions as to capitalization as they are now framed in the proposed Railway Act would doubtless apply here; that is to say, any provision placing restriction upon an increase of capitalization in the new revised Act would apply here and place restrictions here. But, at the same time, the provision made here that no increase of the capitalization of the company from $100,000,000 shall be made without the consent of Parliament would not in any way be affected by the proposed revised Act.
Answering next the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley): I have not paid much attention heretofore to taunts as to Mr. Lash having framed this Bill, as to being seduced, as to being domineered, as to being mesmerized, as to being befooled, I leave the merits of the Bill to answer all that. The hon. member for the city of St. John proceeds on the assumption that increase of capitalization of a public utility such as a railway is a tremendous burden on the people of Canada.


William Pugsley: Increase by water.


Arthur Meighen: He thinks that increase of capitalization is a tremendous burden, and' he does not feel that that increase should be allowed in the future except by consent of Parliament. There is no anticipation that the stock will be increased by water any more than the stock of any other road will be increased by water. The laws of the country apply to these just the same as they apply to any others as to the methods by which they may increase their capital stock. But here is a clause which provides that the capitalization of the subsidiary companies shall not be increased except by consent of the Governor in Council, and there is another opposite it which says that capitalization of the united company shall not be increased except by
the consent of Parliament. But, my hon. friend says, because you say that the capitalization of the subsidiary companies shall not be increased except by consent of the Governor in Council, you framed the Bill under the dictation of Z. A. Lash. I want to ask the hon. gentleman who framed the Railway Act of Canada when he was Minister of Public Works? Who framed the Naval Service Act when he was Minister of Public Works?


William Pugsley: When was the Railway Act framed?


Arthur Meighen: The Railway Act was passed by the late Government, of winch the hon. gentleman was a member.


William Pugsley: The Act was framed, not when I was minister, but some time before that. It was consolidated, I believe, by a commission in 1907.


Arthur Meighen: It was framed before the hon. gentleman was minister, but it was consolidated and ratified while he was Minister of Public Works.


William Pugsley: Consolidated by a commission.


Arthur Meighen: Consolidated and ratified and had the supreme sanction of the hon. gentleman's intelligence in 1907. Here is the way the Railway Act provides for increase of capital stock, section 85:
The original capital stock of the companies may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, he increased from time to time to any amount if such increase is sanctioned by a vote, in person or by proxy, of the shareholders who hold at least two-thirds in amount of the subscribed stock of the comapny, at a meeting expressly called by the directors for that purpose, and the proceedings of such meetings have been entered in the minutes of the proceedings of the company.
The Railway Act provides that the capital stock may be increased by the consent oi the Governor in Council. As to the subsidiary companies, we have not altered the Railway Act in that respect. If this section of the resolution was framed by Z. A. Lash, who wrote this clause in the Railway Act? We have interposed the Parliament of Canada between any increase of the only capital stock in which we are concerned, the stock of the united company and the present capital stock, and to that extent we have moved forward; to that extent we have imposed restrictions. We have no object in placing restrictions on the others beyond those placed upon them by the Railway Act. I know that I cannot clarify the matter any

more by further repetition and I hope the hon. gentleman will do himself the justice of saying that there is at least no more evidence of Z. A. Lash in the proposed Bill than there is in the Bill which he ratified in 1907.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is a
great deal.


Mr. NESBITT:: Why not accept the
amendment of the hon. member for the city of St. John? It has been said that it is probable that the stock of the subsidiary companies will be increased.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think so.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not.think so myself, but I cannot possibly see why the Solicitor General objects to the amendment of my hon. friend. It cannot possibly make any difference; it is not likely that they will want to increase the amount of their stock, as it is controlled by the parent company, but why not make them come to Parliament if they do want to increase it? The hon. gentleman referred to the Railway Act, but I would point out that this is special legislation, altogether outside of the Railway Act


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman will admit at once that if it makes no difference at all, there is no reason for accepting the amendment.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I did not mean it that
way; my hon. friend takes me up wrongly. I say that it makes no difference to the subsidiary companies if you make them come back to the Parliament of Canada if they intend to increase their stock.


Arthur Meighen: If it is an improvement to compel the railway companies before they increase their capital stock to come to the Parliament of Canada, the way to effect that improvement is by general legislation. If there "were any special reason for such action in this case, I would admit that it should be done, but there is no special reason in the case of the capital of the united company, and there is no special reason in the case of the others. There is rather less reason, because the profits on that stock necessarily go into the treasury of the united company and the country is interested only in the stock of the united company.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: There is n,o reason why
all railway companies should not come to Parliament if they wish to increase their capital stock


Arthur Meighen: Then it should be done under the General Railway Act,


William Findlay Maclean: I will give a reason why there should be a regulation in this regard, and to do so I will refer to the experience of the previous Government. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company, taking advantage of existing legislation, applied to the Governor in Council for an increase of ite capital stock, and they got that increase very much against the public opinion of this country and very much against the interests of those who use the railway and pay railway rates. We all know that when the protest was made in the press and on the platform that the Canadian Pacific Tailway had unfairly increased its capital stock, we were told that it had been done by consent of the Governor in Council. On a subsequent occasion, during the administration of the present Government, the Canadian Pacific railway increased its stock without the consent of the Governor in Council, and nothing was done. I consider that increase to have been a public scandal, and against the establishment of reasonable railway rates in this country. 1 am altogether in favour of having absolute control of the capitalization of all companies operating railways, and I think that this company, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and every other railway company, should be subject to regulations by Parliament acting on its own motion, or by Parliament acting through the Railway Commission. If I read aright a declaration made on behalf of the Canadian Pacific railway yesterday in the Montreal press, it is that there is to be an immense segregation of the extraneous assets of that company and subsidiary companies. That means that the earnings of these subsidiary companies will, in a way, be separated from the earnings of the general company. I am loth to think that this session is to close without Parliament taking control of the capitalization of all our railways. If we are not to pass a Bill amending the general Railway Act, I hope that a provision regulating the capitalization of railways will be made law this session, and that it will be applicable, as the Solicitor General says, to all subsidiary companies, though not to the consolidated company, which is subject to a special provision regarding capitalization. I think that when we regulate the capital stock of the Canadian Northern, and put it under the control of Parliament or of a commission

named by Parliament, we should at the same time include not only the Canadian Northern, but all other railways as well; because we are admitting now the principle -and it is high time we did-that control of the capitalization of railways should be in the hands of 'Parliament or of its nominees. If we do not do this we will see something between now and the next session. The Canadian Pacific railway has slipped by this Parliament on two or three occasions, increases in its capital, sometimes by way of an Ordeir in Council, sometimes by legislation which it says it got passed years ago. In this way it was able only a year ago to increase its capital stock against the public interest. So it is the duty of Parliament this session, to regulate the capitalization of the Canadian Northern railway and the subsidiary companies and also to regulate the capitalization of all companies, and so there .should come, with equal step with this Bill now before us, .a public Bill putting the control of the capitalization! ot all our railway companies in the hands of Parliament. I do not agree with what the Prime Minister said a moment ago that capitalization has very little to do with railway rates. I believe that it has had a lot to do with it, and all the. arguments that are put up in favour of the increase of railway rates, the argument being put up now in the States in favour of an increase in railway rates,is' largely based on the idea of capitalization invested, although a lot of the money was unfairly taken away from the undertakings and fell into the hands of speculators of various kinds. Therefore I say it is in the public interest that the capitalization of all railways, the Canadian Northern railway, the Canadian Pacific railway and all other roads, should be placed in the hands of Parliament. And it should be placed in the hands of Parliament this session. . We should not postpone the general Act to another .session and thereby leave all the other roads free to do as they please.


William Pugsley: I am very glad to hear from my hon. friend who has just taken his seat that he is in favour of Parliament controlling the capitalization of the company. I am especially glad, or shall be especially glad, if by his vote he gives expression., in the most emphatic and practical way that it can be given, to those views, because we are now asked to legislate especially in respect to some fifteen or sixteen subsidiary companies, and all I am asking by my amendment is that the capital of these companies shouild not be increased except with the consent of Parliament. That is the very thing I am asking for, and if there was ever a case where Parliament should be allowed to exercise that authority it is in the present case, because these companies to-day have an issued capital stock of about $68,000,000. The Government is providing, as they assure us, that these shares shall go into the treasury of the Canadian Northern railway, that they shall lose all life and vitality and shall be held there in the treasury, that they shall not represent anything so far as paying dividends is concerned, that they shall represent nothing at all except that they are to be used for the purpose of keeping alive these various constituent companies. That can be accomplished as well with $1,000,000 as it can with $68,000,000. Yet, notwithstanding these assurances, the Government comes to us to-day with a clause with which the Solicitor General says that Mr. Lash, that wicked man, had nothing in the world to do-he does not use the words ' wicked man ' but suggests that I called him one because he had pulled the wool over the eyes of my hon. friend, which would be a very wicked and indefensible thing to do. When, notwithstanding that these subsidiary companies have this $68,000,000 of issued stock to-day, which he says is to be used in the way I speak of, and when he asks power in this Parliament to the Governor in Council, upon a secret . application, of which the public would not have knowledge, to increase the capital stock of these constituent companies, all that we are saying on. this side of the House is that that power shall be vested in the Parliament of Canada. That is all. Parliament represents the people of the country. All we .ask is that if at any time it should be deemed desirable for any reason to increase the issued shares of these companies, they should be compelled to come to Parliament, to present their reasons so that the public might know what those reasons are and so that the members of this Parliament might be enabled to judge whether or not the reasons are sound. In the case to which my hon. friend refers, of an ordinary railway company, the capital stock it is true can be increased; but when Parliament passed that law, by the Railway Act, it contemplated, what Parliament always contemplates, that there would be a bona fide sub-

script-ion for stock in those companies. But to-day we have it admitted practically that all this $68,000,000 of stock is watered stock, represents nothing except, as I have said, the mental toil of Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann; that is all it represents. It does not represent, so far as we know, a dollar of money. Therefore, if there ever was a reason why Parliament should have the control of the increase of capital stock of railway companies, it exists in respect of these companies to-day. Therefore, it does seem to me that it is entirely reasonable and entirely in the public interest, if it is desired to increase the capital stock of these companies, that they should be obliged to come to Parliament in order to get authority to make the proposed increase. Amendment of Mr. Pugsley negaJtived: yeas, 29; nays, 44.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 16:
That while any of the guaranteed securities are outstanding the Governor in Council may from time to time appoint any person to be a director of any or of all the companies comprised in the Canadian Northern system, and at pleasure remove the director so appointed.
2. Every director appointed by the Governor in Council shall at the request of the Governor in Council have the right to have a meeting of the directors or shareholders of the company for which he is so appointed,. called at any time, and the secretary or- other proper officer of such company shall at such company's expense forthwith upon being requested so to do, call such meeting in accordance with the statutes or by-laws regulating the calling thereof.
William Pugsley: Why should this right
be limited to the period during which the guaranteed securities are outstanding? If the Government is to remain a shareholder! to the extent of two-fifths why should it not still continue to have the right to appoint a director at pleasure?


Robert Laird Borden: The Government can still exercise its influence, the same as any other shareholder, after the period mentioned.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 17:
That without limiting any power now possessed, it be enacted that any railway company comprised in the Canadian Northern system which is now or may hereafter be subject to the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada may, with the approval of the Governor m Council, enter into arrangements and agreements with any other railway company comprised in the said system which is now or may hereafter be subject to said legislative authority, or which has now, or may hereafter have power

to enter into the same, respecting the operation by or the leasing to or the sale and transfer to such other railway company of the undertaking of the first mentioned company including assets, rights, franchises and powers, and said companies are hereby respectively empowered to carry out such arrangements and agreements.
Frank Oliver: I want to point out that
this and subsequent clauses contemplate the preservation of the entities of the subsidiary companies.


Mr. MACDONALD:: Is that the intention of the Government, or does it contemplate the absorption of all these companies into one system with central control?	,


Robert Laird Borden: I think I mentioned in
presenting the resolution to the House in< the first instance that in the opinion of the Government it was desirable to have all these lines pass into the ownership of one, system, but that by reason of the various financial arrangements which had been made it did not seem practicable to do that at the present time. Therefore, we have done the next best thing by providing that the stock of all these companies shall pass into the Canadian Northern. While that arrangement continues, it would seem that the provisions made in this and the preceding section will serve to carry out the purpose of the resolutions in that respect, namely, the amalgamation so far as practicable of all these lines into one system.


Frank Oliver: I would favour the amalgamation of the system, but it strikes me that there is room for a measure of financial juggling in the provisions of these three sections. I think that the amalgamation that is proposed to take place should be subject to the responsibility of the Government, so that we might protect whatever private or public interests might be involved. We are giving legislative authority to these subsidiary companies-


Robert Laird Borden: That is subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, and the proposal in the next section is subject to the approval of the Governor in Council and to the provisions of the Railway Act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 19:
That any company now or hereafter comprised in the Canadian Northern system which is now or may hereafter be subject to the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, may acquire shares in the capital stock of, or securities issued by, or make advances to, or receive advances from any other company comprised in said system, and may take or give security for such advances.
William Pugsley: What does that mean? By another clause, all the shares in these constituent companies are vested in the Canadian Northern. That being so, how can any one constituent company acquire shares in another constituent company as this clause provides?


Arthur Meighen: I do not see how it could acquire shares except in the case of a new issue authorized by the Governor in Council. In the event of one subsidiary company making a new issue this clause enables the Governor in Council to direct that the issue may go to another company.


William Pugsley: It does not say that.


Arthur Meighen: There could be no other case in which they could acquire shares because the stock is all owned by the Canadian Northern and is to remain in its treasury. Therefore, this must apply to a new issue. I do not know what domestic contingency might call for that.


William Pugsley: If the hon. gentleman drafted this section he ought to know what it is for.


Arthur Meighen: I know what it means, but I do not know the domestic contingency that might call for its exercise. I see that the parent company could acquire the shares of a new issue by a subsidiary company authorized by Order in Council, and I would say that if such a new issue were authorized it would be the desire of the parent company to acquire it.


William Pugsley: It does not say the parent company.


Arthur Meighen: It would appear to me to be most likely that the parent company would acquire the issue.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is it contemplated that the stock of these subsidiary companies shall be owned by any other company than the Canadian Northern?


Arthur Meighen: No. This is to provide that the parent or another company may acquire new stock, and I can only conceive of the parent company doing that. It has been the practice of the parent company hitherto to make advances to the subsidiary companies and that may, and perhaps will, be necessary in the future.


Mr. CARVELL:: Assuming that the Canadian Northern desired to purchase another road; the Quebec and Saguenay, for instance. I understand that by this Bill they would have the power to purchase any other
road. Is there anything to prevent the stock of the Quebec and Saguenay road being transferred to one of the constituent or subsidiary companies and not to the parent company itself ? It seems to me this clause is strong enough to allow of that manipulation taking place. I know my hon. friend will say that it all boils down to the $100,000,000, and if that is correct it would not make much difference. But is not the clause sufficiently broad to allow of such a transfer to the subsidiary or constituent companies ?


Arthur Meighen: It would appear to me that if the taking over of the Quebec and Saguenay had been first authorized by the Governor in Council, as provided for in the introductory part of the Bill, the shares of stock in that road might be acquired by a subsidiary company; but, as I say, the ultimate result would be the same.


William John Macdonald: For what purpose does my hon. friend provide for the issue of stock by any of these companies ? He argued yesterday, and again this morning, that the stock of these constituent companies was wiped out for all practical purposes. Why, then, permit the creation of new stock which, if there is anything in the hon. gentleman's argument, would also be wiped out ? My hon. friend must have had something in mind in drafting that provision. I can conceive of rights being reserved giving power to make advances. That is one thing, but in view of that, all that has been urged in regard to this question of stock from the beginning, on what possible ground can my hon. friend provide that there may be an issue of stock by these companies ?


Robert Laird Borden: The section deals not only with the acquisition of shares hut with the acquisition of securities as well. Altogether apart from the aid that is now being afforded, it might be possible at some time in the future, and before the companies are all amalgamated into one, that the Canadian Northern railway would have to make advances to one of the subsidiary companies for the purpose of enabling the line to be put in better condition or for the purpose of enabling it to extend its system-. In that case this section provides that either by the transfer of shares, or by the transfer of securities to be issued by the subsidiary companies, the Canadian Northern Railway Company can deal with the situation and can make the advances necessary for the purpose. That is one object that strikes me at the moment. It is

impossible to foresee all contingencies. I dare say there may be other contingencies which might suggest themselves if one were thoroughly conversant with the operations of railway companies.


Mr. CAR YELL:: That is just the very
point that we have been arguing all morning and a part of last evening. What the right hon. gentleman has said is the very opposite of the argument presented by the Solicitor General who is contending that it makes no difference what the capitalization of the subsidiary or allied companies may be because all their stock, whether it be $68,000,000, or $81,000,000, or whether it be another $400,000,000, becomes merged into, and becomes the property of, the Canadian Northern Railway Company, the capital stock of which is reduced down to $100,000,000. My right hon. friend now says that the Canadian Northern railway may have to advance money to one of the subsidiary companies and that therefore they ought to have a right to take stock as security. What reason can there be for that if the Canadian Northern owns the whole thing and if the Canadian Northern stock is limited to $100,000,000 as the Solicitor General says it is? The Solicitor General says that under no contingency is it possible that the stock on which they can demand dividends can exceed $100,000,000.


Robert Laird Borden: The Canadian Northern,
for the purpose of making these advances, would probably, itself, have to issue securities which would be placed on the market. They could be issued by the Canadian Northern very much more advantageously than they could be placed on the market by one of tnese companies. Therefore, it may be a good financial arrangement for the Canadian Northern to issue its own securities for the purpose of making provision for one of the subsidiary companies and it may take the stock or securities of the subsidiary company to compensate' it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Why take stock if it owns the stock now?


Robert Laird Borden: It may not take stock; it m&y take securities. In any case the Canadian Northern is capitalized at a fixed amount and if it was to take shares it would take these shares subject to the consideration already referred to.


William John Macdonald: Such shares would
have no commercial value.


Robert Laird Borden: Except as giving the
Canadian Northern a very much increased

interest. They would not necessarily take shares; they might take securities.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the Solicitor General be correct in his argument that under this Bill every equity which these companies possess, including all their stock certificates and everything, goes to the Canadian Northern Railway Company, how can the Canadian Northern Railway Company take any further security by way of stock, or bonds, or anything of that kind?


Robert Laird Borden: I must confess I do not see why they cannot.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What is the good of it, because the Canadian Northern owns it now? It just makes one believe that my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition has opened up something which has not been explained away. What had the gentleman who drafted this clause in his mind? If it was the Solicitor General he ought to be able to tell us. If it was not the Solicitor General I think he should get into communication with the gentleman who drafted this clause and ascertain what his real intention was. The more the right hon. the Prime Minister attempts to explain 'it the more difficult he makes it for the Solicitor General.


Arthur Meighen: I have explained what the meaning of the clause is. I have said I cannot tell what the intention of the company is; I do not pretend to he able to tell that. I do not pretend to be a railway expert and to know all the contingencies that may arise, but I do know that under that clause they cannot do anything prejudicial to the public interest. If hon. gentlemen can suggest anything that may be done prejudicial to the public interest, and suggest a remedy for it, we will be glad to consider it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If there is any object in issuing additional shares of this stock it may be prejudicial to the public interest because if the line ever becomes a paying investment there may be a demand that these shares shall receive dividends. If my hon. friend is serious in saying that these shares never can demand dividends, but that the only dividend demanding shares will be the $100,000,000 of stock owned by the parent company, then I would suggest the amending of this section by striking out the word * shares.' The right to issue other securities, like bonds or debenture stock, might not be very serious but if he would eliminate the word ' shares ' he would get rid of the suspicion

we have notwithstanding the oft-repeated assertion of the learned Solicitor General that there may he some real object in the mind of the Canadian Northern people in keeping the shares of these subsidiary companies in their own hands.


Arthur Meighen: If by merely eliminating the -word ' shares ' we could get rid of the suspicion in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite, I would be inclined to do it; but I do not think it is so important as that, and I am not very hopeful that we could eradicate from the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite at least the allegation of suspicion.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Make toe attempt and see how you will succeed.


Arthur Meighen: I cannot see what harm can result if it is convenient for the Canadian Northern on one part of the system to take shares on another part; nor can I see what harm can be done if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council that it would be in the interests of the Canadian Northern system to, say, amalgamate one portion of the road with another and give stock. Everything is under the control of the Governor in Council just the same as everything is under the control of the Railway Act. The capital is $100,000,000 and it cannot be increased. If a new road should be acquired the arrangement is under the control of the Governor in Council and the Railway Commission. There is no change from the Railway Act in this respect at all. Has the hon. gentleman lost faith-in the Railway Commission?


William John Macdonald: There might be a
possible explanation in connection with this section. If one will examine the first schedule he will find that the statement is made with respect to the Canadian Northern Manitoba Company, The Mount Royal Terminal Company and some others, that the security is to be the total issue. Has any issue of stock been made by these companies?


Arthur Meighen: No, not by either of
them.


William John Macdonald: How much is it to be
made?


Arthur Meighen: I do not know and I
cannot see what imaginable difference it makes. It is to belong to the Canadian Northern system out and out whatever it is. If it is $50,000,01)0 it belongs; if it is $200 it belongs.
272	'


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Assuming that the Canadian Northern system purchases the Quebec and Saguenay that road will have a capitalization of $5,000,000 and they will buy the stock. I take it for granted that that would increase the stock of the Canadian Northern by $5,000,000 so that the stock of the Canadian Northern would be be $105,000,000 if the stock were purchased by the Canadian Northern itself. If purchased by one of the original companies it would go in as part of the original transaction, but if the Canadian Northern purchased, am I right in assuming that the stock would be increased by five million dollars, and if so would the Government get two-fifths, or would it all go to the Canadian Northern?


Arthur Meighen: I think the hon. gentleman is a little confused; I do not think he quite appreciates what would take place. I would say that, in so far as the acquisition of the new road is concerned, we are just in the same position as we are generally under the Railway Act. lit could not be acquired and stock given for it except with the consent of the Governor in Council. Stock cannot be given for it because it cannot be issued to be given except with the consent of the Governor in Council, and the Governor in Council would say whether it should be five million dollars or two hundred thousand dollars. If it were deemed in the interest of the system, which would be in our interest and in the interest of the public, and the Governor in Council agreed to approve of the issue of whatever sum might be deemed proper for the acquisition of another Tailway, and the stock went there, where would be the injury done? In so far as the assets we bring into this system now are concerned, it will never go beyond one hundred million dollars. But there is some stock outstanding even yet that does not come into the system, and that stock is in the same position as before. Similarly, if any issue should be made, and so far as I know none is contemplated, it must be approved by the Governor in Council; it must be deemed adequate for the advantage attained! by the issue of it, and consequently the public interest is protected in the same way as it is protected under the Railway Act.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend has not answered my question, but as I understand it he admits that the capital stock of the parent company would have to be increased.


Arthur Meighen: If it is the parent company it would have to be with the consent of the Parliament of Canada, and, if a subsidiary company, with the consent of the Governor in Council.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: * 1 asked the Solicitor General if the stock were increased, would the people of Canada get any proportion of it or would it all go to the Mackenzie and Mann interests. Suppose the Quebec and Saguenay were purchased, the people of Canada would have to stand behind it and foot the bill, as I understand n.


Arthur Meighen: Suppose there is another railway, which is worth one million dollars we will say, and it is deemed advisable in the interests of the system that that railway be acquired for one million dollars stock of the Canadian Northern Ontario railway, the company has to come to the Governor in Council just the same as it would come under the Railway Act, just as it lias come all along. And if it were deemed by the Government of Canada in the interest of the people that that road *be acquired, it would be acquired the same as it would be under the Railway Act and the stock would issue. That means an increase of assets and another road added to the system. There is no increase of the capitalization on what we are getting now; that is impossible.


William Pugsley: All these subsidiary
companies remain under the direction of directors appointed by Mackenzie and Mann.


Mr MEIGHEN:: By the Canadian Northern Railway Company.


William Pugsley: The directors would be nominees of Mackenzie and Mann. I assume from the reading of clause 3 that the Government does not intend to interfere in any way with the management of these constituent companies until, at all events, there is default. Section 19, which is of the broadest possible character, reads:
That any company now or hereafter comprised in the Canadian Northern system which is now or may hereafter be subject to the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, may acquire shares in the capital stock of, or securities issued by, or make advances to, or receive advances from any other company comprised in said system, and may take or give security for such advances.
That system is composed of the Canadian Northern and some fourteen or fifteen constituent companies. Let me point out to the Solicitor General that under this section power is given to the directors [Mr. Carvell.j
of the Canadian Northern or any constituent company to acquire and become owners of outstanding stock of the Canadian Northern. They could acquire the stock Mackenzie and Mann, Limited, hold in the Canadian Northern. I cannot imagine that is intended, and yet the power is given under this section. If this proposition goes through, Mackenzie and Mann will own sixty million of this stock, and power is given to the directors of any one of these companies, without the consent of the Board of Railway Commissioners and without the consent of the Governor in Council, to buy the whole or a part of that stock in the Canadian Northern which is held by Mackenzie and Mann, Limited. Did my hon. friend have that in view when he drew this section?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think I had
anything quite so imaginary as that in view.	.'


William Pugsley: What was it then?


Arthur Meighen: What would be the object of the directors of a subsidiary company, who are appointed by the Canadian Northern Railway Company, buying the shares of the Canadian Northern Railway Company?


William Pugsley: It is owned by Mackenzie and Mann and would foe so much money in their pockets.


Arthur Meighen: Very well, and if they
did how would we be affected? I can see no object in doing it, but if they did how would the country be affected? Mackenzie and Mann can dispose of their shares to anybody.


William Pugsley: Why give a constituent company power to buy the shares?


Arthur Meighen: The Canadian Northern owns it if the constituent company buys it. The constituent company is owned by the Canadian Northern.


William Pugsley: If that is so, then if
the Canadian Northern Ontario, through a board of directors nominated by Mackenzie and Mann, thought it desirable to acquire ten million dollars stock in the parent company-Mackenzie and Mann hold the ten million dollars stock-and they buy it for five million dollars; the Canadian Northern Ontario is a subsidiary company going through a rich part of Ontaro and they may have some money.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) says its stock is all watered.


William Pugsley: I do not know that any one will deny that, but suppose they would like to get a little of this stock in the parent company and become partners also. This clause allows them to do so by paying out of the earnings of the Canadian Northern railway 810,000,000 or $5,000,000, as the case may be, for this stock. What is the result? It puts $5,000,000 or $10,000,000 into the pockets of Mackenzie, Mann and Company, Limited, and gives to the constituent companies stock which may or may not be of very much advantage to the parent company. Is not this a dangerous power? I think it is. It is contended that it is a useful power. I think not. If the hon. gentleman framed this clause, he can tell us what was his intention in drawing it and what is the object sought.


Arthur Meighen: I have already stated the intention and object and circumscription of the clause. As to the contingency the hon. gentleman has in mind, it is this, that Mackenzie, Mann and Company, Limited, might sell their stock to the Canadian Northern Ontario, which is owned by the Canadian Northern railway, sell it at fictitious value, and thus get money into their own pockets and out of the Canadian Northern Ontario. Well, fraud is always possible. Mackenzie, Mann and Company might sell a horse to the Canadian Northern railway for $10,000,000, and the horse might not be worth that much. You cannot frame clauses to prevent transactions of that kind; such a difficulty is inherent in the management of any company.


William Pugsley: Would the clause give that power if they chose to exercise it?


Arthur Meighen: I see no reason why it should not.


William John Macdonald: The Solicitor General's position in regard to the clause is: I do not know what this power is that we are conferring upon these companies to deal with shares; I cannot tell why it is put there; but I want to know from you gentlemen of the Opposition what harm it is and how it can prejudice the country-if you cannot show that, it ought to go in. But as he assumes the responsibility, we are told, for the drafting of these resolutions, his duty is to tell the committee what the meaning of the clause is and why he put it there.


Arthur Meighen: I have done that, but perhaps it is no more than courteous that I should do it again. I stated it to the hon. member for Carleton, N. B. (Mr. Car veil). I suggested the possibility of acquiring a new line necessitating the issue of stock of the Canadian Northern Ontario for it, in which case the Governor in Council must pass an order that the new line is part of the system, fixing the amount of the new issue and the conditions under which it is to be made. As to making advances, I do not need to explain that to him-


William John Macdonald: That is not the point.


Arthur Meighen: No, the point is in regard to shares. But I made the explanation in reply to the suggestion of the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., making clear what the purpose is-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am sorry it does not make it clear to me; probably that is my fault.


William John Macdonald: It is an imaginary
possibility, but according to the Solicitor General the clause gives power to go on and construct new railways in the cases he proposes-


Arthur Meighen: I did not say ' construct ' new railways; I spoke of the purchase of a railway.


William John Macdonald: Why is the power
given for purchasing and what new railways is it contemplated to purchase?


Arthur Meighen: I have stated that none are contemplated, so far as I know. But this clause gives the Governor in Council power to add anjther company to the system, if the Governor in Council thinks it wise. One way it can be added is by the issue of shares of the Canadian Northern Ontario. This clause would provide for that.


William John Macdonald: That is pure'y imaginary.


Frank Oliver: This provides for the issue of additional shares.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, when authorized
by the Governor in Council.


Frank Oliver: What is the position of
these shares in relation to revenue.


Arthur Meighen: The same as the others. There is new property for them.


Frank Oliver: But as to dividends, would they be drawing dividends or would they not?


Arthur Meighen: It would take a prophet to say that.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


William Pugsley: The hon, Solicitor General said, as I understood him, that there is no doubt that if section 19 passes it will be quite open to any one of these eighteen constituent companies to purchase stock of the Canadian Northern and it will be quite possible for them to make purchases of a portion' of the stock of Mackenzie. Mann and Company, Limited. But my hon. friend .suggests that that wouild be fraud, particularly if they bought the stock for more than its market value. Until the stock is earning a dividend .and is listed on the stock exchange, thereby getting a market value, opinions may differ very greatly as to its value and the directors of one of these subsidiary companies, who are to-day and will be the nominees of Mackenzie, Mann and Company, Limited, may take a different view of the value of that stock from that taken by others. I do not know that it would necessarily be fraud if one of these constituent companies should acquire a considerable block of that stock and utilize the funds of one or more of these subsidiary companies for that purpose. It would not be fraud to do the thing itself, because Parliament. has expressly provided that any one or more of these constituent companies may purchase the stock of any of the others. This clause may not be acted upon, but certainly if it passes it opens up possibilities of entanglements which may operate prejudicially to the public interest and which will require two or three gentlemen equally astute as the Solicitor General to unravel. The hon. Solicitor General has developed such ability in unravelling the entanglements which now exist in reference to this matter that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance said that he would take off his hat to him. If this clause is acted upon by Mackenzie, Mann and Company, Limited, under the wide flowers which are thereby conferred, it will take even .greater ability to untangle the difficulties if the matter comes again before the Government and before Parliament. Why put it in? Where is the necessity for it?

Why give these broad powers; why rely upon the fact that they will not be acted upon, in view of the fact that if they .are acted upon to the full extent very serious results may follow?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 21:
That the following shall be events in default within the meaning of the Act to he based upon these resolutions, viz.:
(a)	If the Canadian Northern shall make default in payment of the principal or interest of the guaranteed securities or any part thereof, or default in observing or performing any of the provisions of the new trust deed, and tne security constituted by the new trust deed shall thereby become enforceable;
(b)	If while any of the guaranteed securities are outstanding the Canadian Northern or any constituent or subsidary company shall make default in the payment of the principal or interest or any part thereof, of any securities heretofore or hereafter created or issued under the existing trust deed or mortgages securing the same, or under any future trust deed securing securities having priority to the guaranteed securities or default in observing or performing any of the terms of any such existing or future trust deed or mortgage, and the security constituted by any such trust deed or mortgage shall thereby become enforceable;
(c)	If, while any of the guaranteed securities are outstanding, an order be made by any court against any company in the Canadian Northern system for the appointment of a receiver or for possession, or if a receiver be otherwise appointed or possession be otherwise lawfully taken of the whole or part of the undertaking.
William John Macdonald: When the interpretation clause was under consideration I asked the hon. Solicitor General to give us while we were in committee a statement of the assets and liabilities of Mackenzie, Mann and Company. In the discussion of the question of default I think it is very essential that we should have that information in our possession; otherwise we shall be going along in the dark.


Arthur Meighen: What the hon. gentleman asked for upon the occasion to which he refers was a statement as to Mackenzie, Mann and Company, Limited, showing their stock issue, their bond issue, the date of incorporation, the place of incorporation and their assets and liabilities. My words following his request-I have them before me and I trust the hon. gentleman will see wherein he erred yesterday in his interpretation of those words-were to the effect that there was no objection to the clause standing pending the consideration of his request and that I could see no objection to bringing down the greater part of what

he had asked for. That is the full extent of what I said.


William John Macdonald: I hope that my hon. friend made no mental reservation.


Arthur Meighen: The company was incorporated in 1902; the charter is from the province of Ontario. The object of incorporation was to take over the entire assets of Mackenzie, Mann and Company, Limited, and to conduct a general contracting business. The purposes of the company as set out in the charter are very wide indeed.) The bond issue is $3,000,000; the stock issue is $5,000,000. As to bringing down to the House	a statement	of all
their assets and liabilities, I do not think that that would be justified The two clauses emlbody also a power in the Governor in Council, if in his judgment Mackenzie, Mann and Company have not sufficient assets over and above liabilities to form a sufficient security, to call for other securities.	In the light of that
power vested in the Governor in Council, there is no necessity of exposing the assets or liabilities of this company to Parliament any more than the assets or liabilities of any other company.


William John Macdonald: I cannot agree with the logic of my hon. friend's statement that there is no necessity of exposing to Parliament for its information the assets and liabilities of this company any more than those of any other company. A vital and important question for us to determine is the financial condition of this company, the condition of its assets and liabilities, and whether or not it is a solvent concern and able to enter into undertakings involving millions of dollars with some expectation that the guarantee will be met. My hon. friend cannot be sincere when he undertakes to say that it is a matter of entire indifference to this committee and to Parliament what the financial position of this concern is. Any bank undertaking to finance a proposition or to go into partnership with a joint stock company, would first of all ascertain the financial position of the company. Not one of these banks whose advances are mentioned in the blue-book would deal with these parties without having a full statement of their affairs. It is equally necessary that Parliament should have full information, and I submit that the position taken by my hon. friend is the most reckless position that any Government could take in asking Parliament to ratify an agreement.
'Mr. MEIGHEN: I have only to say that I made the statement in view of the fact which the hon. gentleman overlooks in all his speeches, that if we deem, on inspection, their assets insufficient, we may call for any other contracts or undertakings that the Government may desire. In view of that, no purpose can be served by exposing: their assets and liabilities to Parliament.


William John Macdonald: Does my hon. friend' take the position that he has the statement of assets and liabilities, but declines to submit it to Parliament?


Arthur Meighen: I have not said . that-


William John Macdonald: I want to emphasize that the very vital party to this agreement, comes before Parliament under the tutelage-of my hon. friend, who declines to give to Parliament or to the country any statement as to how they stand financially.


Arthur Meighen: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that by reason of the fact that we are bound to take their guarantee, even although we may call for others as a protection to the Crown, we should lay before Parliament a statement of the assets and liabilities, expose the private affairs of this company to Parliament? Is that his position?


William John Macdonald: I .say that these affairs have become public affairs, in virtue of the fact that the company are contracting with the Government of this country.


Arthur Meighen: In 1911 the Government the hon. gentleman supported-and I say this not toy way of justification but simply toy way of comment on the earnestness and sincerity of the hon. member

took the guarantee of the Canadian Northern railway for the Canadian Northern Railway Ontario indebtedness. Did they lay before Parliament a statement of the assets and liabilities of the Canadian Northern, railway to show the value of that guarantee? There would have been some logic in doing it then because that was all the guarantee we had. But in this case we not only have the guarantee of Mackenzie, Mann and Company, Limited, but if we do not deem it sufficient on ascertaining its value, we can call for any others we wish. Where the late Government neglected to do that some case might have been made out. In this case none can be.
Mr. MACDONALD. My hon. friend cannot discuss any proposition without attempting to adopt the tu quoque argument. The
431^

lion, member for Calgary, at the very inception of the discussion of this measure, pointed out how frequently this tu quoque argument had been resorted to, by hon. gentlemen. I recall the circumstances of 1911 and I think hon. gentlemen then on this side of the House raised no question of that kind.


Arthur Meighen: That does not excuse
you. Why did the hon. gentleman allow the legislation to go through if he thought that was the duty of the Government.


William John Macdonald: My hon. friend is
at the tu quoque argument again. When hon. gentlemen on both sides accept a situation, as was done in 1911 in the case of the Canadian Northern Ontario, the position is vitally different from the position to-day when a concern comes here saying that they are bankrupt.


Arthur Meighen: No more than they were then.


William John Macdonald: And when hon.
gentlemen supported the proposition made by the Government, as they did in 1911, without any question, my hon. friend's tu quoque argument falls to the ground. The Liberal party in 1911 were not dealing with a concern that came here to them in extremis as this concern is now coming to the Government who say: we will not inquire for one moment as to whether the chief contracting party to this document is in a solvent financial position.


William Pugsley: Is there not another very powerful reason why the financial standing of Mackenzie, Mann and Company, Limited should ibe submitted to Parliament? Is it not this, that it has been announced by the Government that Mackenzie, Mann and Company, Limited, are to manage the enterprise as before? So far as appears, they are to be the directors just as now; and this Government are asking the people of Canada to go into partnership with Mackenzie, Mann and Campany, Limited, in this enterprise. The undertaking has to be completed, millions of dollars have to be financed, but financed, of course, on the strength of securities which will not be availed of except as the work progresses. Have we not a right to know who the people of Canada are taking into partnership in this matter? The partnership is to be Mackenzie, Mann and Company,. Limited, and His Majesty, representing the people of Canada. Have we not a right to know7 whether our partners

are bankrupt or whether they are strong men financially and a firm or company which it is desirable that the people of Canada should be associated with in this enterprise? And yet, notwithstanding this fact, the Government refuse to give to this House any information whatever as to the financial standing of Mackenzie, Mann and Company, Limited. It does seem to me that the action of the Government is wholly inexcusable. They say: Oh we will secretly look into the affairs of Mackenzie, Mann and Company, Limited, and if we think they are not able to respond to these guarantees we will take additional guarantees. Parliament is now being asked to pledge the credit of the people of this country to the exteent of $45,000,000, and surely has a right to know the financial standing of the company with which the people of Canada are to be associated in the carrying forward and completion of this undertaking.


Arthur Meighen: I am afraid I do not see any additional force added to the clause by the suggestion of the hon. member for St. John. He says we are partners now

using the word very loosely as it suits hon. gentlemen opposite-consequently we should know the financial status of our partner. If that is the case, it is the duty of every party who buys a share of stock in an enterprise to ascertain the financial standing of every other stockholder in the enterprise, and a man would be very indiscreet, according to the hon. member for St. John, who bought Canadian Pacific Bailway stock before he had first gone through a book of perhaps a hundred pages to ascertain the financial standing of every other stockholder in the Canadian Pacific railway.


William Pugsley: In this case there are only two stockholders.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member says this case is different because there are only two stockholders. Of what importance is their financial standing to us except as to their ability to run the road? In the case of the Canadian Northern agreement, which the hon. member ratified, did he expose to Parliament every asset- and every liability of the company? He never thought of it. Was not their ability to run the road of importance to him then the same as it is now? I submit that were it not for the source of this argument and the candid character of the hon. gentlman who presents it, it would be impossible for us to believe he was sincere.


William Pugsley: There is only one conclusion to be drawn from the position of the hon. gentleman and the Government a d that is they know perfectly well that if they exposed the actual financial condition of Mackenzie, Mann and Company, Limited, it would convince the people of this country, if it did not convince this House, that it is a crime against the people of Canada not to demand that these gentlemen stand behind this guarantee and pledge their assets as security against this enormous liability of $45,000,000.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 22:
That upon the happening of any event of default and at any time or times while the same shall continue, it shall be lawful for the Governor in Council after such notice to the Canadian Northern as the Governor in Council may direct, to declare to be vacant the offices of the directors of the Canadian Northern and, of any of the constituent or Subsidiary companies which may be subject to the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, and to appoint a board or boards of directors in lieu thereof respectively (any former director being eligible for appointment).
(a)	The power of appointment herein conferred upon the Governor In Council shall be a continuous power and shall be exercisable from time to time and so often as any event of default may exist and be continuing.
William John Macdonald: Has the Solicitor
General considered the objections which were urged by his colleague, the member for Calgary, in regard to the inadequacy of these provisions in the event of default?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
refers to the objection to a subsequent clause which provides that the Parliament of Canada may exercise the power of foreclosure. The power provided by this clause is perhaps correctly described as the power of going into possession as a receiver. The point raised by the hon. gentleman might perhaps be better discussed on a subsequent clause.


William John Macdonald: If that is a correct
statement of the effect of this section, it involves that the gentlemen who are appointed as directors by Parliament will come on the resources of the country for the purpose of running the road during the time they are in control.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say that at all.


William John Macdonald: If the legal effect of section 22 is to create a receivership, the receiver cannot operate the railway or anything else without funds. If my hon. friend
calls this a receivership which gives the Government power to appoint directors, he must also agree that this section commits Parliament to the money that may be expended by those directors while they are in possession, and up to the time they come to Parliament.


Arthur Meighen: The words I used were
merely by way of analogy. This is not the foreclosure clause. This is the clause that one might describe although perhaps not with the full legal effect, as the receivership clause. If we go into possession by the appointment of directors under this receivership clause, our obligations and responsibilities aTe no greater than if we go into possession under a subrogation clause which is the only remedy provided by the late Government in similar mortgages. This clause simply provides another method of going into possession.


Mr MACDONALD:: My hon. friend agrees that it commits the country to financing the railway while its directors are in possession.


Arthur Meighen: It does not commit the country to any greater extent or in any different sense than the country would be committed if it exercised the poweT of going into possession that is provided1 in the Canadian Northern Bill of 1911 or in the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 24:
That if authorized by the Parliament of Canada, the Governor in Council may on such terms and conditions (if any) as Parliament may prescribe, at any time while any event of default shall exist and be continuing, by order declare the equity of redemption of the Canadian Northern and of all persons claiming under them in the mortgaged premises to be foreclosed, and thereupon the equity of redemption of the Canadian Northern (and of such other persons) in the mortgaged premises and every part thereof shall be and become absolutely barred and foreclosed, and the same shall thereupon be vested in lis Majesty in right of the Dominion of Canada, any statutory enactment or any rule of law or equity to the contrary notwithstanding.
William John Macdonald: I assume that this
clause does not make it obligatory on the Government to suibmit some remedy, by way of foreclosure or otherwise, at the first session of Parliament after default; it seems to me it should be the duty of the Government of the day to do that.


Arthur Meighen: Before coming to the
point raised by the hon. member for Pictou, I may say that this is the clause in respect of which consideration might be given to

the suggestion, offered by the ho-n. member a few moments ago to the effect that the power of foreclosure and taking permanent possession of the road by the people of Canada should :be automatic. From the remarks that fell from the hon. member for Pictou just now I apprehend that he himself does not give much consideration to such a suggestion.


Mr MACDONALD:: My hon. friend has no right to draw that inference. I was only pointing out that the effect of this clause would be to suspend action indefinitely.


Arthur Meighen: I was simply drawing that inference from my general estimate of the good judgment of the hon. member for Pictou, and also I think I am safe in saying that the hon. member for St. John pays no attention to such a suggestion, because, in his speech the other day, he said that, in any event, a future parliament should not be bound now to take over the property whether they wanted to or not, but that it should be left optional for Parliament to act in the premises as Parliament should deem wise. That appeals to me as so self-evident that further expatiation upon it is only a waste of time. Coming to the point which is raised by the hon. gentleman that Parliament should be compelled to act in the following session-


William John Macdonald: That the Governor in Council should submit to Parliament.


Arthur Meighen: It is Parliament that * must act.


William John Macdonald: It can only do so on the initiative of the Governor in Council.


Arthur Meighen: No, the Governor in Council may only do so on the initiative of Parliament. This is really the way it reads:
That if authorized by the Parliament of Canada, the Governor in Council may on such terms and conditions (if any) as Parliament may prescribe, at any time while any event of default shall exist and be continuing, by order declare the equity of redemption of the Canadian Northern and of all other persons whomsoever in the mortgaged premises to be foreclosed.
If Parliament prescribes, then the Governor in Council may act.


William John Macdonald: But the Governor in Council must initiate it.


Arthur Meighen: The Government, of course, would bring the legislation to Parliament. Inasmuch as it involves the assumption of a great obligation it could, under the constitution, only come on the initiative of

the Government. I do not think it would be wise to bind Parliament to act the first session. Circumstances might very well be conceived where it would not be in the interest of Parliament to act too rapidly. They might desire to wait until they saw the working out of the operation of the road under new directors and circumstances might also be conceived wherein the Government might think it desirable that they should act even more rapidly than waiting for the regular session, and that they should call a special session of Parliament. I see no reason for binding a future parliament in this respect any more than for binding them under the general terms of the Act.
On clause 25:
That without limiting any of the powers of the board, it is declared that every board so appointed by the Governor in Council shall with the approval of the Governor in Council have power from time to time, in such way and on such terms and conditions as may be thought expedient,-
(a)	To create and issue securities and to secure the same by mortgages or charges under trust deeds or otherwise and to raise money thereon by sale, pledge or otherwise;
(b)	To make arrangements and agreements with any of the companies then comprised in the Canadian Northern system and with the trustees under any mortgage, charge or trust deed securing any securities issued by any such company respecting such security or the moneys payable thereunder or the terms of any such mortgage, charge or trust deed;
(c)	To make arrangements and agreements respecting their claims with creditors of the Canadian Northern or any company then comprised in the Canadian Northern system ;
(d)	Subject to all securities forming a charge upon the Canadian Northern system or any part thereof and to the terms of any trust deeds securing the same, to make from time to time, with or without consideration, with any corporation or corporations incorporated by the Parliament of Canada for the purpose, having the necessary powers in that behalf, any arrangement or agreement for the operation or for the leasing or for the sale or transfer of the Canadian Northern system or any part or parts thereof, and the undertakings, assets, rights, franchises and powers thereof or any part or parts thereof, or for the sale or transfer with or without consideration pf any equity or redemption therein, and every such board shall have power to carry every such arrangement and agreement into effect;
(e)	Generally to do all such acts and things as the Governor in Council may deem requisite in connection with or with the operation of the Canadian Northern and of the Canadian Northern system or any part thereof or with any outstanding securities or the trust deeds securing them, or with holders of securities or creditors or in connection with any re-organizations or changes, financial or otherwise, with respect to the Canadian Northern or the Canadian Northen system or any part thereof, or in connection with the sale or loreclosure or other proceedings in court or otherwise or with the

carrying out of the provisions of this section according to its true intent and meaning.


William John Macdonald: The powers given
under subsection a of section 25, while some of them may be adequate, are very wide, (and :we are making the -country responsible for the payment of securities that may be issued by these directors and giving to the Governor in Council, under a 'blank cheque, the right to eell any' securities that they can dispose of anywhere in the world and to -any amount. There is no limitation whatever.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
seems to emphasize the fact that the Governor in Council has control of the issue of securities here as he has anywhere, although I am not certain that the Governor in Council, in an ordinary case, has control at all. Is the hon. gentleman sure that an ordinary railway company has to come to the Governor in Council for power to issue bonds?


William John Macdonald: This is not a railway company after default; it is the Government operating through a. board of directors.


Arthur Meighen: I know it is, hut I am under the impression, not speaking very decidedly, that a railway company, while it has to come to the Governor in Council for power to issue stock, does not have to come to the Governor in Council for power to issue bonds.


William John Macdonald: Oh, yes.


Arthur Meighen: My impression is that it has not although I would not be too positive on the point. I would like the hon. gentleman to look it up and, if he does, I think he will find that I am right. In this case we are providing that the new directors, although they are the directors sf the Government, shall not issue any securities, even for the purposes of the road, unless the issue of the securities has the authorization of the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council has full control and will see to it that no issue is made beyond what is required for the legitimate purposes of the company.


William John Macdonald: That is quite true, but my hon. friend forgets that the Governor in Council is coming to Parliament now and asking permission to issue $45,000,000 while by this blanket authority we are giving by subsection a, the Governor in Council can issue securities to
any amount he wants to when these conditions arise without coming to Parliament at all. We are embarking upon the proposition of advancing $45,000,000 to these men who are now controlling this company. We are also embarking upon a proposition which involves the country, when default has arisen, in a liability to which there is no limitation except what the Government may choose to impose.


Arthur Meighen: The company comes to Parliament now not for authority to issue bonds but for the guarantee of this country on the bonds. That, of course, is essential. In the other case our directors are in control of the road, running the road, and an issne of bonds secured on the road in that case would not bind the Government but it would simply bind the road.


William John Macdonald: My hon. friend would certainly be creating a very nice condition if these securities that were created by a board appointed by this Government were not securities that this country ultimately would have to pay. The good faith of this country would he absolutely and completely bound up with the action of a board which had been appointed by the Government of the day and, no matter what technicality my hon. friend may resort to for the purpose of enabling him to use the argument, ultimately the extent of the liability would be just as great as the Government of the day chose to make it without having to come to Parliament to ratify it.


Arthur Meighen: There is no liability on be country whatsoever:


William John Macdonald: Does my hon. friend mean to say that the country could assume the consequences of the bad faith which would arise if they failed to stand behind its directorate?


Arthur Meighen: It would be for the
Parliament of the day to decide whether it would or not, but as far as the. obligation goes, there would be no obligation resting on Parliament or the country.


William John Macdonald: What has Parliament to do with this particular section? By subsection a of section 25 the directors appointed by the Government, once default has arisen, are empowered to create an issue of securities subject only to the ratification of the Governor in Council and not of Parliament. They do not have to come back to Parliament for authority.


Arthur Meighen: What I say is that the question as to whether the country would assume liability for bonds and securities so issued by these directors would be a question for the Parliament of the day to decide. There would be no obligation by virtue of this section on the Parliament of that day to decide that the country was liable for the amount of these securities.


William John Macdonald: We are simply giving a blank cheque to the Governor in Council, on default arising, to do and spend what they like.


Arthur Meighen: On the security of the
road.


William John Macdonald: And Government
security too.


Frank Oliver: Subsection d of section 25 provides for the ultimate disposal of the railway system on default, and my objection to it is that this Parliament sitting to-day gives authority to a board to be created, to dispose of the system piecemeal. I am aware that the subsection contains a provision that this disposal shall be to a corporation to be created by a future parliament. It is not to my mind a satisfactory condition. Tnis is the Parliament that is providing for the guarantee, for the security, and for the conditions of default, and to my mind this is the Parliament that should provide for the ultimate disposal of the system in case of default. I am particularly interested in this feature of the case because of the branch lines of the West. In discussing this same subject with the Prime Minister on Wednesday, he assured me that, of course, it would be the intention of the Government to protect all interests that were involved in the system. I said to him then: if you will put such a provision in the resolutions, that will be satisfactory. But he not only has not done so, but to-day we are passing this section which specifically contemplates the breaking up of the system into as many pieces as may be thought suitable at the time, without any protection to those who have made themselves responsible for the financing of this system. I notice the same idea running through the communication addressed by the Prime Minister of British Columbia to the right hon. gentleman, as read in the House last night. That idea is, that this Government, having become responsible for the system should properly become responsible for the system in case of default, protecting the legitimate interests therein concerned and which are 
entitled to the protection of this House at this time. The Government of Alberta lias agreed to guarantee the bonds of the Canadian Northern and Canadian Northern Western to the extent of $21,000,000, which is a stupendous responsibility to be assumed by that province. This responsibility has been assumed by the province absolutely in the interest of the Dominion at large, and not in the interest of the provincial government, simply considered as a provincial government and considering its responsibilities as such. There was necessity for the construction of the lines that have been constructed; there is necessity for the consti lotion of the lines which are contemplated, a necessity first of all to the settlement of the country and next to the prosperity of the people who are settled there. In doing that work the provincial government did work that was national in its character and assumed a responsibility that was for the country at large. We are not asking to be relieved from that responsibility, but when this Government undertakes to assume dominant control of the whole system and becomes a partner in the enterprise, we do say that it should declare its intention and bind itself according to that declaration so that the interests of the provinces would be properly protected. Instead of that, 1 find by this section that the interests of the provinces are absolutely ignored and that it is contemplated by this Parliament that on a future occasion, default having occurred, the system may be broken up into parts. The lines which have been guaran-i teed by the provinces may be left as independent sections of transportation, under which circumstances they could not possibly be expected to meet the liabilities the provinces have guaranteed in respect of them. That is not a right provision; it i9 not a fair provision, and it is not by any means good enough to say that the parliament of a future day can take care of that situation.
We are laying heavy responsibilities upon the people of Canada; we are imposing certain conditions; we are taking dominant authority in regard to these railroads, and here and now we ought to protect the interests that are concerned, by, at any rate, saying that the Canadian Northern system shall remain a system of transportation as it was when these guarantees were given by the provinces, or, the Dominion Government should become re-

sponsible for those guarantees. That is the idea that is expressed in the telegram of the Premier of British Columbia, and I maintain it is an absolutely correct idea. In case of default, maintain the system as a separate system, give transportation and competition and allow the branches their share in the business and earnings of the system, and then the provinces have no complaint. But if you take to yourself! the right to break that system up in case of default, you should take measures to protect the interests of the provinces by assuming the guarantees they have given.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think my hon. friend is advancing any such idea as is advanced by the Prime Minister of British Columbia; because, if I remember the correspondence correctly, the suggestion was that, because this road was made effectively a part of a great transcontinental system, the Dominion Government should take over the guarantees of the province,


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: That is just the converse of what the hon. gentleman suggests. These roads in Saskatchewan and Alberta to which he alludes are roads designed to serve the neighbourhoods which they traverse and to act as feeders of the Canadian Northern Railway system. They could not be put to any very useful purpose as business enterprises unless they were used as feeders to the Canadian Northern railway. Therefore, I agree with my hon. friend's suggestion from a business standpoint that it is better to keep them as part of the system, and I have no doubt that under any eventualities that course will be adopted. But it might foe possible and practicable, and desirable, that that should be accomplished through two different companies. For example, we have the Grand Trunk Pacific Company and we have the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company. They are two different corporations, but they are part of one system. It would be impracticable, I think, to make any amendment which would cover in the manner in which my hon. friend suggests the purpose which he has in view and with which I entirely agree. No Government would undertake to deal with this system in such a way as to hinder or prejudice the operation of these branch lines and feeders of the Canadian Northern Railway system and which serve the purposes of so many different communities. At the same time, I do not see that that could be provided for in advance. Further, as my hon. friend the
Solicitor General has pointed out, the only company to which any such lines could be transferred would be a company incorporated by the Parliament of Canada for that purpose. When any such proposal is placed before Parliament, if safeguards were desirable and necessary, they could be provided.


Frank Oliver: At the risk of being wearysome and of repeating what has already been said, may I go over again the view I laid before the House in this connection on Wednesday last. The fact that there is no assurance in this legislation-this legislation which takes Dominion control of these roads-that these branches will be maintained as part of the system, in the first place militates against the willingness of the provincial government to provide for their further extension, and, in the next place, militates againsit the railway company being able to secure additional funds in order to complete these necessary extensions. It is for that reason as well as for others, but for that reason especially, that it is necessary that in this legislation we should provide as to what shall be done. To again repeat myself: There is necessity for the extension of two of these lines running northeast and northwest of Edmonton, that necessity arising because of presenit actual settlement on the ground. The northeasterly line requires to be run nearly one hundred miles further than is provided for before it reaches the provincial boundary. The country is entirely settled along the north bank of the Saskatchewan river, and there are settlers there who are from fifty to one hundred miles away from railway communication at the present time, and with the Saskatchewan river intervening between them and the railway. If these people are to prosper, and if that part of the country is to progress, an extension of the railway must be provided to run one hundred miles further northeasterly from Edmonton, and it has been at a standstill for about two years. Somebody must find the money for that if it is to be done. If this Government is not to do it, the provincial Government must be expected to find the money in conjunction with the railway company. But, unless the status of that branch under all eventualities is fixed, the province will not be willing and the railway company will not be able to raise the money for the extension. A similar condition exists in regard to the northwesterly line. Provision had been

made for the construction of one hundred miles. That is practically at a standstill also. But beyond the end of this hundred miles there is a distance of two hundred miles intervening before the settlement on Grande Prairie is 4 p.m. reached. That settlement must have railway communication or it cannot stay there-at least it cannot stay there and prosper. There is an immense area of country in the Peace River district which would be affected by this road which can only be opened up and made available for settlement by the extension of this or a similar road. By this legislation as I see it, we debar the provincial Government from willingness to provide the guarantees necessary for the construction and we absolutely debar the railway company from securing the money. And yet this Government is not taking upon itself the responsibility. All I am asking at the moment is, let this Government either take the responsibility itself or let it here and now guarantee the present position of these branches in connection with the whole system for the future.


Robert Laird Borden: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to want these lines left out of the system altogether ?


Frank Oliver: No, I want them kept in the system altogether. T am objecting to this provision because it contemplates the possibility of letting them out. I want a provision that will guarantee that this system shall remain a system in ease of default by the company, whereas this section provides that it may be broken up into a number of parts to the absolute detriment of these branches. My right hon. friend says that probably the Government of a future day will not break it up. Probably they will not, but that is not a sufficient guarantee to the men who are to be asked to put their money into a railway enterprise. When we have absolutely contemplated in our legislation the possibility of breaking up the system into a number of parts, I take it, men of money who are asked to invest or the provincial Government that is called upon to guarantee will hesitate and will be disinclined to make the provision necessary for this system.


Robert Laird Borden: Is not the situation safeguarded by the fact that it must be a company incorporated by Parliament for the purpose ? They have to come to Parliament before it can be done.


Frank Oliver: I am quite aware of that, but it is a parliament of the future, and

no man can tell what a parliament of the future will do.


William Findlay Maclean: And you cannot bind a parliament of the future.


Frank Oliver: But you can bind this Parliament. You can make a binding arrangement to-day that will hold out to all parties concerned the fact that the intention of this Government and Parliament is to maintain this as a single railway system. But you hold out in this legislation plainly that it is not the intention to maintain :t as a single system.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend should
remember that a future Parliament may say: it was not the intention of Parliament to do that, but it ought to have done it and we are going to correct the mistake. If we strike out now the words to which my hon. friend objects, it will be perfectly open to any future parliament to put them in.


Frank Oliver: I am quite aware of that.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the situation is absolutely safeguarded by the fact that before that to which my hon. friend refers can be done, Parliament must be consulted. If we leave these words out now, another Parliament may put them in; that places the matter under the control of the future parliament. Similarly, when the proposition to incorporate a company for this purpose is placed before a future Parliament, the whole question will be open: that parliament will not be bound, any more than in the case already suggested, to follow the view which may impress the Parliament of to-day.


Frank Oliver: This agreement, being
made to-day, should specifically provide what shall be done in case of the winding up of the company; it should not be left a matter for the consideration of a future Parliament. Having made certain advances, having given certain guarantees and found certain conditions existing, this Parliament should say what shall be done in case of default. This Parliament is saying that in case of default a future parliament may do as it pleases; this Parliament has no opinion on the subject. I maintain that the Parliament of to-day that is dealing with this question is the Parliament that should have an opinion. They should say under what circumstances a foreclosure shall take place and particularly

should say that that foreclosure shalll take place by the maintaining of the Canadian Northern Railway system as a separate and continuous and competitive system. They should not, on the face of the statute, hold out the suggestion that once default occurs the system may be broken up into a number of parts and the value of the branches be thereby destroyed. To my mind this is a most damaging provision. It ie not necessary. Their provisions may be made that will properly safeguard the interests of the provinces and maintain the enterprise as a united system. I would be doing much less than my duty here and now if I did not urge with all the strength of which I am capable the desirability of making siuch an amendment to these resolutions as will make that provision.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
contemplates this position. The Canadian Northern Western is to-day a provincial company and is in no way bound up with the Canadian Northern Tailway in so far as any binding mutual contract is concerned. By this legislation we do bind them together as part of one system. By the provisions for putting the directors in control, we empower those directors, if they deem it in the interests of the road, to sell, with the authority of the Parliament of Canada only, the whole or part to such a company as may be incorporated by Parliament for the purpose. Now, my hon friend says, in that way you empower the future parliament to undo the work you are doing now. He must remember that at present the Canadian Northern Western is in just the situation that he fears it may be in in the future. I acknowledge with sincere appreciation the compliment the hon. gentleman pays to the legislation which we now propose. He says that by the very union of the Canadian Northern Western, with the rest of the system, we are doing a real service to the Canadian Northern Western, to the guarantors of that road and to the people served by it. He says: so much are you doing for it and such will be the advantage to that road that I want you here and now to provide that no future parliament shall ever undo the good you are doing to-day. That is the only abjection the hon. member makes. No sale of part of the Canadian Northern Western can be made, on account of the bond issue being against it all. I can see that possibly in the future, should this road come into our hands, the sale of the Canadian Northern Western and the severance of it from the main
system might possibly be an injury to the Canadian Northern Western, to the bondholders and to the guarantors, the province of Alberta. But I do not see why we should attempt in this or in any other respect to tie the hands of a future parliament in that regard. Surely we should say that a future parliament shall be entitled to make its own mistakes. I do not think the hon. member will get the support of hon. gentlemen around him in his contention. We can scarcely conceive of a future parliament taking such action, to the detriment of a province, to the detriment of the road and against the public interest; I cannot see why this Parliament should attempt to tie the hands of a parliament ten or fifteen years hence if, perhaps under altered circumstances, they might desire to do that. In any case, it would be merely undoing what the hon. gentleman asserts to be the very good legislation which we are now putting into effect; it would be taking away from the Canadian Northern Western the benefits we give them by this legislation. All I desire to say is this: it is well to provide that if the parliament of the future finds an instance where they may sell a portion of the road to advantage and without detriment to the public or to the road, they should have the power to do so. That is all we do. I do not believe that a future parliament, any more than this, will do so if it is not for the advantage of the road and in the public interest.


Frank Oliver: The point I see in this
legislation is that in what is euphemistically called the public interest, the interest of a large section of the public is ignored. The interests I want protected are the interests of the provinces, who are the public who are directly interested in this matter.
Progress reported.


THE ROYAL ASSENT.
[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Ernest John Chambers, Esquire, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr, Speaker, His Honour the Deputy of ii is Royal Highness the Governor General desires the immediate presence of this honourable body in the Chamber of the honourable (the Senate.
Accordingly the House went up to the Senate.
And the House being returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that His Honour the Deputy to His Royal High-
[Stage Direction]
ness the Governor General had been pleased to give, in His Majesty's name, the Royal assent to the following Bills:
An Act respecting the Patent of the National Wood Distilling Company.
An Act respecting the Bronson Company.
An Act to amend the Volunteer Bounty Act, 1908, and amending Acts.
An Act respecting the Harbour of North Sydney in Nova Scotia.
An Act to amend the Civil Service Insurance Act.
An Act to incorporate the Peace River Tramway and Navigation Company.
An Act respecting the Continental Fire Insurance Company of Canada.
An Act respecting the Manitoba and North Western Railway Company of Canada.
An Act respecting the Alberta Central Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Central Ontario Railway.
An Act to incorporate the Algonquin Railway Company.
An Act respecting the London and Lake Erie Railway and Transportation Company.
An Act respecting the Hign River Saskatchewan and Hudson Bay Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Kettle Valley Railway Company.
An Act for the relief of Gertrude Carmen Birks.
An Act for the relief of Rose Ethel Freedman.
An Act for the relief of Ella Rose Morris.
An Act for the relief of Alicia Hill.
An Act for the relief of Eliza Jane McLaughlin.
An Act for the relief of Lenore Power.
An Act for the relief of Walter James Lis-combe.
An Act for the relief of George Fullerton Forsythe.
An Act respecting the Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the United Empire Loyalists' Association of Canada.
An Act to incorporate Les Soeurs de la Charity do I'Hopital Saint-Antoine de le Pas.
An Act to incorporate the Atlin Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Erie, London and Till-sonburg Railway Company.
An Act respecting the London and Port Stanley Railway Company.
An Act respecting Interurban Company, Limited, and to change its name to 'Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo Telephone Company.'
An Act to incorporate the Sudbury, Kepawa and Bell River Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the South Ontario Pacific Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Northern Territorial Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Patent of Auto Wheels, Limited.
An Act to incorporate the Canadian Press Association.
An Act for the relief of Ethel Cora Robinson.
An Act respecting certain patents of Thomas Leopold Willson.
An Act for the relief of Johann Andreas Horn.
An Act for the relief of Henry Elmer Bick-nell.

An Act for the relief of George Gracie Smith.
An Act for the relief of Harry Cracroft Pugh.
An Act for the relief of Charles Low Hutcheon.
An Act for the relief of Jessie Eleanor Grassett Parkhurst.
An Act for the relief of William Godfrey Thorp.
An Act respecting the Sterling Life Assurance Company of Canada.	,
An Act respecting the Montreal and Lake Victoria Railway Company:
An Act to incorporate the National Council of Women of Canada.
An Act respecting a patent of John Roger Arnoldi.
An Act respecting Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited.
An Act respecting Brazilian Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited.
An Act respecting the Empire Life Insurance Company.
An Act respecting the Rainy River Radial Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada and the Canada Atlantic Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Pacific, Trans-Canada and Hudson Bay Railway Company.
An Act to amend an Act to incorporate the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners.
An Act to incorporate the Erie and Ontario Railway Company.
An Act respecting the University of Saskatchewan, and to change its name to ' University of Emmanuel College.'
An Act respecting a certain patent of Rudolf Goldschmidt.
An Act respecting Britisn America Nickel Corporation, Limited.
An Act respecting the Premier Life Insurance Company.
An Act to incorporate the Bruce Peninsula Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Prince Edward and Hastings Railway Company.
An Act to amend the Government Railway Small Claims Act.
An Act to amend the Inspection and Sale Act.
Ati Act for the relief of Bertha H6tu.
An Act for the relief of Elizabeth ChaussA
An Act for the relief of Beatrice Mae Stinson Fotheringham.
An Act for the relief of Eva Jane Bateman.
An Act for the relief of Florence Relf.
An Act to incorporate the Cornwall and Hawkesbury Railway Company of Canada.
An Act to incorporate the North American Accident Insurance Company.
An Act to incorporate the Prudential Life of Canada.
An Act to amend the law relating to Merchant Shipping with a view to enable certain conventions to be carried into effect.
An Act to consolidate and amend the Acts respecting Fisheries and Fishing.
An Act to prohibit the manufacture, importation and sale of matches, made with White Phosphorus.
An Act respecting the Western Life Assurance Company.
An Act respecting the Western Dominion Railway Company and the Alberta Pacific Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Farnham and Granby Railway Company of Canada.

An Act respecting the Berlin, Waterloo, Wellesley and Lake Huron Railway Company, and to change its name to ' the Grand River Railway Company.
An Act to Regulate the Manufacture and Sale of Dairy Products and to Prohibit the Manufacture or Sale of Butter Substitutes.
An Act respecting the Fredericton and Grand Lake Coal and Railway Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
An Act respecting Saskatoon and Hudson Bay Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Toronto Terminals Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Saskatchewan Central Railway Company.
An Act respecting W. C. Edwards and Co., Limited.
An Act to provide for the payment of a yearly allowance to Mrs. Alice Joynson, widow of the late J. H. Joynson, a guard' in the British Columbia Penitentiary.
An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act.
An Act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on resolutions respecting the Canadian Northern railway, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Frank Oliver: I was commenting on the claim made toy the Solicitor General that I had said that the present legislation was putting the province of Alberta in a better position in regard to provincial guarantees of Canadian western railway lines than it would be without this legislation. I am sorry if he misunderstood me; I had no intention of expressing any such idea, and more than that I do not think such an expression would be correct. At the present time, as a business matter, the Government of Alberta is guaranteeing certain branch lines of the Canadian Northern. The province of Alberta is perfectly satisfied with the present conditions and the Canadian Northern, so far as I am aware, is satisfied with its relationship to the province of Alberta. Neither the Government of Alberta nor the Canadian Northern are asking for any legislation in that connection, and my opinion is that the position of the Government of Alberta is not bettered by this legislation. The lines of the Canadian Western are branches of the Canadian Northern lines. They are not a single system; they may be in law, but physically they are not. They leave the Canadian Northern lines at different points, they have no central terminals, and they can only exist as transportation enterprises in connection with the Canadian Northern system. Then, so long as the Canadian Northern system and the agreement between the Canadian Northern and the province of Alberta exist, the interests of the provinces are	efficiently	and sufficiently protectedwithout any such legislation as is proposed here. My hon. friend and the Prime Minister say that this legislation is not injurious and does not prejudice future action by future parliaments. If there is no prejudice and if we are to depend absolutely on a future parliament for whatever action is to be taken in this connection, then there would be no objection to striking out	this	provision altogether and	leaving the question of dealing with the railway company to a future parliament entirely.	But	the Government	doesnot	do	that.	They contemplate	and
make provision for certain action, which it is true is in a measure subject to certain action by a future parliament, but as that future parliament will consider the intent of _this_ Parliament when it passed this legislation, that will be prejudicial to the credit of this Canadian Western enterprise as regards its completion and further extension. In regard to the point I was making, I maintain that it is not only usual and right, but is quite customary and almost invariably the rule that, when such an arrangement as this is made, provision is made right in the face of the document for what shall take place in case of default. It is a well understood principle that those who take the responsibility of pledging their credit and financing an enterprise should have in mind what would be the result in case of default, and it should be shown on the face of the document.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think that is the case. For example, take the Halifax and Southwestern railway in Nova Scotia. It is not physically connected with the rest of the system, except in so far as it is connected with the Intercolonial railway and the Intercolonial railway is connected with the rest of the system. Under the provisions provided here, it might be advisable that the road should pass into other hands and become part of the Intercolonial, or some other disposition be made of it.' I do not see how you can provide for all these things in advanoe, and I think my hon. friend is sufficiently safeguarded by the fact that Parliament must consider the proposition before it is carried out. You cannot make anything permanent here in the sense of so fixing it that it cannot be
4324	[DOT]


Frank Oliver: What is the purpose of this section?


Arthur Meighen: It defines the future conduct of affairs in connection with the road in case of default. It is just in the nature of the powers that are given to a mortgagee in a mortgage. He is given various powers to sell in whole or in part. This provision is analogous to that. The hon. gentleman must admit that all a future parliament could do under this clause is simply to put back the Canadian Western where it is now.


Frank Oliver: Leave it where it is now.


Arthur Meighen: It is a separate company now, but it has physical connection with the Canadian Northern. If the clause were exercised and the sale made of a company incorporated by Parliament for the purposes of the Canadian Northern AVest-ern, it would revert back and become a separate entity just as it is to-day so that if we are not doing any good now to join the Canadian Northern Western we cannot do any harm afterwards by putting it back where it is now. The reasoning does seem to me to be insuperable. I do not contemplate that anything of the sort could be done. It would appear to me that the likelier case, if any case can be said to be likely at all, would be such an instance as the Prime Minister has just mentioned. I think that the hon. gentleman's fears are groundless and I think also that, even if they were well grounded, we would not be justified in binding the hands of a future parliament.


Frank Oliver: I still say that, if the
section is as I understand it, it is injurious, and that, if it is as my hon. friend understands it, it is not necessary. If default takes place the company comes under the control of this board. It is not necessary that this Parliament should direct this board as to what it should do with this road. Let this Parliament leave the matter there and let the board retain control until a future parliament decides what disposition shall be made. A possibility is being held out that I claim is damaging to the credit of the enterprise looking at it
from the provincial point of view.
*


Arthur Meighen: We are not adding to the power of a future parliament constitutionally, but we are putting it in the power 
of a future parliament, aside altogether from any previous contractual obligation, to do this act. The purpose is to strip the present shareholders, or the then shareholders, of the power to interfere on the ground of equity or on any other ground.


Frank Oliver: It is not necessary to say then that this board shall have the power to break up the system.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, it is to disarm the shareholders.


Frank Oliver: I cannot possibly understand why the English language cannot be used in some other way than that so that the board can exercise its authority, control the system and wind up its affairs without being given authority by this section to dispose of the different elements of the system. If you have to wait for action by a future parliament let the matter rest until the future parliament is on the ground to take action. Let this legislation strip the shareholders and other interested parties of any authority that you please, centre all authority in the board, as you intend to do, but leave it there until some future parliament shall decide what is to be done if you are not prepared now to say what the future parliament ought to do or if you do not intend to make provision yourself. At any rate, leave it to a future parliament without the suggestion that there is a possibility, or probability, in your mind of breaking this system up


Robert Laird Borden: I assure my hon. friend that as far as I understand his proposition, the effect of what he asks for is really embodied in this provision as it is at present.
Sections 26, 27 and 28 agreed to.
On section 29:
That the Governor in Council may at the request of the Canadian Northern out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund pay all or any portion of the first six half yearly payments of interest on the guaranteed securities falling due after the opening for traffic as part of the Canadian Northern system of the through line from Vancouver to the city of Quebec, hut in such case the Governor in Council shall not enforce the repayment thereof against the Canadian Northern under the new trust deed until the maturity of the principal of the guaranteed securities. The Canadian Northern shall however pending the repayment of interest so paid by the Governor in Council pay to His Majesty half-yearly interest on such interest at the rate of four per cent per anu-num, and such interest upon interest until so paid, shall form a charge upon the mortgaged premises under the new trust deed.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The substance of this
section, as I understand it, is that we agree

to pay the first six half-yearly instalments of interest after the road has been- completed and opened for traffic. It will be a year, or possibly two years, before the road is completed and open for traffic. Who pays the interest, and what will the result be if the interest is not paid, from the present down to the opening of the road for traffic?
Mr. MEIG-HEN:	The practice is to pay
the interest on the bonds of the road -during construction out of -capital.
Mr. OAKV'ELL: The answer then is that it is the intention that the bonds on the road shall be paid out of capital until such time -as we commence to pay the three years' interest?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, in so far as the
part of the road under construction is concerned.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What .about the interest on the portion of the road that is already completed? Would my hon. friend say that that would be one of the conditions upon which default might be made when we coulld take possession as mortgagees, and, if so, what would happen? Take the Canadian Northern, system which is -completed from Port Arthur to Edmonton; what would happen in case of default?
Mr, MEIGHEN: If default is made previous to the commencement of the three years we, of -course, could act upon that default; tout what I suggest to hon. gentlemen- is that default is a remote, if not -an impossible, -contingency at any time in respect of -the securities any way because the proceeds of these securities go into construction and consequently out of them the interest would be paid until that construction is complete. If default were made prior to completion in respect to any of the other bonds, for instance; the $312,000,000 now out, that would be a default under this agreement and we could act upon it.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: After three years?


Arthur Meighen: No, at any time.
Section 29 agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
On .schedule 3:


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Is there any truth in the rumour that the trusteeship may go to the National Trust Company?


Robert Laird Borden: There has been no selection made of any trust company; the subject, so far as I am aware, has not been considered.


Rodolphe Lemieux: By whom is the selection to be made?


Robert Laird Borden: By the Government.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The rumoured selection of the National Trust Company has been somewhat criticised, because of the statement that the National Trust is more or less of an adjunct of the Canadian Northern railway, but of course the right hon. gentleman says he has not yet considered the subject.
On schedule 3, section 6, subsection a:
The Canadian Northern and the constituent and subsidiary companies severally agree with the Government as follows:
(a) That at all times hereafter all freight originating on the lines of the Canadian Northern or on the lines of any of the constituent companies, or on any line or lines of railway now or hereafter owned, leased or operated by the Canadian Northern or by any of the constituent or subsidiary companies, their successors or assigns, shall, when destined to points in Canada, be carried over the lines of the Canadian Northern or of the constituent companies or over some other Canadian railway or railways (which term shall include the line operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company between Montreal and St. John) and that the through rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall not be greater via Canadian ports than it would be via United States ports ; and that all inward and outward ocean traffic shall be carried to Canadian ports, and that the Cana-, dian Northern and the several constituent and subsidiary companies shall not in any matter within their power or control directly or indirectly advise or encourage the transportation of any such freight by routes other than those above provided, but shall in all respects in good faith use their utmost endeavours to further the development of trade through Canadian channels and Canadian ports.


William Pugsley: I would ask the Prime Minister whether it is intended by this clause to compel the company to disregard the instruction of shippers. That is: Suppose, in the case of outward bound transatlantic traffic, the shipper wanted to send by the Canadian Northern railway, routing via Montreal and Grand Trunk railway to Portland, is it intended that this shall prevent the company from acting upon the directions of the shipper? If so how can that- be enforced?


Robert Laird Borden: Why?


William Pugsley: Suppose a shipper in
Winnipeg sends twenty carloads of grain, directing the Canadian Northern railway


Robert Laird Borden: The agreement provides that-
-when destined to points in Canada, he carried over the lines of the Canadian Northern Railway or of the constituent companies-


William Pugsley: That is all right.


Robert Laird Borden: -and that the through rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall not be greater via a Canadian port than it would be via an American port.


William Pugsley: That is all right.


Robert Laird Borden: -and that all inward and outward traffic shall be carried to Canadian ports.
And my hon. friend asks ?


William Pugsley: It has been stated in the newspapers, .and a strong point is made in favour of this (Bill, that all traffic originating on the Canadian Northern railway or subsidiary lines, if destined for shipment across the ocean, muet he carried by the Canadian Northern railway to a Canadian port. And the same with inward traffic for points in Canada, if it is to pass over the Canadian Northern railway it must come through a Canadian port. It is stated that that is a much better arrangement for the country than was made by the late Government in the case of the Grand Trunk Pacific. The right hon. gentleman will remember that in that contract it was provided that all traffic ' unless otherwise routed by the shipper ' should be carried by the Grand Trunk Pacific to Canadian ports. He will observe the difference sought to be made. I want to know whether it was intended that this section shall be strong enough to compel the company to disregard the routing by the shipper and to carry all this traffic, both in-bound and out-bound to Canadian ports irrespective of the direction that may be given by the shipper.


Robert Laird Borden: I think this is a very mucli more effective provision than the other for the reason that, as I understand the practice, in ninety-nine per cent of the cases -or at least in a very large percentage of the cases the shipper does not pay any attention to the routing, but hands the goods over to the company to be carried

to the point of destination. Therefore, this provision is as effective, and more effective than the other. My hon. friend means to inquire whether this provision will override the ordinary rights of the shipper to fix the points of destination. I do not think that question would arise for the reason that the company is not bound under our Railway Act, so far as I am aware, to reach a point in the United States.


William Pugsley: But does not the Prime Minister see that in the case of traffic over the Grand Trunk Pacific, if the shipper pays no attention to the routing the agreement has effect, because that agreement says that the company shall be bound to carry all out-bound traffic to a Canadian port unless otherwise routed by the shipper? But the argument has been made, and now my right hon. friend himself says that this section is more effective. I am not able to see that. This is what I want to know: Suppose a shipper in Winnipeg wants to send, say, a thousand barrels of flour to Liverpool, and directs that it shall be routed via Montreal and Portland, there to take the steamer for Liverpool-perhaps he may get a lower rate which may induce him to choose that route -is it intended by this clause to prevent the Canadian Northern railway from taking that shipment of flour in accordance with the orders of the shipper?


Robert Laird Borden: So far as the rate is concerned, there is an express provision not only in this statute but in the statute passed in 1903-4 respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific, that the rate via Canadian ports shall not be higher than via American ports. Therefore, the premise he mentions could not exist. As to the other point, I am not aware that there is any obligation upon our railway companies under our Railway Act to carry goods in that way. I mean, I do not know that there is any common law or other right of the shipper in this country to insist upon that. At all events, whether that is the case or not, I say this provision will be effective, because as I understand the methods of shipping, it is left, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, to the railway company itself-and perhaps I am stating it at too low a percentage-


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Does the hon. gentleman mean the proportion of cases of routing by the shipper?


Robert Laird Borden: I say, I am told by shippers that in ninety-nine per cent of the cases they give their goods to the railway

company, stating the destination but leaving the routing to the railway.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Not ninety-nine out of a hundred cases.


Robert Laird Borden: It may not be so in some trades, but in some trades as to which I have information it is stated to me that that would be in effect the percentage.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Very frequently we state definitely how we want the goods routed.


Mr. LALOR:: It depends on the freight rate.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Of course it depends on the freight rate; that governs everything.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think that the
question which my hon. friend raises has any particular import.


William Pugsley: If in 99 oases out of 100, as my right hon. friend says, the shipper pays no attention to routing, is not the Grand Trunk Pacific agreement just as effective as this agreement?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think so.


William Pugsley: Why?


Robert Laird Borden: Because the burden is
cast most distinctly upon the railway company in this case. If it should be possible for the shipper to direct the routing, they make a distinct, specific and absolute engagement that the goods shall be carried over lines in Canada and via Canadian ports. It will be very much more easy to detect any attempt to violate that provision, than it would under the former provision, as I apprehend it


William Pugsley: I do not see why, because in the case of the Grand Trunk Pacific there is an absolute and express obligation to carry all goods for foreign shipment through Canadian ports unless otherwise routed and the obligation would: be on the Grand Trunk Pacific to show that the directions of the shipper were otherwise. I do not think there would be any difference in that respect; what I want to know is whether it is the opinion of my right hon. friend that the effect of this legislation, if it goes through, will be to compel the Canadian Northern Railway Company to carry all traffic originating on its system and destined, we will say, for Liverpool, through Canadian ports and refuse to hand it over to a railway company at Montreal or any other place for the purpose of taking it through an American port, even although 2731
the shipper has ordered it to be taken out via an American port.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not at all convinced that any railway company in this' country is compellable to route traffic in the way my hon. friend suggests. Whether that be the case or not, we have thought it desirable that there should be this absolute and distinct provision that goods shall be carried by Canadian lines and through Canadian ports. The marked difference between this case and the case to which my hon. friend alludes, that of the Grand Trunk Pacific, is this: that in that case there were, in name and in form, two corporations, while there was but one corporation in interest. The Grand Trunk Railway Company, having very large interests in Poruand and controlling absolutely the stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, could, through its canvassers and agents, bring about a specific routing by the shipper which would not otherwise be made. The provision made in that case, therefore, might, and perhaps would, in the end result in absolute disappointment in respect of the expectations which were based upon it.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The first part of this clause says:
That at all times hereafter all freight originating on the lines of the Canadian Northern or on the lines of any of the constituent companies, or on any line or lines of railway now or hereafter owned, leased or operated by the Canadian Northern or by any of the constituent or subsidiary companies, their successors or assigns, shall, when destined to points in Canada, be carried over the lines of the Canadian Northern or over some other Canadian railway or railways.
If I wanted to send articles to someplace in the West where both the American; lines and the Canadian Northern line operated, and my consignee wanted it sent by the Hill lines, the Canadian Northern would lose the freight; there is no doubt about that, because I would send it whichever way my consignee wanted it sent. For that reason I think the Canadian Northern would be out of pocket in respect of this loss of freight. Iln the latter part of the clause it is said that the Canadian Northern and several constituent and subsidiary companies shall not in any manner within their power or control directly or indirectly advise or encourage the transportation of any such freight by routes other than those above provided. That seems reasonable enough, but I think that, under the first part of the clause, you are

putting them in a position where they will lose freight.
iMr. PUGSLEY: It is provided here that *all inward ocean traffic shall be carried to Canadian ports. What does that mean? Does it mean that if inward traffic comes to Portland and goes over the rails to Montreal, destined for points on the Canadian Northern, the 'Canadian Northern shall not be allowed to carry it to its proposed destination because it has not come through a Canadian port? Surely that means that the Canadian Northern is prohibited from carrying any traffic over its lines that has not come through a Canadian port, else how is it to be enforced?


Robert Laird Borden: One of the constituent companies is a steamship company.


William Pugsley: I know it is, but that
steamship line does not carry all the inward ocean freight. There has been so much delay in bringing intt^ effect the provisions of the Act of Parliament passed when the late Government was in power, providing that the British preference should apply only to goods brought direct to Canadian ports, that a good deal of traffic destined for Canadian points goes to Portland. Under this clause, about which there has been so much boasting in this House and in the newspapers, it is provided that all inward ocean freight over the Canadian Northern shall be brought to Canadian ports. Does not that mean that if goods come to Portland destined to points on tne Canadian Northern, the Canadian Northern railway must refuse to receive that freight and that if they do not refuse it, they are disobeying the provisions of the statute? Under the agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific it was provided ' unless otherwise routed ', but here is the positive legislative prohibition that they must not carry any goods destined for outward voyage except through Canadian ports and that they must not carry any inward traffic except that which comes to Canadian p-orts. My own judgment is that you cannot enforce this provision; you are proposing to put in tl>e statute a provision simply in order that you may make the boast that you have done something better than the ' late Government did in respect of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. You have not the remotest idea that it will be productive of any good or that it will ever be enforced. Let the Government say whether it is intended to prohibit any goods being carried over the Canadian Northern, if for 
foreign shipment, unless they are destined to go through Canadian ports. Let it be declared that it is the intention of the Government absolutely to prohibit the Canadian Northern railway from accepting or carrying any traffic that comes to Canada otherwise than through Canadian ports and let penalties be provided; then the Government will show that they are sincere. It does seem to me that at the present time the Government are open to the charge of having done something with a mere pretence of accomplishing something which the late Government were not able to accomplish under their agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific, and that they are really providing no effective mean3 of carrying out the provisions made in that regard.


Frank Oliver: I wish to bring forward
another feature of the freight rates question in connection with clause a. Clause a undertakes to declare that there shall be equality of freight rates over unequal distances. All I wish to ask is that there shall be a declaration that there shall be equal freight rates over equal distances under equal conditions. Once the Government undertake to say, as they do in this subsection, that they have the right to require railway companies to carry traffic over longer routes at the same rates as are charged over shorter routes, they cannot refuse fairly to accept the proposal that I desire to bring to their attention. It is within the knowledge of the Government and of the House that there is an inequality of freight rates levied by the railway com panies as between eastern and western Canada. The same railway companies operating in eastern Canada charge lower local freight rates than they do in western Canada. This has been a grievance in western Canada for some years. It has been ventilated very fully in the press and in this House; dt has been brought to the attention of the Railway Commission; the Railway Commission have given a decision which, so far as a decision of the rtailway Commission could, established and confirmed the principle of inequality in freight rates between eastern and western Canada. This decision of the Railway Commission was a very great disappointment to the people of western Canada and is considered by them to constitute a very grave injustice upon them, in fact to be a miscarriage of justice at the hands of tne Railway Commission. The Board of Trade of the city of Winnipeg passed a
MA\ 27, 1914
4329'
resolution on this subject which I shall read. It was passed on May 12, 1914:
Whereas, the Winnipeg Board of Trade petitioned the Government of Canada, under date of November 14, 1911, to, by legislation la* down the principle that rates charged by railways in western Canada should not exceed those charged in eastern Canada for similar service, to a greater extent than necessary to cover additional cost of performing the service, if any, in western Canada ; and
Whereas, the Government of Canada caused an investigation to be made by the Board ot Railway Commissioners into the rates charged by railways for carriage of freight in western Canada; and
Whereas, the Board of Railway Commissioners has held repeated hearings, taken voluminous evidence from the many interests involved, and, after consideration thereof, has given its decision; and
Whereas, by its judgment, dated April 6, 1914, the Board of Railway Commissioners has declined to grant western Canada that equality of treatment with eastern Canada in the matter of freight rates which has been advocated by the Winnipeg Board of Trade for many years past, but has simply ordered reductions in certain rates; and
Whereas, the Board of Railway Commissioners in its said judgment holds that the Railway Act permits discrimination between localities under certain conditions;
Therefore be it resolved, that while the Winnipeg Board of Trade welcomes the reductions ordered by the Board of Railway Commissioners, which slightly lessen the disparity between freight rates charged in eastern and western Canada, this board emphatically protests against the discrimination which still remains between rates ordered by the commissioners for the carriage of freight in western Canada and the rates charged for similar service in eastern Canada; and
Be it further resolved, that the Winnipeg Board of Trade reiterates the position it has always taken, viz., that no basis of freight rates will be fair, just and equitable to the people of western Canada which permits of higher rates being charged for the carriage of freight in western Canada than is charged for like service in eastern Canada (except in so far as cost of performing the service may be greater), and this board respectfully urges the Government of Canada to effect such a change in the Railway Act, when the present contemplated revision of the Act is made, as will embody the principle of equality which this board has always advocated and maintained.
By order of the president,
Tours truly,
C. N. Bell,
Secretary.
We are to-day making an arrangement with a great railway system which operates in both eastern and in western Canada, and the purpose of the aid that we propose to give is to further confirm and establish that railway system as a system of transportation throughout Canada from ocean to ocean, both in East and West. Under the conditions as set forth by the Winnipeg Board of Trade, and in view of the decision taken by the Government in this subsection as to their
right to require discriminating freight rates at the hands of the Canadian Northern railway, I maintain that there is no other just,. fair or reasonable course open to this Parliament than to require that equalized freight rates shall prevail throughout this Canadian Northern Railway system, this transconti-ental railway system operating in eastern and in western Canada.


William Findlay Maclean: Would the hon. gentleman say just where in clause a that is discriminated against, what clause in the agreement prevents equality of freight rates?


Frank Oliver: It is the provision which requires the company to carry to Canadian ocean ports at the same rates as to American ocean ports, without regard to the fact that the distances are greater to Canadian than to American ocean ports.


Robert Laird Borden: This is the same clause in that respect as is to be found in the Grand Trunk Pacific agreement.


Frank Oliver: Precisely. The Government have taken upon themselves the responsibility of insisting on the company making a rate discriminating in favour of certain Canadian ocean ports. I am not asking the Government to make a rate requiring the company to discriminate in regard to western business; all I am asking the Government to do is to apply the terms of these resolutions to western Canada, and require-an equalization of freight rates, as they have required discrimination in freight rates in favour of certain sections of eastern Canada. I desire therefore to give notice that, when the resolutions come up for concurrence, I shall move as follows:
The Canadian Northern Railway Company shall within two months from the date of the passing of this Act, submit to the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada a schedule of traffic rates upon the lines of the said company now or hereafter to be constructed west of Fort William, which shall be the same as now applies on the lines of the said company in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, except in so far and to such extent as the said Canadian Northern Railway Company may be able to establish higher cost of operation on such lines west of Fort William, and the said schedule shall be subject to the authority and control of the said Board of Railway Commissioners, to be revised and adjusted by them in accordance with the foregoing provision.
Subsection a of section 6 of schedule 3 agreed to.
On subsection lb of section 6 of schedule 3
That they and each and every of them will from time to time enter into agreements with the Government for the mutual interchange of traffic between the Canadian Northern and the

constituent companies or any of them, with the Government railways, and the terms and conditions of every such agreement shall be such as the parties thereto may agree upon or in default of agreement, as may be settled by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada (hereinafter called the * Railway Board'), and the Railway Board shall have power from time to time upon the application of the Governor in Council or of any party to any such agreement to vary, modify or rescind the same, provided always that every agreement respecting the interchange of traffic shall be subject to any agreements now existing with any other company or companies.
Mr. W. F. MAiCLEAN: I would like to ask whether the greatest freedom is allowed in this agreement for the export of Canadian products by way of the Panama canal. Later on there may be a disposi-l tion and a need on the part of western exporters to ship their goods by that route, and I trust there is no compulsion in these clauses in the direction of saying that goods must be shipped by an eastern port.


Arthur Meighen: There is no restriction
or compulsion such as the hon. gentleman suggests.


Wilfrid Laurier: I need not read any further, because the other provisions are simply a confirmation of the agreement here made, that the Government of British Columbia shall have absolute control over the (rates of the Canadian Northern Pacific, which is now to become a part of the Canadian Northern system. There has been correspondence between the right hon. the Prime Minister and the Premier of British Columbia over this very section, and the right hon. gentleman very property informed Sir Richard McBride that the power of this Parliament must be paramount in the matter of controlling rates over the whole line. There is no doubt at all in my mind that this object could he easily carried out were it not for the last proviso in this clause which reads:
Provided always that every agreement re-, specting the interchange of traffic shall be subject to any agreements now existing with any other company or companies.
A few days ago I brought this matter to the attention of the House, and the Solicitor Generali said:	Oh, that cannot apply,
as this clause only provides for the interchange of traffic. It is utterly impossible to conceive that you can have any transcontinental traffic over this road unless you have an interchange of traffic. Suppose the Canadian Northern issues a ticket from Liverpool to Vancouver, something which I hope will happen just as in the case of the Canadian Pacific and the Grand Trunk; the 'Canadian Northern would give a special rate from Liverpool to Vancouver. The Canadian Northern Steamship Company carries the passenger from Liverpool to Halifax or St. John. If the passenger is taken to St. John there must be an interchange of traffic between the Canadian Northern Steamship Company and the Canadian Pacific railway to take the passenger to Montreal, and if he is landed at Halifax a similar arrangement must be made between the steamship company and the Intercolonial.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I interrupt my
right hon. friend to tell him what the clause was intended to mean and what, I think, it does mean. The clause deals with mutual interchange of traffic between

the Canadian Northern or any of its allied companies and the Intercolonial. It says that every such agreement made between the Intercolonial and .any .such company shall be subject to any agreements now existing with any other company or companies. This clause was intended to provide that inasmuch as the Intercolonial now has a traffic arrangement with the Grand Trunk railway we should not be called upon to violate the terms of that agreement. That is what it was intended to mean and that is what I think it does mean. I shall, however, be perfectly willing to make any amendment to render that plain if it is not so already.


Wilfrid Laurier: I was just asking for information. On this point I am with the Government: I want the Government to have control over the rates. My point is that this clause leaves the control of the rates of the Canadian Northern Pacific in the hands of that company which has an agreement with the Government of British Columbia.


Robert Laird Borden: Would my right hon. friend pardon me ? The clause reads:
Every agreement respecting the interchange of traffic shall be subject to any agreements now existing with any other company or companies.
-not with any Government.


Wilfrid Laurier: Does my right hon. friend believe that the British Columbia Government cannot override the agreement with the Canadian Northern Pacific, and that when this passenger gets to British Columbia Sir Richard McBride will not say: I know you have a ticket, but it is no good over this line: I have a special agreement whereby I am the master of this road. If my right hon. friend does not think my objection is to the point 1 have no more to say; but I think Sir Richard McBride will say that he has control.


Robert Laird Borden: I desire to give the most respectful consideration to my right hon. friend's objection. I am only pointing out the language of the clause. There is a provision here for interchange of traffic, but the agreement is subject to a proviso to which my hon. friend attaches importance. The proviso is this:
Provided always that every agreement respecting the interchange of traffic shall be subject to any agreements now existing with any other company or companies.
I do not understand that that could possibly include an agreement with the Government of the province of British Columbia, and therefore, it did not seem to me that the proviso could have the effect which my right hon. 'friend suggests. If, however, upon consideration, he adheres to his opinion, I *am perfectly willing to put in any words to render it plain that the proviso means nothing more than I have suggested.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am quite satisfied with that.
On schedule 3, section 7:
Covenants by the Government.
The Government covenants with the Canadian Northern that it will from time to time enter into agreements with the Canadian Northern or with any constituent company, giving running rights over such parts of the Government railways as may be desired and the terms and conditions of every such agreement shall be such as the parties thereto may agree upon, or in default of agreement, as may be settled by the Railway Board, and the Railway Board shall have power from time to time upon the application of the Governor in Council or of any party to any such agreement to vary, modify or rescind the same, provided always that every such agreement shall be subject to any existing agreements with any other company or companies.


William Pugsley: I ventured to speak on this clause a few days ago in discussing the matter, and I took the ground that under existing circumstances it was very objectionable to give to the Canadian Northern the first right of running powers upon any part of the Government railways. The Government railways consist of the Intercolonial railway, the railway which is now building to Hudson bay, and there will be the Valley railway which, as soon as tt is completed, is to be leased to the Government and to form a part of the Government railway system. This clause as framed gives to the Canadian Northern Railway Company the right to select any part of the Government railway system over which they desire running rights. As to whether these rights should be conceded or not the Government will not have a word to say. The only thing the Government will have anything to do with will be the terms on which the running rights will be granted and if the Government and the railway company cannot agree upon the terms the matter goes to the Board of Railway Commissioners. I do not think it is wise to give to the Canadian Northern railway at present the first choice of running rights over the Hudson Bay railway, or over such parts of the Hudson Bay railway as they may desire, or to give them

first choice of running rights over the St. John Valley road, or such parts as they may select. I quite agree that there will be circumstances under which it would be desirable to allow them running rights over portions of the Government system but I *think the Governor in Council ought to have something to say about that and I would suggest to my right hon. friend the Crime Minister whether, in line 4 these words might not safely and properly be added: ' and approved by the Governor in Council,' so that it would read as follows:
The Government covenants with the Canadian Northern that it will from time to time enter into agreements with the Canadian Northern or with any constituent company, giving running rights over such parts of the Government railways as may be desired and as may be	approved	by	the	Governor in
Council.
It is particularly important, in so far as the Intercolonial railway is concerned, that if possible both the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific should have running rights over certain portions of the Government system, but whoever gets the first choice will be able to block others very effectively, particularly if these running rights	give the	right to	pickup local	traffic.	In	a	long	distance a company	would	not	take
running rights unless it also_can have the right to pick up local traffic. I would ask my right hon. friend if he does not think it would be desirable that the words ' and as may be approved by the Governor in Council,' should be added.


Robert Laird Borden: The suggestion otf my hon. friend is entitled to consideration.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Would he strike out the words 'relating to the railway board'?
, Mr. PUGSLEY: No, leave them in.


Robert Laird Borden: I think we should leave them in if the amendment is accepted. Perhaps my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) would allow the clause to pass, as it is subject to further consideration in committee of the whole House. I am rather disposed to consider favourably the amendment, but perhaps my hon. friend overlooks the fact that this provision does not give to the Canadian Northern any prior rights.


William Pugsley: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Why?


William Pugsley: Because the Government covenants with the Canadian Northern
That it will from time to time enter into agreements with the Canadian Northern or with any constituent company, giving running rights over such parts of the Government railways as may be desired.
I take it to mean such parts as the Canadian Northern may desire.
iMr. BORDEN: But my bon. friend forgets that in the agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific there was provision for running rights over the Intercolonial railway.


William Pugsley: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: And if there would be any prior right, I would suppose it would be found there? The agreement between the Government and the Grand Trunk Pacific railway provided, in section 24, subsection e, that the lease should contain proper and usual provisions to secure to the company running powers and haulage rights over the Intercolonial, or any portion thereof, upon such terms as might be agreed upon between the Government and the company. There was a provision, section 47 of the agreement, that if any dispute arose between the Government and the company with respect to the carrying out of the agreement, it should be determined by arbitrators appointed as set forth in the agreement. It was practically the same thing as this. There was a provision that there should be running and hauling rights under such terms as the company agreed upon, but, in the event of the Government and the company not agreeing, these running and haulage rights should be determined by arbitration. This is very much of the same character. We had in mind that provision when this was inserted. At the same time, there is something in what my hon. friend suggests, particularly in regard to the Hudson Bay railway, and I am rather inclined to accept the amendment, but, if my hon. friend would permit me to do so, I would like to have a little more time to consider it.


William John Macdonald: I think it only right to point out to the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) and my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) that, under this clause, there does not seem to be any manner of doubt that if the Canadian Northern exercise their rights and decide to operate from Quebec to Moncton next winter, the two

Royal liners, the Royal Edward and the Royal George, will be running from the constituency of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden), and theTe is also another natural consequence which will flow from this-the Canadian Pacific will of necessity be entitled' to obtain on fair terms running rights from St. John to Halifax. The Grand Trunk Pacific having already been assured of that right under an agreement and the Canadian Northern obtaining it under this agreement, there can be no possible reason why the Canadian Pacific railway should not have it. The result will be that whenever the Canadian Northern begins running, the Royal liners and the Canadian Pacific Railway steamers will, I fear, be running from Halifax instead of St. John.


Robert Laird Borden: As I understand it, the
difficulty about granting rights to the Canadian Pacific railway over the Intercolonial has always been in respect to the question of local traffic. I suppose the same difficulty will arise in respect to any agreement with the Grand Trunk Railway Company or the Canadian Northern Railway Company. I do not think this clause will Shave a very important bearing upon the point which has been alluded to by my hon. friend.


William John Macdonald: It is a good thing for the Premier if it does not have.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am inclined to the view that it would be better to leave the clause as it stands, and not incorporate in it the suggestion of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) If there is a covenant here with the Canadian Northern railway to give them certain running rights over the Intercolonial railway, doubtless the same opportunity would be given to the other roads, and it is better to leave it to an independent body like the Railway Commission to determine the terms of the running rights. Otherwise it would impose a very disagreeable duty upon the Governor in Council, and from the experience of last year in 'connection with the trans-Atlantic service between St. John and Halifax I would not be inclined to rest too much confidence in the 'Governor in Council.


Robert Laird Borden: The bon. member (Mr. A. K. Maclean) thinks the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) is trying to get us into trouble.
At six o'clock, the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
INTERPRETATION CLAUSES:
* Constituent companies ' means such of those companies mentioned in the first schedule to the following resolutions, and such other companies hereafter declared by the Governor in Council to be comprised in the Canadian Northern system, as own or operate railways, terminals, bridges or other railway facilities.
1 Subsidiary companies ' means such of those companies mention^ in said schedule, and such other companies, hereafter declared by the Governor in Council to be comprised in the Canadian Northern system, as do not own or operate railways, terminals, bridges or other railway facilities.


William John Macdonald: Some doubt was expressed when the matter came up as to whether or not the Government had in their minds any line which they thought likely to be declared under the provisions of this interpretation clause to be included in the Canadian Northern Railway system. It seems to me that some fuller definition of the object and purport of the definition should be given. Otherwise the Governor in Council could declare any railway in Canada a part of the Canadian Northern railway. It is intended to include railways which are at present owned by the contractors or in which they are interested in some way which might hereafter be declared to be part of the system?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman asks either gs to what it is the intention to declare or as to what is the power given, I am not sure which-perhaps it was both. '


William John Macdonald: Both.


Arthur Meighen: As to intention, there is no present intention concerning any particular line or class of lines. The power is general, as the hon. gentleman states; the Governor in Council has power to add to the system any time. It would necessarily be on the application of the company, and the Governor in Council would have to be satisfied that the addition was in the interest of the company itself, and, of course, impliedly, would be empowered to stipulate the terms on which it should be declared a part of the system.


William John Macdonald: Does the hon. gentleman think the language should be so general as to include any railway in Canada? Even though it might not reasonably form part of a transcontinental railway? The declared object of these resolutions as given in the recitals, and the basis on which the Government seeks justification for entering into this partnership, is the completion of
4.334

a third transcontinental line. There maybe lines that by no possibility of theory could form part of this transcontinental system. Is it intended that the powers should be so great that you could bring in lines from outside the system altogether?


Arthur Meighen: So far as the power is concerned, I think that is a necessity. I do not think there would 'be any possibility of another definition thaWwould be workable at all. I think the Governor in Council would never approve of the addition of a company nor -would the company itself apply for inclusion if its road physically or in the nature of things in the railway world were completely aside from this system. At the same time, there would! be no use in inserting such expression as 'naturally a part of the system,' for -the words would be so indefinite as to be ineffective. At the same time there would ibe no great purpose to be served by such an expression because the Governor in Council has full control. And it seems to be one of those classes of cases where it is necessary that there should be such control .and that we should rely upon it.
On the Interpretation clause:
' Contractors ' means Mackenzie, Mann and Company, Limited.


Arthur Meighen: That stood pending the information I gave this afternoon.


William John Macdonald: Do I understand
the Solicitor General to take the position that he has given all the information he proposes to give in regard to the financial status of the contractors?


Arthur Meighen: The Solicitor General
takes the position that he has given all the information that is of value to the House or that the Government should be called upon to give in the public interest.


Wilfrid Laurier: Not that is
of value, but that the hon. gentleman himself thinks is of value.


Arthur Meighen: I have to follow the
judgment of myself and my associates.


William John Macdonald: As a matter of fact the hon. gentleman has given all he intends to give, and declines to give any further statement as to their financial position?


Arthur Meighen: For the reason that it is clearly not in the public interest.
On section 15 of the resolutions-works and undertakings of certain companies declared to toe works for the general advantage of Canada:


Wilfrid Laurier: That stood at the request of the Government.


Robert Laird Borden: I have nothing further to suggest; I think it is in proper form.


Frank Oliver: I gave notice that I would move at the proper time an amendment to this clause restricting its operation, dn the case of provineially chartered companies in Saskatchewan and Alberta, to such lines as were in operation by the Canadian Northern railway. I understood that the Prime Minister had some such idea in view when he asked that the clause should stand.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to have it pass as it is. Should it be found desirable to amend it, it can be amended in Committee of the Whole House on the Bill. But I am not suggesting that the hon. gentleman should not go on with his amendment.


William John Macdonald: Do I understand
that the Prime Minister takes the view that the provincial Government of Alberta, for instance, having guaranteed certain securities in connection with the construction of railways which form part of this system and which are not yet completed, and has done so under the provisions of a trust deed that gave it certain powers as to the location of the road and generally overseeing rights up to the point of completion, -do I understand my Tight hon. friend to say that he regards the position of affairs under this section as it will be in the Bill to be that their rights, their control up to the date of completion, will be preserved notwithstanding that the work is declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada?


Robert Laird Borden: If the disposition of the moneys which are to provide for the construction of the road shall be entirely in the hands of the provincial governments-and this will necessarily be the case-I cannot see that the situation is altered by this provision or that the provinces are prejudiced thereby; therefore I do not see my way clear at present to suggest any amendment. If it can be made clear to me that any prejudice will be brought about, I shall be very glad to consider it. We will save time now by letting it pass in this way, and if the hon. member for Edmonton desires to move an amendment he will still have an opportunity of doing so when the Bill comes up for a third reading.	.
Resolution reported.


CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance), Bill No. 169, to amend the Customs Tariff, 1907, was read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 2-1907, chapter 11, amended:
Wilfrid Laurier: I wish to give notice that on the third reading of the Bill I shall move an amendment with regard to the surtax. My hon. friend, under this Bill, proposes to make the surtax elastic; the Governor in Council is given power to apply it. At the present time the surtax is rigid and not subject to any deduction or increase. I shall move at the proper time that this section be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-commencement of Act:
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is the minister
aware that the price of nails has been increased by some 25 cents per keg since the change in the tariff on steel wire has come into effect? I rather understood him to intimate that there was some arrangement between the Government andi the trade whereby this (was not likely to occur.


Mr. WHITE:: The increase in the price of nails is not due to any tariff change in regard to wire rods. The duty has not been changed on nails, it remains at 60 cents a keg.


William Findlay Maclean: The duty on wire rods has.


William Thomas White: The price of nails is governed, like the price of any other commodity by supply and demand.


William Findlay Maclean: The tariff has nothing to do with this?


William Thomas White: I have not changed1 the
tariff.


William Findlay Maclean: You did change the
tariff.


William Thomas White: So far as foreign nail manufacturers are competitors in the Canadian market, the duty upon nails might have a bearing upon the price of nails; but, as I stated, we have not changed the tariff upon nails. Presumably, therefore, the nail makers obtain such prices as they are able to obtain for their product. They would do that before the tariff change was made on wire rods. They are doing that, no doubt, to-day. They are obtaining for their commodity the price which it commands in the
market of Canada. The price of nails has greatly fallen during the last year or year and a half. I would expect that by reason of the falling off in the building trade. There is no doubt an improvement in that regard and that improvement, I hope, will be more marked in the near future. The result will be that the price of nails may go up. Whether it has gone up or not I do not know. I take the word of my hon. friend that that has happened, but I would point out that we have not touched the tariff upon nails.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We have touched the
tariff on the raw material that goes into the manufacture of nails. On Monday last I met the principal hardware merchant of Woodstock who told me that, as a result of the change in the tariff, he is paying 25 cents a keg more for nails than two months ago and will have to continue to do so. The wholesaler tells him that he is compelled to charge the 25 cents extra because the tariff increases the price.


William Thomas White: Why did the price of nails go down much more than 25 cents a keg in the last year and a half without any tariff change at all?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know that; I
only know that, as a result of a change in the tariff, the price has gone up 25 cents.


Mr. LOGGIE:: I think I can suggest to the minister why the price went down. Some few years ago there was a combine between the nail makers and they made a price to the trade. That combine fell through to some extent, and as a result nails went down to their market value. I have no doubt that competition is very keen, and perhaps there was not a legitimate profit in the business; but I venture to assert, what I conjectured before, that nails would advance in price because of the change in duty on rods. That would not be so bad, but as I explained to the committee on a previous occasion, there is, to all intents and purposes, a combine by which the price of nails is fixed, as the price is now in the hands of two of the largp nail makers. These nail makers are the makers of the rods; they make the price for the rods to the small nail makers and make the price of nails to the trade at large. It is an easy matter for them to control the price so long as you keep the duty of sixty cents a keg on nails. There is not a question in my mind but as a result of the increased duty on rods there has been an advance in the price of nails; and there will be a still further advance

because the retail men must have a profit on this extra twenty-five cents that the wholesale men pay. I venture to assert, as I did before, that in the end the result will be that the consuming public of Canada will pay each year $750,000 extra owing to the increased cost of nails. We produce in Canada about one and a half million kegs of nails in twelve months, and the consuming public, in my judgment, will, in the future, because of this arrangement made with the two rod rolling mills in Canada, pay practically fifty cents per keg as an extra price on wire nails.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Would the minister explain subsection 2 of section 2 of the Bill, and also sections 3 and 4.


William Thomas White: Subsection 2 of section 2 reads:
Goods the product or manufacture of any foreign country imported into Canada in vessels admitted to registration under the laws of such foreign country may, if such foreign country imposes higher duties of customs upon goods imported into such country in vessels registered in Canada than upon the like goods when imported in vessels of such country, be made subject by order of the Governor in Council in the case of goods already dutiable to a surtax over and above the duties specified in schedule A to this Act, and in the case of goods not dutiable to a rate duty, not exceeding, in either case, twenty per centum ad valorem.
It appears to me that the meaning of the subsection is perfectly clear.
Where a foreign country -imposes higher duties upon- goods the product or manufacture of Canada imported in Canadian vessels than upon such goods when imported into such foreign countries in their own vossels, the Governor -in Council may impose a surtax over and -above the duties of our customs tariff upon the goods of such nation to an amount not exceeding 20 per cent ad valorem: it may be 5, 10 or 15 per cent, but must not exceed 20 per cent. The subsection applies in the case -of both dutiable and free goods and is to cover the case of discrimination against Canadian vessels.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In the United
States tariff?


William Thomas White: That may be a case in
point, bnt the legislation is general. It is not in my mind that we shall have occasion to enforce it. As I -stated when this section was under discussion before, the Government would be exceedingly reluctant to impose -a surtax unless compelled

to such a course obviously and deadly in the public interest.


William Pugsley: I was under the impression, from what my hon. friend is reported to have said, that this Government would not frame its tariff in any way with reference to the tariff of another country. I read a report of -some remarks of the hon. gentleman about putting wheat on the free list, the result of w-hich would be to enable the farmers of Canada, particularly of the West, to get a free market in the United States for their wheat; and it was in that connection that the hon. gentleman was reported- to have said that this Government was not going to frame its tariff having any reference to the tariff of another eonntry. If that is so, why should Parliament give power to impose a surtax because some otheT country has framed its tariff in a particular way? It seems to me the same rule ought to apply in both cases. Does it not show, notwithstanding what may be -the feeling of my hon. friend, that he recognize-s that in the public interest Canada must have regard to the tariffs of other countries? Any prudent Government would -recognize that fact. While I do not want to take up the time of the committee, I want to take this opportunity-the first I have had this- session, unfortunately-of expressing my deep regret that the Government has not seen fit to place certain imported food products, more especially wheat, on the -free list. The Government ought not to forget that the United States has passed a tariff law under which it is provided that if any other country -should place wheat and wheat products upon the free list, wheat and wheat products would be admitted into the United States free of duty. I know something about our western country. I have had business relations with many people in the Northwest extending over a period of more than a quarter of a century. I know a good deal of the condition of affairs in our western country, and! I know that since it was announced that it was the settled determination of this Government not to place wheat upon the free list a feeling of despair, almost, was created in western Canada. The people had hoped that the Government would take a reasonable view of this question, and that they would welcome the opportunity of giving to our farmers free access to the great American market to the south;

but they have been greatly disappointed, and I have no doubt that the deplorable falling off in immigration from the United, States into western Canada is to a large' extent the result of the feeling which has been brought about in the West by reason of the action of the Government in refusing the request of the western farmers. I thought it due to myself that I should take this opportunity of expressing the very deep regret I feel in common with hundreds of thousands of the people of this country that this Government has not availed itself of the splendid opportunity which has been afforded by the legislation of the United^ States to obtain enlarged markets for the wheat produced by the farmers of Canada.


William Thomas White: I do not desire to re-open the Budget discussion, but I may say to my hon. friend that he no doubt refers to a statement which I made in my Budget speech when dealing with wheat and flour.


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Thomas White: I have ' Hansard ' in my hand, and what I said was this:
Speaking generally, it is not advisable that a nation's tariff should be so arranged as to fit into the particular features of that of another nation. This, however, would not he a conclusive reason for not making a change clearly in the national interest.
That is slightly different from what my hon. friend stated that I said:


William Pugsley: I stated that you were re. ported to have said that.


William Thomas White: In regard to the particular section now under discussion, I should like to point out that the legislation is not directed against any particular nation. It is not a fitting of our tariff into the special features of another country's tariff. The legislation is general. It merely provides [DOT]that the Governor in Council may impose a surtax upon goods the product or manufacture of another country which discriminates against Canada by imposing higher rates of duty upon goods carried in Canadian vessels.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Why has the minister
changed the provisions of the present section 7? Under the present Tariff Act, the surtax is absolutely fixed by Parliament at one-third of the general tariff. By the new Tariff Act, it is provided that the minister has the right to fix this surtax, excepting subsection 2 which provides for the surtax imposed upon goods going into the United States in any but United States
vessels. What is the reason for changing it from the positive Act of Parliament to the discretion of the minister? Does it not leave the matter open for the minister to make one trade with one importer and another trade with another? Does it not leave the matter open to lobbying between the importers and the minister? I think the minister should give some reason for changing an Act of Parliament into an Order in Council.


William Thomas White: I direct my hon. friend's attention to section 7 of the present Customs tariff:
Articles which are the produce or manufacture of any foreign country which treats imports from Canada less favourably than those from other countries may he subject to a surtax over and above the duties specified in schedule A to this Act, such surtax in every case to be one-third of the duty specified in the general tariff in the said schedule.
Any question arising as to any foreign country or goods coming under the operation of this section shall be decided by the Minister of Customs, whose decision shall be final.
The Governor in Council may make regulations for carrying out the purposes of this section, and may, by Order in Council, from time to time suspend the surtax from application to the goods of any country.
So power is given to the Governor in Council. Subsection 1 of section 2 of the Bill now under consideration provides that the Governor in Council may impose a surtax over and above the regular duties to an amount not exceeding twenty per cent ad valorem.	The difference between the two	sections is	this.
Under the present tariff the amount of the surtax is fixed at 33J per cent which is a very heavy surtax. Take the case of goods dutiable at 35 per cent; one-third of 35 per cent would be nearly 12 per cent. There is no power to change that. It may appear desirable to the Government to impose a surtax of 2 per cent or 5 per cent, but not one of 12 per cent. The tariff rate might be too high; it might be prohibitive, with the surtax of 33J per cent imposed on the goods sought to be imported; it might be so high that it would be prohibitive if such a rate of duty by way of surtax were.imposed. The amount of the surtax will be left to the discretion of the Governor in Council.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is just the objection. If there be a surtax it is imposed for a purpose; it is a penalty. I object to the degree of the penalty being left in the discretion of the minister. I think that if there is to be a penalty Parliament should impose it and not the minister.


William Thomas White: The Governor in. Council.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Under the present law
the only power the Governor in Council has is to withdraw it entirely.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Is it not a provision against outside dumping.


William Thomas White: It is not a provision against dumping; it is a provision in keeping with the legislation passed under the former Government for protecting the people of Canada against discrimination by foreign countries. The legislation is general and not aimed at any particular nation.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is a right we take to impose a penalty against any foreign country treating us unfairly. All foreign countries have notice that if they want to do business with Canada they must treat us the same as they treat other nations or we will impose a surtax of one-third of our tariff against goods coming from that country into Canada. If it. has any value at all it is a notice to the world. Now ail that is taken away by the Government and foreign countries will say there is nothing rigid about it as far as Canada is concerned and we can treat them unfairly if we wish. Then it is up to our importers to come to Ottawa and make the best trade they can with the Government. You are taking away all the benefit of the surtax. It is now placed in the position where each individual importer can come to the Government and make whatever trade is possible. The present law is a notice to foreign countries that if they do not treat Canada fairly in tariff matters their producers who want to sell goods in Canada will be compelled to pay a fixed penalty.


Michael Clark: It is really a
provision for retaliation?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, that is what it is.


Michael Clark: I do not believe in these silly provisions at all, but if you are going to retaliate it would be a good thing to be able to do it quickly, and the Governor in Council can act very much more quickly than can Parliament.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But the present law hits quickly now; Parliament says that the surtax shall be one-third and every person knows what it is. This Bill places the minister in a position to dicker with the importer. The importer comes here and says one-third is too much, will you not make it 15 per cent? The minister cuts it down to fifteen and the importer says that is too

much, cut it down to 10. In all probability, if-he has sufficient influence, he will get it cut down to nothing.


William Thomas White: I think my hon. friend knows that this is general legislation and that we will not be ' dickering ' with any importer.


Frank Oliver: I would like to direct the attention of the minister to schedule c-prohibited goods. There are added to the list of prohibited goods certain articles of apparel. Is it the intention that this provision shall be enforced with respect to those articles of apparel when they are in use as articles of apparel, or is it only to be applied in cases of their importation?


William Thomas White: It is intended to apply to their importation. Schedule c of the present Customs Tariff contains a list of prohibited goods. If my hon. friend will turn to section 11 of the Customs Tariff of 1907, he will find the following:
The importation into Canada of any goods enumerated, described or referred to in schedule ' C ' to this Act is prohibited ; and any such goods imported shall thereby become forfeited to the Crown and shall be destroyed or otherwise dealt with as the Minister of Customs directs; and any person importing any such prohibited goods, or causing or permitting them to be imported, shall for each offence incur a penalty not exceeding two hundred dollars.
The section refers to the importation of goods, not to goods in the country, and we are adding to the list the articles enumerated on page 9 of the Bill, to which my hon. friend drew my attention.


Frank Oliver: There is a provision in the tariff that wearing apparel is not dutiable. If these articles come in as wearing apparel in use is it the intention of the Government to prohibit their coming in? Do the Government propose following the example of our neighbours to the south of the line in making this prohibition? I want to know if they are going to follow their example in the administration of the prohibition.


William Thomas White: As the statute is worded, undoubtedly, the Customs Department would enforce it as against parties wearing these plumes and other articles mentioned. The intention of this legislation is to prevent the destruction of these birds. My hon. friend may know that they are being destroyed, and destroyed with great cruelty. Not only has the United States prohibited the importation of these ^plumes, feathers and other parts of birds, but the Commonwealth of Australia has done likewise.

Similar legislation was introduced into the British House of Commons on the 13th of February last, and on March 7 the Bill was reported and received its second reading. I should say that the statute would apply to plumes if worn by the parties bringing them into the country.


Frank Oliver: I am not going to question the advisability of these articles being added to the list of prohibited goods, but I certainly wish to take this opportunity of protesting against the administration of this provision as I am credibly informed it has been enforced by the United States customs officials. I think that it is an atrocity to subject ladies to insult at the hands of customs officials, in depriving them of articles of ornament which they have become possessed of as a matter of right and under the law of whatever country they were in. I am quite willing to be a party to assisting in the protection of the birds affected, but I think that the protection and preservation of the self-respect of lady travellers, either Canadian or of other countries visiting Canada, as well as the selfrespect of this Dominion, is just as important as the protection of the birds. I must protest very strongly against the -administration of this provision as it has been administered south of the line, where it has been used as a means of insult, which I hope will not be followed in Canada. If we cannot have a law that can be administered without unnecessarily insulting people, we had better let the law go and let somebody else take this matter in hand.


William Thomas White: The apprehensions of my
hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) are not well founded. I should hope that the customs officials of Canada axe gentlemen, and that they will under no circumstances offer insult to anybody. I shall be glad to look into the matter and see if we can obviate any disagreeable results so far as inconvenience to the travelling public is concerned. I am in sympathy with my hon. friend with regard to his observations on the administration of the Act, but I think it is very desirable legislation.


Frank Oliver: If you amend the law so as to except articles actually in use as part of wearing apparel, it would remove any possibility of unfortunate administration. I would be sorry to have this law administered in the Dominion as T am credibly informed it is administered in the United States, and I trust the minister will not leave this section in such shape that an indiscreet
customs official might impose undue humiliation upon ladies who are travelling.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If subsection c were
eliminated it might make the law more drastic, but it would make it easier to administer. The law allows the wearing of the feather of a bird which is ordinarily used as an article of diet, and if a lady who comes from South Africa or from Australia is wearing the plumage of some bird that is used there as an article of diet, but which the customs official does not know as such, he no doubt would proceed to eliminate that feather from her hat by taking out his jackknife and cutting it off. I am pointing out the ridiculous side of this to show the minister what trouble it may lead to.
Mr. LOGGI.E: I am informed that it is not now contemplated to enforce a law similar to this in the United
9 p.m. Kingdom, as it has been found not to be practicable. That may also be the case in Canada.


William Thomas White: I think it is advisable that the section should stand as it is, and we shall see how it works out. I do not anticipate that trouble which hon. gentlemen opposite apprehend, but if there should be, there will be time enough to amend the Act.
Mr. LOGGiIE: The only manufacturer of feathers in Canada told me recently that he is very much opposed to this legislation. Whether he was speaking from a selfish standpoint or not I cannot say. I suggested that the best thing for him to do would be to place the ease personally before the Commissioner of Customs and the Minister of Finance, and I understand he contemplates doing so. He told me they had abandoned the idea of enforcing this law in the United Kingdom, as they found it impracticable.
Bill reported.


VOLUNTEER BOUNTY ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Sam Hughes, Bill No. 176, to make further provision for bounties to volunteers who served the Crown during the Fenian raids, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Mr. HENDERSON:: Would the minister explain the difference between this and the legislation now on the statute-books?


James Joseph Hughes: There is really no change; it is an extension oi the present law. Originally this Bill was for one year, but the officers inform me that we shall not be able to get all the warrants out in time, and I would suggest that sections 3 and 4 be amended by substituting for the words '31st December, 1914' the words, '1st July, 1915.' Under the former Bill it was payable directly to the volunteer; but in cases where the volunteer was dead there was often great trouble in getting his propertv probated. This takes the precaution of making it payable to his widow.


William Pugsley: Why is the bounty limited' to the case of the volunteer who was living on the 1st of April, 1912? If he happened to die before that, why should not his widow get the bounty?


James Joseph Hughes: That was in the old Act. We are modelling the new Bill on the old.


Frank Oliver: I asked the minister some time ago, in connection with this Bill, if provision was made for the case of the force raised in Manitoba in 1871 or 1872 to repel the raid by O'Neill at Pembina? I understand that that force is excluded from the benefits of the Act. I wish to renew the inquiry and ask whether the men of this force would be eligible under this Act.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. member will
see that under section 2 it is confined to those who were called out for active service in 1866 or 1870. The original Bill read that way.


Frank Oliver: But why should these
volunteers who actually took part in repelling a raid be excluded from benefiting by the Bill?


James Joseph Hughes: I am merely renewing an old Bill. I have no data as to the calling out of the troops at the time to which the hon. gentleman refers.' We thought we had covered everything.


Frank Oliver: I wish to call the minister's attention to the fact that such troops were raised for active service and to repel an actual raid. It seems to me absurd and most unjust that while thousands of men who were called upon for service during the Fenian excitement in other provinces receive recognition these men who, under very extraordinary circumstances, actually took part in yrhat might be called a campaign should be ignored by the terms of the Bill. It never struck me, when the Bill came up first, that there could be such a condition.

I did not pay as much attention to it, probably, as I should have done. But having failed heretofore, I want it to be understood that I do not fail now. There was such a raid, there was such a service, and I make claim on 'behalf of these men for recognition under the terms of the Bill.


Mr. BRADBURY:: Did these men actually take part in that campaign ? I have men in my county who were in this force, and I have asked them to make their claim. But the only claim I have had set up for these men was that they were under arms for eight or ten days. I do not think they were in active service.


Frank Oliver: There was no actual bloodshed, but O'Neill crossed the boundary at Pembina and took possession of West Lyhne, keeping his base of operations still in Pembina. The American officer in command there took such measures as prevented a permanent occupation of West Lynne by the invading force; but while this was in progress a volunteer force was raised in Winnipeg, and that force marched to Pembina, or towards Pembina. They were actually under arms and in active service, and, so far as their idea of it was concerned, they felt themselves to be simply an outpost of British authority, without backing, for they had no reserve behind them.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They were real heroes.


Frank Oliver: They were. They did not know but this might be an invasion in force. I think that if any men in Canada are entitled to consideration, these are the men; for, not caring what the force of men in front of them was, and, without any support behind them, they turned out at the first call and did what they conceived to be their duty; and I believe that what they did had just as much effect in breaking the raid as had the action of the United States authorities.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many men were there ?


Frank Oliver: I do not recollect; it was not a large force; but the men forming that force did not know what force might be against them. They turned out to repel an armed attack upon the soil of Canada. They did not know what was behind O'Neill, but they turned out regardless of that; and I believe that the fact that they turned out as promptly as they did had a great deal more to do with breaking the raid than the fact that the American officer took charge

of O'Neill's men. Had there been no pretence of force in Winnipeg, I am afraid the United States authority would not have seen his duty and done it as quickly as he did.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want to point out to
the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) that he has been remiss in his duty. There is no doulbt that his constituents actually did turn out to repel an invasion of Canada. The minister has given some ten or twelve thousand men in Nova Scotia this $100, though all they did was to be in Nova Scotia when some loyal old governor issued a proclamation calling upon them to turn out. There was no invasion of .Nova Scotia, and no threateened invasion; but the governor in a fit of patriotism thought it necessary to issue a proclamation calling upon every able-bodied man in the province, as I recollect it, from eighteen to forty-five years of age. Some of them came out, I presume, and some of them did not, but they are all getting the $100. Now, my hon. friend from Selkirk has really a grievance against the minister, foT, if I may -believe the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), here were real heroes defending the country, men entitled to this $100. I think the minister should have his attention called to the matter very forcibly, and these men should be recognized.


James Joseph Hughes: I shall be glad to look into the facts in regard to the raid in Manitoba. We have no date in the department bearing on the subject to justify action. If it is found by next session that there is any justification for taking the Manitoba division into consideration, so far as I am concerned I shall be only too glad to bring in another Bill.


Frank Oliver: I do not think that is fair at all. This man O'Neill was the leader at Ridgeway; I am not sure that he was not the leader at another raid in the Eastern Townships.


James Joseph Hughes: Was he not a brother?


Frank Oliver: I do not know his relation, ship, but I know that the name is the same, and I understand that it was the same man. It never struck me for a moment when I saw the Bill in the first place that these men were not included; I was never satisfied that they were not included until I asked the minister across the floor of the House some time during this session. I think the minister would do himself credit if he would hold the Bill over until he could frame an amendment' that would 274
take these men in. There is no -question about the facts; there is no question about the raid or about the service rendered. The only question is as to who took part in the service and who are personally entitled to the bounty. Every member representing a Manitoba constituency, if not of his own knowledge, certainly on the evidence of people who are absolutely reliable, and who know the facts, can inform the minister, as I have done, that this service was rendered and that it is absolutely well worthy of recognition.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Were these men in regular companies, or were they simply volunteers?
. Mr. OLIVER: They were volunteers. I was not i-n Manitoba at the time, but the event was very fresh in the minds of the people when I went there in 1873. As I understand it, these men were enlisted on the authority of the then lieutenant governor of the province. Volunteers were called; these men volunteered; they were properly enrolled for active service and, so far as my knowledge goes, everything was regularly done and must be of record in the Militia Department.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: In the county adjoining
mine, the county of Lincoln, there is- a striking case where the men who belonged to a certain company have a grievance. At the time of the Fenian raid, which took place in the neighbourhood of my own county, different battalions in that district were called out to active service. Either the 19th or the 44th Regiment of the county of Lincoln, which were called out at that time, formed an extra company; that is, they added a company of volunteers; to their battalion when they went to the front. That company was furnished with all the necessary ammunition, uniforms, guns and things of that sort and actually went to the front at Ridgeway; they engaged in active service with the Fenians at the time they landed in Canada. Through neglect on the part of the captain of the company that was formed at the time, they were never, properly registered at Ottawa. I have taken this matter up with the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), who we all regret is not with us to-night, and I understand that some twelve or fourteen men belonging to that company engaged in actual service. I believe the Government should recognize their services and that they should receive) the bounty. One of the men, a resident of my town, and a most reputable man.

434?

gives me this information. I think that the neglect of the captain of their company hi not registering their names at Ottawa does not alter the fact that they are justi as much enitled to the bounty as men who have been members of a properly registered company.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I shall be interested to hear what answer my hon. friend the minister will make to the case just presented by the hon. member for Haldimand. When this matter was before the House for discussion on a previous occasion the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) called the attention of the House to the case of a regiment from his locality which participated in the Fenian raid. The minister stated that for some reason or other they were not entitled to the Fenian raid bounty. I have never been able to understand upon what principle the minister can justify his refusal to pay the bounty to these men. Surely the purpose of the bounty is to reward the participants for service, and that service cannot be effaced or minimized by the mere fact that they were not enrolled or that the regiment to which they belonged was not called out by a governor or by some military authority. Surely these should not be governing factors in a matter like this. I should like to know from the minister upon what principle he declines to recognize their claim.


James Joseph Hughes: The minister has not declined to recognize any claim; the minister has nothing to do with it. The law is here on the statue-book, clear and distinct: any officer, non-commissioned officer or man who comes within the law and the regulations under the law gets the bounty.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Then, what is the trouble?


James Joseph Hughes: The trouble is this:
Take, for instance, the Kingsville company, in Essex county. I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that the Kingsville company was organized, went to the front and was on duty for a couple of weeks. But this was not a company within the law, and accordingly the bounty claims committee, who are sworn officers of the best standing in the country, cannot see their way clear legally to recommend payment of the bounty to these men.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why not change the law?


James Joseph Hughes: 
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: When this Bill was introduced two years ago, we told the minister that he would have a If t of trouble over the words ' called out.' T1 ,e minister will now realize that we were pointing out the true state of affairs. The difficulty has arisen, and I think the minister is getting into more trouble by trying to stick to the legal definition of what constituted being called out than he would have if he allowed common sense to prevail. I cannot see on what prinieple a man is to be paid for defending his country, but if you are going to recognize the principle of paying men for defending their country, surely those referred to by the hon. member for Haldimand ought to come under the principle or the principle should be made broad enough to include them. If the words ' called out ' are not broad enough, change the words. Then take the case of the four men in Charlotte county to which I have referred, who were sworn in and who were on the spot where there was an attempted invasion; surely these men should be included. Why does the minister not change the law and make it cover the men really entitled to it, and so change it that the 12,000 men in Nova Scotia who performed annual drill and who are not entitled to it shall not get the $100. Let us get down to

common, sense. This is the time and the place to change this law. I am sorry the minister is extending the time, he should be able to close it all up by the end of this year. I consider this one of the most unmanly, one of the most umCanadian pieces of legislation ever passed in this House. It is something that should never have been done. They should never be paid for doing what common decency and humanity demands of them, defend their homes and firesides. Where a man is incapacitated by reason of his service, or his earning power is decreased, then provision should be made for him. But for the man who simply does his duty there should be no reward of this kind. I fail to see how the minister is inculcating any spirit of loyalty or any other qualities that tend to make manly men of the people of Canada. But if he is going to do this, why cannot he do it in a simple straight-forward, business manner?


James Joseph Hughes: In 1870, after the Red
river rebellion, a grant of land wasi made to volunteers who took part in that rebellion. In 1885, at the conclusion of the Northwest rebellion, a grant of land wias made to certain volunteers. I am sorry to say that the Northwest Mounted Police did not get a grant. I have always felt that, even if they were on regular service, they should have received the grant the same as the others. After the South African war, the volunteers who went to the front were given grants of land. Thus there were three precedents established, and my good friend knows as well as I that these old veterans of '66 and '70 felt that a slight had been placed on them by their service not having been recognized. Rightly or wrongly we got mixed up in the matter.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mixed up, that is right.


James Joseph Hughes: I am free to admit it is mixed up. My hon. friend told me at the start that I was laying up a peck of trouble for myself, and he told me truly; but I knew it at the time, and I accepted the trouble in order to satisfy the old fellows who, in all parts of Canada, turned out loyally and well in '66 and '70. I venture to say that, considering the number of claims presented, there are fewer dissatisfied than has. been the case with any similar number of applicants in any matter of this kind.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There cannot be very many dissatisfied in Nova Scotia.


James Joseph Hughes: I know that is a sore subject with my hon. friend. He has been trying to smooth his way down with his Nova Scotia friends. He put his foot in it the other night. I met Sir Charles Tupper when he was going to England last year. I asked him the details of this matter. He told me that the news was received in Halifax on the 17th of March, 1866, that a steamer had actually left Eastport, laden to the gunwales with ex-soldiers of the southern war, ready for a raid on any country; and that steamers were leaving Boston and New York to land on the shores of Nova Scotia. They were to enter the ports at night and to raid the banks, etc., and to make other depredations. Tne veteran statesman told me the story very lucidly. He said that from every headland the beacon fires were buming. Word was passed by telegraph as far as possible, and by men in the saddle and in boats, and in a day or two at the nearby points men rallied in a splendid way. I think I am justified in saying that upwards of 50,000 m^n turned out in March, not for annual drill, but for active service. Senator Power is always proud to refer to the days when there was universal compulsory service in Nova Scotia, and he still takes the ground that there should he compulsory service in all Canada. But, -compulsory service, or service without any compulsion other than the call to arms, the record shows how these old fellows, or young fellows, in overwhelming numbers turned out in every town in Nova Scotia, actually expecting an invasion of the country. Many of them were not armed, but came with pitchforks ready to defend their homes and firesides. Rightly or wrongly they are included in the Bill. As far as I am concerned, every man who answered that call, a legal call, is going to be recognized. The others who did not chance to be officially organized, cannot come under the Bill. There must be a line drawn somewhere. If we change that to make it more flexible, there will be kickers still; all the fellows who did work in '66 and '70 will demand the grant. I think that the simplest and best way is to give it to those who were called out for active service under the law, and if a poor fellow happened to be out and not under the law, that is his misfortune.


Mr. MARCEL:: Can the minister inform me what number of applications have been received from Ontario and Quebec?


James Joseph Hughes: The figures were given the other day; I have not them with me at the moment.


Charles Marcil: Humour is now tnat about two men are being paid for every one called out.


James Joseph Hughes: I would be very sorry to believe such a rumour. My hon. friend is a distinguished representative of the province of Quebec, and I would be very sorry to insult the good people of Quebec by circulating any such slander on that province.


Charles Marcil: I did not hear it in Quebec; it came from Ontario. We have a precedent for that sort of thing in the payment of pensions in the United States.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. memiber is the only one who has dared to assume responsibility for circulating such a rumour.


Charles Marcil: I asked for the figures first and the minister said he had not the figures.
Mr. MA0DQNA2LD: In regard to the position of the men of Nova cSotia who were applying for bounty under this Act, as the minister has said, the situation in Nova Scotia was a peculiar one in this regard, that compulsory militia service had existed there for a long period of years. Previous to Confederation every young man within the ages prescribed undeT the law was a member of the active militia. In my county alone ten regiments were drilled practically every year, and the interest manifested in the county was typical of the feeling throughout the whole province. I think that Nova Scotia was the only province in the Dominion in which compulsory services existed at that time. The Government's proclamation was issued in March, 1866, under circumstances which led the Governor and his advisors in the city of Halifax to believe that the province was in danger of an invasion. The situation in our province was peculiar at that time. For the preceding five years the people of Nova Scotia had been accustomed to seeing in every harbour and inlet round the coast privateers and vessels of war, connected both with the north and south, taking refuge in Nova Scotia ports during storms. The people were under the impression that at any moment some of those engaged in the Fenian cause might come to Nova Scotia. It cannot be urged for one moment that the Governor did not believe he had good and sound reasons for issuing the
fMr. C. Mareil.]
proclamation. He was a distinguished British soldier, and one of the last governors we had previous to Confederation. The men who turned out did not do so in response to the request to come to their annual drill, for that did not take place till later in the year. The commission that was appointed by the department to investigate the question called some of the most reputable people in the whole province as witnesses, men whose standing left no room for doubt as to the accuracy of their information, and the evidence was overwhelming to the effect that the special call immediately following the proclamation in the month of April was responded to, practically to a man, by every one who belonged to the active militia at that time.


James Joseph Hughes: A great many who were too old under the law turned out also.


William John Macdonald: I do not think my
hon. friend the Minister of Militia knew the facts as they existed in regard to Nova Scotia when he first came to Parliament with this proposition. When resolutions were previously moved in this House in regard to this matter I do not think hon. gentlemen were aware of the condition of affairs in Nova Scotia at that time, when members of the active militia were called out under all the official regulations that could obtain in any country. When this Bill first came before Parliament in 1912, the minister did not know and did not learn for a year afterwards that it applied eo generally .as it now does in our province. The provisions of the Act are eminently proper having regard to what has been done in similar cases, but the position of the hon. member for Carleton as to whether it is wise for countries to recognize services of this kind is a matter of argument. When the Act was drafted for dealing with this recognition of service at the time of the Fenian raid, it stipulated the safeguards that should exist: first, that the person called out should be a member of the active militia, for otherwise people would be coming forward with more or less degree of reason to assert that they volunteered here and there without any particular justification except their latent patriotism and in response to no recognized authority; and secondly, that the members of the active militia must have been called out by the regularly constituted authority in the province. Those are the two conditions which must exist before any one is entitled to the bounty. Those conditions existed in our province and it unexpectedly turns out on account of compulsory service

and the conditions to which I have referred, that in Nova Scotia a very much larger number of men than the minister and the House ever anticipated are entitled to be paid the bounty under the provisions of this law. I think it is only proper that this statement, which cannot he questioned, should be placed on ' Hansard ' so that every one will understand the circumstances in our province at that time.


Mr. F. B. McCURDY (Shelburne and Queens):: When this resolution was introduced on May 6, the hon. member for Carleton, in his usual vigorous style expressed himself even more forcibly than he has to-night, and made representations regarding the province of Nova Scotia which I think should not pass unchallenged. I intended at that time to controvert some of the statements which he made, but owing to the lateness of the hour-the House sat very late that night-and in deference to the request of the leader of the Government and the leader of the Opposition I deferred answering him till the second reading of the Bill. In the debate on the 6th of May the hon. member for Carleton addressing his remarks to the Minister of Militia said:
Does my hon. friend believe that there are 15,000 militia men in Nova Scotia to-day, 60 years of age, who were members of the militia at that time? It is not possible. I believe thousands of men in Nova Scotia have been paid who were barely born at the time of the Fenian raid, and my hon. friend knows it. He believes it anyway. It is simply a scandal.
. . . But the minister has sane business moments, and he knows that a great fraud is being perpetrated upon his department by the people of Nova Scotia.
.	.	. I repeat that the manner in which
these 15,000 people in Nova Scotia have been paid the bounty is simply a scandal.
Members of the House realize that owing to the prominence of the hon. member for Carleton in debates on all questions that come up for consideration in this House, his statement in this matter is bound to make a very serious and very unfortunate impression, particularly in view of the practical failure of his colleagues to repudiate the statements of the hon. member.
The hon. member for Pictou has outlined in a few words the conditions under which the militia of that day were ordered out for service. Anyone who talks sneeringly of the loyal and spontaneous response of the militia forces in Nova Scotia does a grave injustice to the militia of that province. Compulsory service was the law' in Nova Scotia nrior to Confederation. The population of the province in 1861 was
330,857; the active militia force of the province in 1866 at the time of the Fenian raid is reported at 58,031, or almost as large a number as the total .militia drilled last year in the whole of Canada.
It is true that no clash of arms occurred between the Fenian Raiders and His Majesty's loyal forces in Nova Scotia, but following the stirring martial events that occurred in the United States in the preceding five years a general feeling of uneasiness prevailed throughout the whole province. It was currently reported in Nova Scotia,, in March, 1866, that ships had been assembled by the Fenians in New England waters for descent on Nova Scotia, and on the 16th of March of that year direct statements to this effect were received by Sir Charles Tupper, at that time Dr. Tupper and Premier of the Province. On the following day the proclamation was issued calling out all members of the militia liable to perform military service in time of war. This proclamation was immediately and loyally responded to. The oath of allegiance was administered, and active drilling by practically all the battalions was carried on for from five to twenty days in different parts of the province.
It is estimated that between twenty-five per cent and thirty-five per cent of the 58,031 ordered out for active service at that time, are still alive.
I do not think it would be natural to expect that those who are turned out at that time, and who are still living, should not apply for this bounty. They are entitled to be rewarded for their services, they turned out in accordance with the proclamation and they fulfilled the conditions outlined in the Act. I do not think it lies in the mouth of the hon. member for Carleton to make the statement that he has made that a fraud has been perpetrated on the Minister of Militia and Defence by the-militiamen of Nova Scotia.
My hon. friend also states that the minister has not handled this matter in a businesslike way. As a matter of fact, the need for the present resolution comes because he approached the matter as a business man should. A large numbeT of applications were received, and the minister sent a commission to the province of Nova Scotia to ascertain at first hand, and as expeditiously as possible, the facts and the conditions under which the militia was mustered and this service performed. This commission was composed of two members of the Militia Council, Mr. Charles T. Panet and Mr. E. A. P. White, and to these were

added a local commissioner with local knowledge in each county. That commission was in a position to get the most accurate information possible. The procedure occupied some time, and before it was physically possible to complete the investigation and complete the payment of bounties, the time authorized in the Act of April, 1, 1912, had expired, and therefore this resolution is necessary to have the time extended.
The commission referred to sat in all of the counties of Nova Scotia. I had the pleasure of being present at all the sittings of the commission which were held in Shelburne and Queens. At these hearings a large number of veterans presented themselves and tendered their evidence. These included the leading and most reputable citizens in the county. As far as my knowledge goes, the statement of the hon. member for Carteton that some of these men were not born when these raids took place is absolutely and totally at variance with the facts. It is not difficult to estimate within a few years the age of any person. I am as morally certain as I can be of anything that none of these men, hundreds of whom I personally saw and talked to, fall within the limit mentioned by my hon. friend. When my hon. friend seeks to impugn the honesty of these veterans, I want to say frankly that I resent such an imputation. I cannot dissent too strongly from the opinion which he has expressed, and I wish to resent, on behalf of these rugged old veterans the slurs which he has sought to cast on their honesty.
There is another aspect of this question that is perhaps more controversial, and to which I think I should allude. I deplore the fact that politics have been drawn into the discussion of the question. My attention was called not long since to a circular letter which was sent out in large numbers by Liberal members in Nova Scotia, and which, among other things, contains the following:
The grant to Nova Scotia veterans was largely due to the energy displayed by some of our Nova Scotia Liberal members.
It is certainly news to the members of this House that the Nova Scotia Liberal members displayed any great amount of energy in forwarding the interests of the Fenian Raid veterans. The circulation of this statement makes it necessary, oir permissible at any rate, that I should contradict the assertion therein contained which assertion, I believe, is clearly at variance with the facts. Any one who will follow

the discussions in the House of the proposed grant to the Fenian Raid veterans can see that, net only have the Liberal members from Nova Scotia collectively and and as a body not assisted in securing this grant, but they have time and again, as the vote was called for, voted against such a recognition of their services.
If there is one characteristic that the *average Nova Scotia Liberal member of Parliament possesses more than another, that characteristic is ' party regularity.' He can always be depended upon to respond to the party whip. I do not seek to depreciate that characteristic in these representatives of the people, and I think that the different representatives themselves would be the last, to wish to proclaim themselves to their constituents as being other than stolid followers of the Liberal party, its politics, and principles. That being so, the case regarding the Fenian Raid veterans and the question as to the attitude of the Liberal members, can be definitely and finally settled by ascertaining what was the attitude officially of that party. In order to ascertain the official attitude of the party I would refer the committee to page 1089 of 'Hansard,' 1910-11. The responsible Minister of Militia in the late Administration was Sir Frederick Borden.


William John Macdonald: Doe3 my horn, friend mean to say that the present Minister of Militia knew, when, he came to Parliament with this resolution, that there were 15,000 men in Nova Scotia who were entitled to this grant?	.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I think the hon. gentleman's question might properly be directed to the Minister of Militia, who is in his seat.


William John Macdonald: Did the hon. member far North Grey (Mr. Middlebro), when he moved his resolution, know that there were only 15,000 men entitled to this grant?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: That is a question also that should be directed to the hon. member for North Grey.
The responsible Minister of Militia in the late Administration was Sir Frederick Borden; he was the man who could authoritatively propound1 the Liberal dogma. He was .asked by the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro):
Does this Government intend, during the present session, bringing down any legislation with reference to the grant of lands or money to the veterans of 1866 and 1870?

To which the reply was:
The Government has come to the conclusion that it is not in the public interest to grant public lands except as provided by law upon condition of residing and settlement. It is not intended to recommend a grant of money in view of the fact that pensions were granted at the time to wounded and to the families of those who were killed in the Fenian Raid engagements.
He said:
It is not in the public interest to grant public lands and it is not intended to recommend a grant of money.
There is nothing vague, obscure, or indefinite about that answer. It is positive, explicit, categorical. That was the official pronouncement of the Liberal party towards the .suggested Fenian Raid grant, the attitude of members opposite one and all present in the House when the question was voted on.


Mr. CARROLL:: I would draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that he is making a statement that is rather wide with reference to hon. gentlemen opposite.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: In what regard?


William F. Carroll: When he says that the resolution introduced in 1910 was opposed by all hon. members opposite. Does the hon. member intend to convey that idea?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I will repeat my statement if it is not clear to my hon, friend. What I said was that all Liberal members present in the House, when votes were at various times taken on this question, voted to sustain the policy of the Liberal Government as propounded by Sir Frederick Borden.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Is my hon. friend aware of the fact that the motion was made as a motion of want of confidence in the late Government?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I am not at present
referring to a motion; I am referring to a question put upon the Order Paper and answered by the then Minister of Militia, Sir Frederick Borden, who was best qualified to propound the Liberal dogma.


John Howard Sinclair: I understood that my
hon. friend was referring to the motion of the hon. member for North Grey, and I wish to point out that that motion was moved as a want of confidence motion, on Mr. Fielding moving the House into Committee of Supply. If the hon. member for North Grey was anxious about the matter he took
the wrong course by moving it as a want of confidence motion.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: My hon. friend
apparently has not heard me aright. I was referring to the answer of Sir Frederick Borden, then Minister of Militia, who stated that it wras not intended to recommend a grant of money. Possibly my hon. friend (Mr. Sinclair) may contend that Sir Frederick Borden wias not qualified to speak for the Administration of that day, but I think we may fairly assume that his statement was a clear representation of the policy of the Government of which he was a member. All the Liberal members who were present in the House when motions came up at various times, to provide recognition for the veterans, voted against the payment of any Fenian Raid bounties. That is how those who profess themselves so solicitous now in the interests of the Fenian Raid veterans acted when their friends occupied the treasury benches, and at which time alone their activity and interest could have been of service to the veterans.
But fortunately for the claimants for the bounty a change of Administration took place in 1911 and one of the first acts of the new Administration was the introduction of a Bill by the Hon. Sam. Hughes, Minister of Militia, providing for a grant of one hundred dollars to each veteran ' called out for active service in the year 1866' or 'whom the Government of Canada called out for active service after Confederation in the year 1870, except in the two battalions of riflemen formed for service in the Northwest.' Liberals in power were opposed to and repeatedly voted against the granting of aid to Fenian raid veterans, but now when a Conservative Government assumes the responsibility of making this long-delayed grant, Liberal members actually send circulars throughout the country containing this statement:
The grant to Nova Scotia veterans was largely due to the energy displayed by some of our Nova Scotia Liberal members.
I frankly confess that had I not seen with my own eyes an original letter containing this statement, I would not have believed that any hon. member opposite
had signed such a letter.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What does the hon. gentleman mean by that ?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I shall have great
pleasure in sending to my hon. friend the original of one of these letters.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not care whether I see one or not; it would not interest me a bit. I want to correct any impression the hon. gentleman may seek to give the House that I ever issued a letter in my life about the Fenian raid bounty, and I never saw one written by anybody else. Of course, that is not saying that such a letter was sent out.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The letter I have in my possession is signed by Mr. Bowman B.
Law, member for Yarmouth, and a copy can 'be seen by reference to page 3508 of * Hansard ' of May 6, 1914.


William John Macdonald: Mr. Law supported the measure just as much as you did.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I understand that other
Liberal members sent out similar letters to their constituents': In fact, there seems to be a wonderful similarity in the different letters sent out by the members of the Opposition; their minds seem to have been running in the same channel on the subject.
In reply to the question put just now by the hon. member for Pictou, I beg to say that Liberal members supported their administration when in power and declined' to have these grants voted to the Fenian raid veterans, but they did not have the courage of their convictions to oppose it when the positions were reversed and when the Conservative Government proposed the grant,


William John Macdonald: Would my hon.
friend allow me; perhaps I can help him out. Would he be good enough to tell the House when he discovered that the Bill of 1912 permitted Nova Scotians to the number of 15,000 to apply for this money?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: It is very kind of my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald) to endeavour to help me out, and I appreciate it very much. Of course, we all understand that the hon. gentleman's interruptions are always attempted with the idea of assisting an opponent. I repeat that hon. gentlemen opposite, when their friends were in power and when they were therefore in a position to make effective legislation, voted solidly against recognition of these claims, but when, fortunately, the positions were reversed, and they found their votes would no longer prevent the passing of the legislation introduced by this Government, and when they knew that any credit accruing from the payment of these claims would come to the government of the day, they had not the courage of their convictions, and, instead of still opposing the Bill, they allowed it to go without op-

position. In view of the history of this question, as shown by the records of this House, nobody in the country will have any doubt as to whom the credit is due for this grant to the veterans.


John Howard Sinclair: ! want to refer for a moment to the statement of my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell), and to endorse what the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. McCurdy) has said in resenting any imputation against the good faith and patriotism of the veterans of Nova Scotia. I was surprised that my hon. friend from Carleton again referred to this matter to-night, after the information we gave him on the occasion of the previous
10 p.m. discussion. It is perfectly clear to any man who will honestly look into the facts, that the number of Nova Scotia veterans who are applying for the bounty at the present time is not excessive, considering the population of the province in 1866. It is well known, and it will be found in the reports to the government of the day, that over fifty thousand men turned out to repel the threatened invasion, and a great many of them were doubtless young men. My hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) should remember that the minimum age. fixed was sixteen years, and everybody knows how anxious every boy in the province would be to take his part on an occasion of that kind. It is not at all correct to say that there are not to-day fifteen thousand, or twenty thousand, or at most twenty-five thousand men in the province of Nova Scotia who are sixty-four years of age. If my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) would take the trouble to look up the census returns, he will find verification of my statement. The whole male population of the province between sixteen years and sixty were ordered out to drill, and I understand they turned out. It is quite true they never did any active service in the sense that I understand active service, but they made preparation for it, and as a matter of law they come under the Act we are now considering.
I hope my hon. friend from Carleton will not repeat the statement any further, because there is ample proof in the records of the province of Nova Scotia to show that that statement is not correct. But, referring for a moment to what my hon. friend from Queens and Shelburne (Mr. McCurdy) has been discussing, I want to point out to him that as I understand the situation, the Government did not intend when they introduced this measure in 1912, to give anything to

the veterans of Nova Scotia. I think I can show this from the records of the short discussion that took place in the House when the Act was passed. I suppose the hon. gentleman was in the House, and if he was, he would be expected to raise his voice in favour of the veterans of Nova Beotia which I understand he did not do.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I was not in the House.


John Howard Sinclair: At all events, there is ample proof that the Government never intended to give anything to Nova Scotia veterans. This proof was submitted to the House by my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) a few evenings ago, that the 'Government did not know they were giving one dollar to the veterans of Nova Scotia when they introduced the Bill in 1912. If the hon. gentleman will refer to page 6256 of ' Hansard ' of 1912, he will find that when the Bill was introduced, I asked the minister the following question:
Will the Act apply to men who were called out to drill? I understand that in the province of Nova Scotia a number of men were drafted and collected at some particular place, ana submitted themselves to some few weeks drill preparatory to going to the front, but they never did go. What will be done in the case of those men?
And here we have the answer:
Mr. Hughes (Victoria) : The law says they must have been called out for active service and the man who is called out for drill is not called out for active service. He has been called out in anticipation of meeting the enemy.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: These men were called out for active service and not for drill. The Bill is clear and these men are clearly entitled to the bounty. The geographical location of the volunteer does not matter.


John Howard Sinclair: My hon. friend is quite mistaken. I continued the inquiry:
I have no doubt it was in anticipation of service but the raid, as everybody remembers, was short. These men were not required to go to the front, but they were drafted. They went through the process of being drafted, selections were made from each regiment, and those men selected were taken from different places and submitted to drill preparatory to going to the front, but there was no call for them to go to the front.
Mr. Hughes: My hon. friend will realize from his legal knowledge that if the official notification to the officers in the locality called out these troops in a certain year for preparatory drill only, then they do not come under the Act. If they were called out for active service-as certain of the Nova Scotia volunteers were called out, and went to the front-they do come under the Act.
That is the statement-they were to be called out for active service, but it was for those who went to the front that this bounty was provided. There is some further discussion, but this is the material point raised at that time by myself. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. McCurdy) says he was not present, but other Conservative members from Nova Scotia were present, and so far as I recollect not one of them raised his voice in favour of the veterans of Nova Scotia. It is clear that when the Bill was introduced in 1912 the Government had no intention of giving one dollar to the veterans of Nova Scotia.'


James Joseph Hughes: Then, will the hon. gentleman be good enough to say why we included the word ' Nova Scotia' in the list?
Mr. SINCLAIR; Because, as I undeiv stood the hon. gentleman to say, there were a few Nova Scotia veterans who had gone to the front to assist New Brunswick, and these were in active service. That was drawn to his attention. To show that the Government had no intention of giving this bounty to the veterans of Nova Scotia, when Parliament met in the following year, there was another discussion which I will quote. This was on the 26th of March, 1913, and is reported at page 6418 of * Hansard ' of that year. I again directed the attention of the Prime Minister to this matter. Here is an extract from ' Hansard ' of that date:
I would like to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Hughes), and, in his absence, that of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden), to the question of the bounties to Fenian raid veterans. The rumour is abroad in Nova Scotia that all parties who were ordered out to drill at the time of the Fenian agitation was on in 1866, are to be included in the bounty that is to be given to Fenian raid veterans. We were told last year that only such veterans as had seen active service were to receive that bounty. I understand that the Governor of Nova Scotia issued a proclamation in 1866 authorizing preparations for meeting the Fenian raids that were expected at that date. Very many people turned out, underwent drill for several weeks, and subsequently, when the draft was made, certain people were selected out of the number that had been engaged in the drill to go to the front if they were required. As the Prime Minister knows no steps of that kind were necessary, and with few exceptions no person from that province went to the front. Are the parties who subjected themselves to drill and who made preparations to go to the front if they were required entitled to share in the bounty that is to be given to Fenian raid veterans?


James Joseph Hughes: Whose question is that?


John Howard Sinclair: 
Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I never claimed credit. I said it was a matter in which party politics should not be mixed up. But what I objected to was that hon. gentlemen opposite should have statements published like this:
The grant to Nova Scotia was largely due to the energy displayed by some of our Nova Scotia Liberal members.


John Howard Sinclair: That statement is quite correct. But my hon. friend will not say that his colleagues in the province of Nova Scotia did not endeavour to make capital out of this discussion. It has been brought up on the occasion of every municipal election that has taken place in the province, at least in that part of it with which I am well acquainted. The votes of the people have been asked for because of the $100 which is to be paid to the veterans by this benevolent Government. Everyone in North Cape Breton knows that this matter figured largely in the recent election in Victoria county. I have before me a letter written by the gentleman who afterwards became local member for the county of Victoria, which practically tells the people of that county that even

if they do make false statements in their applications for the bounty, no harm will come to them because he will stand behind them; that he has sufficient influence with the Government to see that a man who makes a false statement in applying for the bounty will not be punished and that perjury will be condoned. That is the attitude taken by our friends in the province of Nova Scotia, who have endeavoured ever since this Act was passed to make political capital out of it.


Mr. A. D. FOSTER:: Will my hon. friend read Mr. McLeod's letter wherein he condones perjury ?


John Howard Sinclair: The letter is dated Bad-deck, February 6. 1914, and is as follows:
To our Fenian Raid Veterans.
Deaf Sir,-X wish to congratulate those of you who have received your bounty. To those who have not I wish to say that I am informed from Ottawa that although your application for the Fenian Raid bounty has been passed, there may be a little further delay before you get your check. The cause of this delay is that a further vote of Parliament is needed to complete the payment of deferred and belated applications. You are therefore absolutely sure ot getting your check very soon.
There is a report that many of the' applicants were not really sure that they had drilled in March and April, 1866, and consequently had no right to swear to it. I think I can assure you that nothing will be done to our friends in that connection.
That is pretty plain. Mr. McLeod, the candidate of the Conservative party has heard that certain men had no right to swear that they served at the date required by law in 1866, but he says:
I think I can assure you that nothing will be done in that connection.
In other words, perjure yourselves if necessary, and I will see that nothing will be done to you. The letter goes on to say:
Many false and misleading claims are being made by our opponents concerning the granting of the Fenian Raid bounty. However, one fact must forever stand out in the history of this county, and that is! that it was the Borden Government that passed the law giving the bounty to the veterans of the Fenian Raid of 1866. They are all old men to-day, and the present generation is proud of them for the noble manner in which they sprung to arms in defence of our country in those stern times when the rivals of Britain had covetous eyes on this Canada of ours.
After nearly fifty years you are called upon again to take a stand in the defence of your country and help to lift it out of the rut of slipshod government. I therefore ask you to vote for me on February the 12th and for an era of greater expansion for the splendid province of Nova Scotia.
Faithfully yours,
(Sgd) Philip McLeod.


Arthur de Witt Foster: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he will lay that document on the table of the House? I would like to have a look at it.


John Howard Sinclair: I have no objection.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What good will that do?


Arthur de Witt Foster: It does not make
any difference what good it will do; it is my privilege to ask that it be laid on the table of the House.


John Howard Sinclair: The hon. gentleman
must understand that this is not the original letter, but it has been given to me as a true and correct copy of the original letter He will find it in ' Hansard ' to-morrow.


Arthur de Witt Foster: I want to say now that that is not the original letter written by Mr. McLeod and addressed to the electors of Victoria county.


John Howard Sinclair: Will you produce the original letter?


Arthur de Witt Foster: I cannot produce it here and now, but that is not the original letter.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I am in a position to say that that is a copy of the original letter, and I defy my hon. friend, the hon. member for Kings, N.S., to produce an original that differs from that letter.


John Hampden Burnham: This is a very serious matter. Any lawyer does not need to be a judge to know that if you have the original you have to produce it. Let us have the original.


John Howard Sinclair: The copy is just as good as the original in this case. The hon. gentleman will find this letter in almost any house in the county of Victoria if he will look for it, because they were scattered broadcast all over the country. Every veteran, I presume, received one. It is clear to me, and, I think, clear to everybody else, that the Government did not intend to give this bounty to the veterans of Nova Scotia at the time the Act was passed, but that it was afterwards decided that they were entitled to it by reason of the interpretation of the law and the discovery of the proclamation ordering the men out for active service on that occasion. If we got the bounty by a legal construction placed on the Act which the Government never intended, we owe them no thanks for it.
I wish to call the attention of the minister to the question of the widows of veterans who died prior to the 1st day of April, 1912.
I have a number of applications in my desk from widows who claim to be entitled to the bounty and whose husbands died prior to that date. In one case the veteran died on March 27, 1912, only three or four days before the date fixed by the minister, and there are other cases of a like nature. I submit that there is no principle upon which the minister can deny the bounty to the widows of veterans who died prior to that date. I have heard him give no satisfactory explanation on that point; but, from the answer which he was kind enough to give to >a question I asked him in the early days of the session, I assumed that when the Bill would be introduced these widows would be provided for. The minister on that occasion said very frankly that provision would be made in the law to pay everybody who is entitled to the bounty. I submit 'that the widows of veterans who died prior to the first day of April, 1912, are just as much entitled to the bounty as the widows of veterans who died after that date. I had hoped that the minister, in taking a step forward with the Bill to-night, would have made some provision in that regard. If he does not intend to make an effort to do so, I myself would like to move an amendment to the Bill. I wish to know whether or not the minister has really decided that he will not take any action with regard to that phase of the matter.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The hon. member for Shelburne and Queens protests against the introduction of politics into the question of the Fenian Raid Bounty Act. I suppose that so long as politics is politics, so long will it creep into the administration of a great many of the public services of this country, whether one would desire it or not. I think it is hardly fair for my 'hon. friend to complain that some hon. .gentlemen on this side have written letters .perhaps with too much enthusiasm assigning credit to the Liberal party for the passage of the Fenian Raid Act. He should be generous enough to remember that hon. gentlemen supporting the Government from Nova Scotia have more than once claimed [DOT]the entire credit for the Government which they support for the passage of this Bill. That is a very unjustifiable claim on their *part and so long as that is made by hon. gentlemen, opposite they must expect occasionally to hear some similiar claims from this side of the House. At no time in the history of this Parliament did this question come before it in quite the same manner in which it is found set forth in the

present Aet. As the hon. member for Guygborough has pointed out, when this Bill was passed it was not known by the Minister of Militia or by the Government or by any hon. gentleman in this House that it would be or could be construed as liberally as it afterwards was. Hon. gentlemen will concede that I am correct in that proposition.


Arthur de Witt Foster: No.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. member for
Kings dissents, but I challenge him to establish his denial of the proposition which I have just set forth.


Arthur de Witt Foster: I do not have to
establish it.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. gentleman has to establish it, because the Minister of Militia has before this admitted the correctness of the position I now take, and it has been abundantly proved that at the time this Act was submitted to Parliament it was not expected or intended that it would be construed so liberally as it has since been.


James Joseph Hughes: It is not a question of construing the Act but merely of producing the evidence.


William Findlay Maclean: That js perfectly correct in administering the Act; but what I mean to say is that the Act as construed to-day is much wider than was the intention of the Government when introducing it.


James Joseph Hughes: Absolutely identical.


William Findlay Maclean: I think the hon. gentleman is incorrect in his assertion. I think he has admitted the correctness of my statement on previous occasions.


James Joseph Hughes: Produce the evidence.


William Findlay Maclean: I have not the evidence before me. I did not, however, rise to discuss that phase of the question. I never issued a letter to my constituents in regard to this matter, and do not propose to do so. I agree with the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. McCurdy) that it is very regrettable indeed that there has been injected into the administration of this matter so much party politics.
Mr. MeCURDY: I did not say that; I did not say that politics had been injected into the administration.


William Findlay Maclean: If you did not make
that statement perhaps you would like now to make it and thus agree with me? The hon. gentleman is quite correct, he did not

say that and I did not intend to convey the impression that he did. I hope, however that he agrees with me. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queens objects unfairly, I think, to gentlemen on this side saying that they did not oppose the principle of this Bill. This is true. I do say, however, that I object to the manner in which this Act has been administered. It has occupied altogether too much time. The letter read by the hon. member for Guysborough clearly indicates one of the necessary and natural results of a loose administration of the Act and of the unnecessarily lengthy period taken for the completion of the work. That	letter would appear	to contain a promise on behalf of one man to secure for his political friends condonation of perjury, and I think that should be a very impressive warning to the minister to hasten the payments which are due or payable under this Act. I trust that he will not ask Parliament to give him until July 31, 1915, to complete payments. He should do it very much earlier.
During this session I asked the minister if in any respect he had furnished information to the Conservative Association of Halifax county, which in turn was forwarded to applicants. I received a very haughty negative from the minister to the effect that no official of the Halifax County Conservative Association ever received advice from his department respecting the administration of the Act or giving any departmental information in reference to applications.


James Joseph Hughes: Hear, hear.


William Findlay Maclean: I wish to read a letter issued by the Halifax County Conservative Association ajnd signed toy the secretary, which had wide circulation not only in the county of Halifax, but in pretty nearly every county in Nova Scotia. This letter,, which I am about to read, was received by an applicant for Fenian Raid bounty, and it is only one of a great number which I have in my possession. It is written on the official paper of the Halifax County Conservative Association. The telephone number and post office box and building of the association rooms are given. The let-/ ter is as follows:
The Halifax County Liberal-Conservative Association.
Halifax, N.S., October 13, 1913.
Dear Sir,-I am advised by the Militia Department that your application for the Fenian Raid bounty is being held for the following reasons:	' Tear of service not stated '. You

had better re-apply for the bounty and correct this error, and if you call at my office at any time X will be glad to render you any assistance in this matter.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) W. G. Poster,
Secretary.
Hundreds of letters similar to that have been circulated throughout the whole province. I submit to the minister that it is a moat unfair letter to circulate. It is a-direct intimation to applicants for the Fenian Raid bounty that if they called at the rooms of the Halifax County Conservative Association their applications would,' possibly receive better and speedier treatment than if they went elsewhere. HoVr many applicants receiving letters of that kind from the secretary of the Conservative Association of the county of Halifax would not think that it perhaps had some special significance? The minister will appreciate my point and further the fact that the letter conveyed to the recipient the idea that the Minister of Militia was in direct correspondence with the secretary of a political association. I want the minister to look into this matter immediately, and see that it does not occur again.


James Joseph Hughes: I have nothing to do with circulars issued by some Conservative or some Grit associations in Nova Scotia. If they issue a dozen circulars I shall not tag up and down Nova Scotia following up various associations. Let the hon. member produce a line from the department of that kind and I will be prepared to investigate it.


William Findlay Maclean: My hon. friend must
pay more respect to a letter of this kind than he would to a letter like the one read" by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens.


James Joseph Hughes: Not a particle.


William Findlay Maclean: That is not one calling for official recognition; but here is one in which the secretary of the Halifax Conservative Association states that he is advised by the Militia Department of the causes for the delay in the granting of bounty to an applicant. This is a condition of affairs which I may fairly ask the Minister of Militia to take cognizance of. I know that the secretary of this association (Mr. Foster) must have had information from the department.


James Joseph Hughes: I know that Mr. Foster had no information from the department,
either directly or indirectly. It was a mere guess game the same as the Liberals played.


William Findlay Maclean: I do not see how the
information could have been obtained otherwise.


James Joseph Hughes: What information is
conveyed?


William Findlay Maclean: The information is to
the effect that he was advised by the Militia Department that the application for the bounty made by the recipient of this letter was delayed by reason of the fact that the year of service was not stated in his application.


James Joseph Hughes: What is the date of the letter ?


William Findlay Maclean: October 13, 1913, and I want to assure the minister that this was not the only letter that was sent out.


James Joseph Hughes: That is, after the commission was around. All their proceedings were in open court.


William Findlay Maclean: There may be some explanation as to how this writer received his information. If there is I shall be very glad to receive it, but if special information has been furnished the secretary of the Conservative Association for the county of Halifax in respect to the administration of this Act I protest; I submit that it is unfair and I expect the Minister of Militia to prevent anything of that sort. If I am not correctly stating the facts I have no complaint whatever against the department, but I submit that payments due under this Act should be paid as quickly as possible. I think, and have always thought, that the minister should have despatched a number of officials from the service, particularly to the province of Nova Scotia where there are so many applicants, and they could have moved from county to county receiving applications and in certain cases practically paying the bounty on the spot. It has taken altogether too long to make the payments.


James Joseph Hughes: I might point out that
the Militia Department merely issues the warrants; the payment is made by the Finance Department. So far as the circular is concerned to which my hon. friend has referred, let me say at the outset that I was appealed to by members of the House for information-I am not breaking any confidences; I refuse to recognize any confidences in regard to public matters of this kind from any member, Liberal or Conservative. I challenge any member of

the House, Liberal or Conservative, from the Prime Minister downwards, to say that he ever got a list from me in regard to the province of Nova Scotia. When the list was prepared I sent a copy to the Prime Minister's office, and that is what was laid on the table of the House. The cords binding it were not cut, nor were the seals broken. The information that my hon. friend thinks was given by the department might have been obtained at the court, for the commission sat in open court. I had nothing to do with it, and never heard of it. I have the word of Mr. Charles Panet, who is the head of the organization, that no report was given to any member, either Liberal or Conservative. It was reported to me that a Liberal member of Parliament had been in his room several times, but there was nothing wrong about that. I spoke to Mr. Pane't about it. I said1: 'I am asked by a number of Liberal and also Conservatives to give certain facts. I have pointed out that it cannot be done under the regulations, and they have at once repudiated any further desire to get the information.' He said, and I have the utmost confidence in him, I believe what he says- that these gentleman had never once asked him for information, either directly or indirectly. So I may say, to the honour of hon. members on both sides of the House, that there has been no attempt to get information in an underhand way so far as I am aware. The little attempts to make political capital I simply laughed at. The only time I interfered was when I heard that some parties were seeking to get commissions on the bounties paid to certain veterans. I then caused one of the officers of the department to issue a notice that no commission was chargeable at all, and we took steps to ensure that the warrants should be issued direct to the applicants, so that no commission could be collected by any outside party.


William Findlay Maclean: I am quite satisfied with the minister's explanation. I just wanted an understanding. The writer of this letter was in error, I suppose, in saying he was advised by the Militia Department.


James Joseph Hughes: He might have thought the commission represented the Militia Department. I do not know what information the commission gave at the courts, as I was not present.


William Findlay Maclean: He did not get the facts from the Militia Department?


James Joseph Hughes: Nothing from me, and
Mr. Panet assures me he never gave any information directly or indirectly to anybody, and I have absolute faith in him. In regard to the point of the hon. member for Guysboro (Mr. Sinclair) I did not point out what veterans were entitled to the bounty, I did not bother looking up the Nova Scotia law or the proclamation; I do not know anything about it. The law on the statute-book states that every man who was called out for active service under the law is entitled to the bounty. That is the answer, and that is the answer I have always given to the beautifully-worded questions of my hon. friend. I simply stand by the law.


Mr. RHODES:: This question has been
discussed at more or less length, but I do not know that any useful purpose is being served. In a nutshell the position is this: Hon. gentlemen opposite were in power for fifteen years but never enacted any legislation of this kind. When the question was put to the Minister of Militia in the late Government, he stated that the Government did not intend to do this sort of thing. Shortly after the present Administration came into power, this Act was placed upon the statute-books and the credit is due to the Borden Administration. There is no question about it. If hon. gentlemen opposite propose to take credit for Government legislation they might as well cease their opposition to the Canadian Northern railway proposals and everything else. Apparently they are assuming equal responsibility for all Government legislation. My particular purpose in rising is to dissent entirely from the interpretation placed upon the letter of Philip McLeod by the hon. junior member for Halifax and the hon. member for Guysboro. Philip McLeod was the a local candidate in the county of Victoria. I had never seen or heard of that letter before to-night, but I do not believe it is susceptible of the interpretation that has been placed upon it by hon. gentlemen opposite. I do not for one moment assent to the proposal that it was Philip McLeod's intention to intimate to these veterans that they could perjure themselves with impunity because they were his friends. That was not his intention at all. I personally know of many old veterans who undoubtedly were out drilling and who could qualify for this bounty. Many of them are old men and very particular. They could not swear to the exact date. They say: I cannot swear that I drilled in the year 1866; I know I

was out drilling about that time and that my friends were out with me, and that I was served with a rifle; I have no reasonable doubt in my mind that I was out in 1866 but I do not want to swear to it. That is the position of many old men. After having conversed with them and inquired into the facts I have told them that they would be perfectly justified in making an affidavit that they were entitled to the bounty, and it is cases of this kind that Mr. McLeod had in mind. I must resent the imputation that Philip McLeod intended to lend himself to condone perjury.
I know Mr. McLeod personally; he is not a lawyer. He may perhaps have written that letter in a way which would bear such an interpretation as has been placed upon it, but even then I doubt that such an interpretation can be placed upon it. Knowing Mr. McLeod as I do, I have no doubt that such a thought was farthest from his mind, and that his idea in writing that letter was as I have suggested.


William F. Carroll: When the resolution
which is the basis of this Bill was under discussion some time ago, early in May, I, like my hon. friend from Queens and Shelburne (Mr. McCurdy), had not the opportunity of saying the few words I intended to say upon that occasion. 1 agree with the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes) in the statement that there are many men to-day in Nova Scotia who are entitled to this bounty, but who are, nevertheless, too conscientious, too scrupulous, to make the declaration necessary under this law. I know two officers in the county of Cape Breton who refused absolutely to make the declaration because they had some conscientious scruples as to whether it was in March that they were called out. I know a gentleman who went to these officers and explained to them certain incidents that occurred in the course of the drill which took place on that occasion, but, by reason of the fact that they could not themselves remember the incidents, they refused to make application.
In view of the fact that there have been statements made in the House which would lead one to believe that there were some people in Nova Scotia who would commit perjury, I desire to make a remark or two upon that matter. I dare say there are some people in Nova Scotia who would commit perjury; I dare say there aTe people in the other provinces of Canada who would commit perjury, but I do not
think it is a fair assertion to say that any applicant for this bounty has committed perjury. If the statement was made by the Government, backed up by some very strong evidence, that any applicant had committed perjury, I would be the first to assist in the effort to obtain a conviction of that man. I am not going to place myself on record as saying that there are none who have made application but those who turned out and performed actual service at the time, but I do pot say that even these people committed wilful perjury. There may have been some confusion as between the special drill which took place in March, 1866, and the annual drill that occurred between June and September. It, is not at all surprising that 15,000 out of 57,000 in the province of Nova Scotia should be living at the present time, in view of the fact that the age at which these people did not voluntarily but were obliged to turn out and drill was between 16 and 60. I saw a list the other day from the district of Cheticamp, in the county of Inverness, and, according to that list, there were at that time only four men who came out who were over 45 years of age. As a matter of fact, the great majority of them, with the exception of 50 or 60, ranged from 16 to 24 years of age; so that it would not be surprising if every man who came out in that district should be living at the present time.
In reference to making political capital out of this matter, I admit that I did publish a circular letter in two of the papers in the county of Cape Breton telling persons who would be applicants for the Fenian Raid bounty that if there was anything I could do to assist them in making their applications I would be glad to do it.
I looked upon this as a duty incumbent upon me as the representative of the people in Parliament. I got the list submitted by the Minister of Militia, I wrote to each individual and explained the position of his application. That communication was accompanied by a letter to the effect that if there were any persons who had made application and whose names did not appear on the list, I would try and trace them up in the Militia Department. I found between eight and twelve people whose applications were made out, but which applications were, unfortunately, lost afterwards in the mail or through the negligence of the persons who made the applications. These matters were rectified as a result of whatever little vigilance I

gave to the question, and if I get any political revenue, so to speak, from it, I am very glad indeed to have it.
I do not adhere to the proposition that a person who comes out for his country is not entitled to pay. It is not a sound proposition, because when soldiers come out to fight for their country they are paid. If these gentlemen who make application for bounty had been present at the	annual camp	in	Nova
Scotia in 1866, or in any other province, they would have received their drill pay. These people came out in what at that time was the dead of winter, because I know men in Cape Breton who walked from twenty-five to forty miles on snow-shoes calling the men out to drill.


James Joseph Hughes: I do not think any of these men got paid in 1866. I think they gave their services absolutely free.


William F. Carroll: Suppose they did; I am saying that there is not a man who turns out to drill from one end of Canada to the other but receives some recompense.


James Joseph Hughes: I was merely strengthening my hon. friend's argument.


William F. Carroll: I do not think it is unfair that these men should receive some slight recompense; I think it is absolutely fair. As for what the Liberal party did in the fifteen years they were in power, I can only say to the hon. member for Cumberland that his party were in power for eighteen years previous to that and they did not seem to do very much.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so, but they never refused to grant this bounty.


William F. Carroll: I think it will be shown before this discussion is over that they did.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If they did they are rectifying it now.


William F. Carroll: I am giving them all credit. As far as anything that was done in this House by either party is concerned, I do not think that we did anything to be ashamed of. The Bill received every assistance from this side of the House. I do not know of any one except my hon. friend from Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell), who advised the minister that he was going to get entangled in a great net as a result of bringing in this Bill.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And I told him the truth.


William F. Carroll: You certainly did; I admit that. But if hon. gentlemen opposite

say that the Liberal party has always opposed this proposition they are not telling the whole truth. I am not speaking for any of the members who were in this House in 1910 and 1911 and who. are hero now; they can speak for themselves. It is rather unfair for hon. gentlemen to say that the Liberal party were always lined up against this proposition. I did not line up against it but when the resolution was .introduced it had my hearty .support and I was in the House from the time that this Bill was in-trduced until it went through. I do not say that I assisted the Minister of Militia because he does not need my assistance in matters military but at the same time I was quite willing if, he needed any assistance, to do everything possible to further the Bill. I agree with my. hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) that the Government in this country being regulated by party politics, they are bound to creep into everything. I am a commissioner and a notary public in my county but the only application I took was that of a friend of my own with whom I was visiting. He asked me to make out his application and I advised him that he .should get somebody else to do it, but in the end I took it. Applications were made by friends of mine and political capital was attempted to be made by the other side saying that these applications were no good. I do not begrudge the political capital which any party can make out of a piece of legislation. If I do a good thing I expect to make friends by it for the Liberal party in my part of the country, and if I' do anything that does not meet with the approbation of the people, I believe I would lose the support of several Liberals in my constituency. It is just as well for us to accept the broad facts.
I wish to point out to the Minister of Militia that it does not appear fair to say that because a man was living on the 1st of April, 1912, and died on the 2nd of April, 1912, that his widow or legal representative should receive one hundred dollars, whereas if he happened to die on the last day of March, 1912, his widow would receive nothing. I do not think that such a proposition commends itself even to the minister himself. It is true the line of demarcation must be drawn, but so long as it is provided that the widows-and I agree with that proposition-should receive this money, then the least the Act should provide is that the widow of any person,

whether he died on the 1st of June, 1866, or the 30th of April, 1912, should receive this bounty.


James Joseph Hughes: Would there not he
trouble in proving the facts about a man who died in 1866?


William F. Carroll: There would be no trouble; he would have to get the declaration of a comrade.


James Joseph Hughes: But he is dead.


William F. Carroll: His widow would know whether he went out or not, and at all events some comrade of his would be alive.


James Joseph Hughes: The Act only recognizes the volunteers who were alive on that date.


William F. Carroll: You recognize the
widows.


James Joseph Hughes: A man living on the
1st of April, 1912, is legally entitled to the money, and therefore his widow is entitled to it.


William F. Carroll: But you are certainly
recognizing widows.


James Joseph Hughes: We recognize the estate.
Mr. 'CARROLL: You recognize first the widows, and then you recognize the estate if the widow is dead.


James Joseph Hughes: We recognize the widows of those who died since 1st April, 1912.


William F. Carroll: Suppose any of these
veterans who came out in 1866 under the proclamation in Nova Scotia, lost their lives directly or indirectly because of obeying that proclamation, would it not be absolutely fair that their now surviving widows would receive this bounty? I do not think the minister is justified in debarring from the benefits of this Act the widows of veterans who happen to have died previous to the 1st of April, 1912. I would urge upon him to give this matter his very serious consideration, and if possible to so amend the present Bill as to make provision for the surviving widows of the veterans. With reference to the letters that were written by members from the province of Nova Scotia I have nothing to say. My hon. friend from Cumberland has said that it was not Mr. McLeod's intention that his letter should be construed as it has been. Perhaps it was not Mr. McLeod's intention that that letter should get into the hands of any other person 275
than the gentleman to whom it was sent, but I have no doubt that Mr. McLeod expected, and possibly received support from persons to whom he sent this letter. Whether they come from political friends or political opponents of mine, I say it is regrettable that such [letters should be circulated. It is also regrettable that people should be misled in connection with this matter. I might bring to the attention of the Minister of Militia one circumstance that came under my notice and I am	not	blaming	the Government	orthe minister in connection with it. In Glace Bay, a friend of mine, a Mr. Tobin, went	around with	the commission,	andan election was pending,	and11 p.m. letters were sent out broadcast through	the rural districts	of
that constituency to the effect that no person would obtain the bounty unless the application was endorsed by Mr. Tobin. Of course no such endorsement was necessary because I know that men got the bounty whose applications Mt. Tobin never saw; but this shows the way the thing has been worked politically. I do not mind a person obtaining political kudos so long as there is no misrepresentation, but I do object to men on either side of politics misrepresenting anything in connection with this question. I make these remarks, first to put myself square with what little connection I had with this Act and, in the second place, to draw the attention of the minister to the fact that section 4 should be so amended so as to include the widows of those who died previous to the coming into force of this Act on the 1st of April, 1912.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN:: I wish to remind the minister that, when this question was under discussion in the House on a previous occasion, he stated that the resolution passed by the Legislature of Prince Edward Island was passed after the trouble was over. No doubt the minister was under that impression, but he is mistaken. The resolution is dated only one month after the proclamation was issued 'by the Governor of Nova Scotia. The proclamation in Nova Scotia was issued on the 17th March, 1866, and the resolution passed by the Legislature of Prince Edward Island is dated the 14th of April, 1866. I take it that the resolution passed by the Legislature of Prince Edward Island is equivalent or more than equivalen+ to the proclamation of the Governor of Nova Scotia. The words of that resolution are very strong:



Resolved, that in consequence of the threatened invasion of the British colonies by bands of Fenian marauders, this House pledges itself to place the whole of the revenue of the Island at the disposal of the Government for the purpose of organization of the militia and volunteers and for such other military purposes as may be deemed expedient for the protection and defence of the colonies.
Here were the whole resources of the provinces pledged for this purpose, a month after the militia of Nova Scotia was called out. There is evidence on record in Prince Edward Island that the Prince Edward Island militia were called out to drill just the same as the militia of Nova Scotia were called out to drill under the proclamation of the 17th of March, in preparation to repel the invasion.
They were called out in the middle of the winter; they were out in the month of January before the Legislature met. They were preparing as much as the militia of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to repel this raid. They are in exactly the same position as those of any other province, except that there was not a proclamation by the Governor. But the legislature spoke for the whole people, and all their resources were pledged to repel the invasion. Is not that as strong as a proclamation by the Governor of Nova Scotia or of any other province? I would suggest to the minister-I suggest it, I do not move it,-that the Bill should be amended by adding the words ' P. E. I. ' after ' N. B. ' in the fourth line of paragraph 2, and after the word ' service ' the words ' or in the case of Prince Edward Island drilled in pursuance of the resolution of the legislature of that province passed on the 14th of April, 1866.' Perhaps the Minister can suggest something better, 'but I think the province should receive some recognition. That is my contention; and I am not going to detain the House or attempt to make this a political question. I have been rather amused at the hon. members from Nova Scotia who said they were not going to make political capital out of this though there is no -doubt they are attempting to do so. I wish simply to have the Act amended so that the volunteers who were called out in Prince Edward Island in 1866 should be placed on the same footing asi volunteers called out in the other provinces. And I would especially direct the attention of the Government to this resolution passed on the 14th of April, 1866, which is of record in -the Journals of the Prince Edward Island Legislature and which, I think, is stronger in effect than the proclamation of the Governor of Nova Scotia.


James Joseph Hughes: I am glad to see the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) present tonight, because I am sure he will take a broad and proper view of this question. It gives me great pleasure to endorse the views of my hon. colleague from Prince Edward Island (Mr. A. A. McLean). I listened attentively to the statement of the Minister of Militia (Mr. Hughes) and I noticed that he said that ' anybody responding to a legal call ' would be recognized by him. Later, changing the phraseology a little, he said * anybody acting under a legal eaU. would be recognized under the Act as entitled to the 'bounty. There can be no question but that these men Of Prince Edward Island volunteered and drilled in preparation to repel an invasion, and that in doing so they were * responding to legal call.' That call was in the statute of the province. I may say to the Prime Minister, as he was not here the other evening when this matter was under discussion, that when the legislature of Prince Edward Island was called together in that year, the governor in his Speech from the Throne called the attention of the legislature to the fact that 'the British provinces were threatened with in-, vasion by men living in the republic to the south, and asked the legislature to make ail necessary provision to repel that invasion. In reply they said they would certainly make all necessary provision. I think it would be well to read one paragraph of the reply to the Speech from the Throne on that occasion:
It is with feelings of just pride that we have observed the loyalty and spirit evinced by our fellow-subjects in the neighbouring provinces when threatened by piratical attacks at the hands of lawless men; and we beg to assure your Excellency that should a similar emergency ever unfortunately occur in this Island, your Excellency could rely with confidence on a like spirit in its inhabitants of every creed and station; and we admit the necessity of doing all in our power towards making due preparation for such an emergency by earnestly considering the laws by which the militia and volunteer forces are at present regulated.
Then they proceeded to pass special legislation calling upon every man in the province from sixteen years to sixty to volunteer for service. In fact, they were obliged to enroll themselves, and nearly all male persons within the age limit did enroll themselves, at very great inconvenience, because there was no pay in the matter and they had to provide their own food. I might also refer to the statement

made by the hon. member for Queens that tlie legislature passed a resolution placing the whole revenue of the province at the disposal of the governor. That resolution was passed unanimously. It was moved) by the Solicitor General in these words:
Resolved, that, in consequence of the threatened invasion of the British colonies by bands of Fenian marauders, this House, pledges itself to place the whole of the revenue of the Island at the disposal of the Government for the purpose of organizing the militia and volunteers, and for such other military purposes as may be deemed expedient for the protection and defence of the colony.
There could not be anything more done by anybody-certainly nothing more was done in any province of the Dominion than was done by Prince Edward Island. The Minister of Militia, I think, stated, if nojt this evening, then a few evenings ago when this matter was under consideration, that we were somewhat late in preparing bo repel the threatened invasion. I find that the proclamation issued in the province of Nova Scotia was not withdrawn until thei 15th of May, 1866.
The people of Prince Edward Island prepared on April 14, under this resolution to defend the colony, so that they were well within the time they took action at least a month before the proclamation was withdrawn in Nova Scotia. I do not supposed that the Government would wish to take advantage of any technicality in regard to this matter; the Act is intended to apply to everybody who is entitled to take advantage of this legislation. I presume that is the case; if not, it is improper legislation. I hope that the Government will accept the suggestion made by the hon member for Queens, Prince Edward Island, and amend the Act so that it will apply to Prince Edward Island in the same way that it applies to the province of Nova Scotia.


Robert Laird Borden: The intention of the Bill is to apply this bounty to those who were actually called out for active service and who really turned out in response to that call. We all agree that the action of the legislature of Prince Edward Island was both patriotic and commendable, but as a matter of fact it does not seem to me that it brings the entire population of the Island within certain ages, as included in the terms of the resolution, within the scope of this Bill, for the reason that it was merely a resolution and that, although after legislation had been enacted, if it were enacted, the inhabitants of Prince Edward 2751
*Island may have drilled, it was not in respect of the occasion for which the militia of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the province of Canada put themselves in active service for the purpose of repelling invasion.


James Joseph Hughes: The Prime Minister is certainly mistaken in that; it was just for that very purpose that the special Act was passed and it was under that Act that the men drilled.


Robert Laird Borden: When did they begin to drill?


James Joseph Hughes: I do not know the exact date.
Mr. A. A. McLEAlS : I think they were first called out on January 17, 1866, and they were out also after the Act was passed.


Robert Laird Borden: With the details of the whole situation I am not thoroughly familiar, but the resolution from which my hon. friend read a moment ago alluded to an emergency of some kind. It declared that if an emergency should arise in the future the resources of the province would be pledged for the purpose of dealing with it. It does not seem that that was dealing with an emergency which had been for some time in existence in the neighbouring province.


James Joseph Hughes: Eut they refer to that special emergency with which the province and the whole of Canada was then threatened.


Angus Alexander McLean: The resolution says:
That in consequence of the threatened invasion of the British colonies by bands of Fenian marauders.


Robert Laird Borden: That in consequence of the threatened invasion of the British colonies by bands of Fenian marauders, this House pledges itself to place the whole of the revenue of the Island at the disposal of the Government for the purpose of organizing the militia and volunteers, and for such other military purposes as may be deemed expedient for the protection and defence of the colony.
That was passed on April 14, 1866. The emergency which is alluded to, and which seems to have arisen in connection with the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, had arised some time before. In those provinces the procedure was not that of providing a militia which would in the future be prepared to deal with such an emergency, but that of the calling out of militia actually in existence under the

law of the province for the purpose of dealing with an emergency which was then imminent. My hon. friend suggests that this Act should be applied to the population of Prince Edward Island, which had then not been organized for militia purposes, and which, therefore, could not be called out for the purpose.


James Joseph Hughes: I am suggesting that it apply only to those who actually drilled and who actually responded to *the call; I did not mean the whole population of the province.


Robert Laird Borden: In the other provinces of Canada there is no pretense of applying these bounties to those who had been drilling in January or in the previous year, or to those who drilled later in the year. The bounty is applied only to those who, being part of the active militia in those colonies, did actually, under the law of the land, by reason of the proclamation of the Governor, turn out on that particular occasion for the purpose of repelling invasion. My difficulty in regard to the matter so far as Prince Edward Island is concerned, is that it does not appear that any condition of a like character existed in Prince Edward Island; that the men were not called out.


James Joseph Hughes: Were they not called out by Act of Parliament?


Robert Laird Borden: They were called out in Nova Scotia by a proclamation -which it was possible for the Government to issue under the law of the land, and the bounty is being paid in the province of Nova Scotia only to those persons, who, being members of the active militia, turned out for active service in obedience to the proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor. There seems, therefore to be a very marked and clear distinction between the two cases. So far as 1870 is concerned, I do not think that any one in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Ontario could possibly receive any benefit in respect of the bounty as it applies to the year 1870. because although there was apprehended invasion, it was not an invasion which closely affected these particular provinces; it applied principally to the province of Quebec and to a small portion of the province of Ontario. There is no doubt that the men who drilled in those provinces during that year cannot receive any benefit from this bounty, although they would have been prepared to resist and doubtless would have been called out if invasion were imminent. It seems to me that the difficulty with regard to the case of Prince Edward Island

is that it does not fall within the very clear and definite principle to which I have alluded, that is, that the militia of Prince Edward Island, if any militia organization existed at that time, were not called out under the exigency of the law to resist and repel an apprehended invasion.


James Joseph Hughes: The Prime Minister says that they were not called out by the Governor's proclamation. This Bill does not require that they should be called out by the Governor's proclamation; it says by the Government.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: I think that the hon. gentleman possibly misunderstands the position. In Nova Scotia they had a Militia Act while in Prince Edward Island they had not.


Angus Alexander McLean: Oh yes they had one passed in 1865.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: This resolution of 1865 merely proceeded to organize the militia forces. In Nova Scotia and New Brunswick militia forces had been already organized and the proclamation in Nova Scotia was calling these men out for active service. There was no such proclamation in Prince Edward Island. Both of the members from the Island admit that; therefore whatever may be thought proper for some other occasions, I do not think they would come.
M. J. J. HUGHES: There was no actual service in Nova Scotia.
Mr SAM. HUGHES: Oh yes there was active service. They were called out to repel invasion. There is annual drill of the militia. But supposing there is an invasion or that men are called out for any other purpose than annual drill, that is active service. They are technical terms. That is why we include active service in the Bill, in order to eliminate the annual drill.


James Joseph Hughes: That is the very
thing that was done in Prince Edward Island. A special Act was passed, special provision was made for that occasion and it was not annual drill. If it was annual drill I could understand the position taken by the minister, but for this special purpose a special Act was passed and they were called out by the Governor. If that is not calling out, I do not know what would be.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My name has been mentioned in connection with this matter and I might make one statement. In the first place, I never made the statement that every man of the 15,000 odd applicants for

this bounty in Nova Scotia perjured himself, and I was rather surprised that certain members of the House used that word. I think the statement was made by one member during a former discussion that I had practically charged the men in Nova Scotia with having committed perjury. I think I know my duty as a member of Parliament and I know the condition of affairs in Nova Scotia well enough not to make such a broad statement as that. I did state that I believed very large numbers of people were receiving this bounty who were mere lads in 1866, and I do not wish to recede from that position a particle. I stated it was a scandal of the first magnitude.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: Did the hon. member
say that nearly every able-bodied man in Nova Scotia claimed he was entitled to the bounty?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have no recollection of making such a statement, although I have not my remarks before me. I do not think I made that statement because it would not have been true. There are thousands of able-bodied men in Nova Scotia to-day who were not born in 1866, and I certainly never made any such statement, at least I did not intend to. What I intended to say was that practically every able-bodied man of that time who was now living was claiming the bounty, and I think I am correct in that. I said it was a scandal, and I repeat it, that such an enormous proportion of the population of Nova Scotia should be paid $100 each for practically doing no more than turning out and performing their annual drill. While the Minister may draw a technical distinction between drilling in March and drilling in July, it is only a technicality. If the House or the minister want evidence of the truth of the suggestion I made it is contained in the letter read, by the member for Guysborough purporting to have been written by Mr. McLeod, the Conservative candidate in Victoria. I do not care whether Mr. McLeod wrote that letter or whether it was written for him; whoever WTote it had in the back of his head about the same idea that I have in my head, that there are many people in Nova Scotia to-day demanding, and I am afraid receiving, this bounty of $100 who did not feel that they were doing very much towards defending their country from the threatened invasion in 1866. To show that it is a scandal as administered you have only to take the rest of Canada. You do not hear of such
wholesale payments in the rest of Canada, and every discussion in this House during this session and last session tended to revert back to Nova Scotia. You did not hear about Ontario, Quebec or New Brunswick, it is all Nova Scotia and it is because the Act is being administered there in a way that is practically a scandal. While the minister may hide behind a technical definition of ' calling out,' he must feel in his mind that he is heartily ashamed of this legislation and of the way it is being administered in Nova Scotia. If he were to apply the law to Nova Scotia in the same spirit as he is applying it to the rest of Canada, no harm would be done. Personally, as I have said on many occasions, I do not believe in the principle; but once you adopt the principle I think the minister has very fairly indeed administered the law in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. He has been narrow in many cases and cases have been pointed out wherein he should have been broader and should have included men who actually went to the front, no matter whether they belonged to a regular regiment of militia or not. Where he has erred in the other provinces in being too narrow in interpreting the law he has erred in Nova Scotia in throwing the doors wide open.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member says
that the administration of this law in Nova Scotia is a scandal. Would he be good enough to point out wherein it is a scandal and is being improperly administered?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is a scandal in this, that because the Governor of the province of Nova Scotia was seized of the idea that it was his duty to issue a proclamation calling upon practically .every able-bodied man in the province from 16 to 60 years of age, at this last date, forty-eight years afterwards, men who never saw the possibility of danger, who never left their homes except to go to the ordinary headquarters of their regiments for their annual drill, are receiving $100 apiece from this country. I think I am justified in saying that it is a scandal. To show my hon. friend the proportions of this scandal, if the same routine proceeding had been followed in the rest of Canada at the time of the threatened invasion as was followed by the Governor of Nova Scotia there would have been paid out under this Act, not a million and a half of dollars, but six or seven million dollars. That is what it amounts to. Is not that a scandal?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: No.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is my answer to
my hon. friend from Cumberland. I do not go back on what I have said, and I have no desire to. I am prepared to accept responsibility for the statements I have made before the people of this country, and I am prepared to go to Nova Scotia and repeat the statements I have made to-hight and during the course of this debate. I had a letter a few days ago, not from the constituency of my hon. friend from Kings, N.S., but from Bridgetown, taking me to task for statements I was alleged to have made in connection with this matter. It was from one of the veterans, as they call themselves. I replied, and did not mince matters a particle. I told him exactly what I thought about it and exactly what I have said in Parliament, and gave him my views about good citizenship. I was delighted to receive a letter from him to-day in which he practically concurs in my views. That is a little evidence that the people of Nova; Scotia are amenable to reason. I would bet delighted to place my views before the people of Nova Scotia. If my hon. friend from Kings, N.S., would like to see the correspondence I will be glad to show it to him. I felt it my duty to make myself plain in regard to this matter, and I think it would be better if others did the same. I atm sorry the minister is extending the time to the last day of July next, rather than the last day of December. I would say, cut it down to the earliest possible moment. (Jet rid of the thing and let us forget it, ber cause it is not something on which the Minister of Militia will look back with any great amount of pride or glory when he comes to write his autobiography.
Mr. SAM. HUGM&ES:	I had agreed to
make it the end of December, but Mr1.' Panet came to me and said that by issuing the warrants as rapidly as possible the business could not be disposed of by the; end of the year. He asked for another year. We talked it over, and eventually compromised on the 31st of July. I do not want to go into any explanation as to why this iwas done, except to say that it 'was asked for by the veterans.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
James Joseph Hughes: The same thing applies to Prince Edward Island.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I wish to say a few words in regard to a number of veterans in the county which I represent. As this is a matter that is going to be dealt with in history and literature, according to the minister, I wish to say a word or two in behalf of these men who have been refused the $100 grant that has been given in other cases. I also wish to correct the hon. member for Carieton when he says there are no complaints from Ontario, and that the complaints are confined almost entirely to Nova Scotia. I think we have already heard from hon. gentleman representing constituencies in Ontario. If I recollect aright, the hon. member for North Grey spoke on behalf of a number of people in his constituency, and so did the hon. member for North Perth and the hon. membeT for Glengarry. I have here letters from a number of old men in the riding which I represent. When the outbreak occurred and the regiments were called out, a number of these men went to join the Tillson-burg Company, but found it filled. They immediately endeavoured to join the company in the next town, Ingersoll, but that was also filled, so they immediately formed a company at Mount Elgin, which was known as Company No. 10 of the Oxford Rifles. They went to the county town and were supplied with rifles and uniforms and they remained on duty for a considerable period. It appears from ime records of the Militia Department that this company was not officially recognized

until the 17th of August, 1866. As a matter of fact, these men had been supplied with uniforms and rifles and were ready and anxious to serve their country. They 'found that the local regiments were filled, and they showed enough manliness and [DOT]spirit to organize a company of their own commanded by Captain Hagle and Lieut-' enant Chambers. The captain and lieutenant are both dead now, but about half a dozen of that same company are alive and in the riding at the present time. When the province of Ontario recognized the services that had been rendered to the country by the volunteers-ia number of years before it was recognized by the federal Government-these men received the provincial grant of 160 acres and also their medals as veterans of 1866, but when they made application for the $100 grants that the Government of Canada is giving they were turned down. They feeel it keenly, not so much for the sake of the $100, although I know some of them to whom it would be very welcome, but they feel that a reflection has been cast on them that they were not actual veterans of that occasion. On their behalf, I wish to enter my protest and say that if there is going to be any wider recognition of the people of Canada who responded to the call of their country in 1866, it should certainly cover the cases I have referred to.
, iMt. McKENZIE : I am sorry to take up the time of the House, but I shall direct my attention to the terms of the Bill itself. I may have to say something about the speech of my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queens. I am very sorry that a man of his years and discretion and cool [DOT]headedness should think it worth while on this occasion to throw down the gauntlet of political controversy. I am sorry it is only from the fair province of Nova Scotia that there seems to be any political wrangling about this matter. It is rather satisfactory, I presume, to the people of New Brunswick that there has been no wrangling at all over that province although it has its representatives on both sides of the House. The same thing is true of Ontario. The great province of Ontario, I understand, has participated largely in the benefits accruing from this Act. There are men sitting in this House on both sides of politics from the province of Ontario, but I am pleased to notice that no political controversies have been worked up in connection with this Bill. I do not know whether the people of Quebec participate in the
benefit of this Act or not, but if they do there is certainly no political controversy. I rather regret that it remains for us from the province of Nova Scotia to be wrangling politically over the virtues of this particular Act. I must say that, to the credit of the minister, he has possibly happened to live in the fulness of time. We must agree that there is development in all lines of thought in this country. Parliament has developed in thought; matters that would not receive the consideration of this House fifty years ago are now receiving consideration. Ideas have developed, and we are passing legislation to-day that possibly would not have received recognition in this country several years ago. Yet the fact that such legislation was not passed ten, fifteen or twenty years ago, that because in those days another Government was in power and they did not pass this Act, does not mean that they are to be condemned for it, because to so condemn them would not be consistent with the development of which I spoke. If parties are to be condemned for things they did not do, how does my hon. friend from Queens and Shelburne account for the twenty-two years during which the Conservative Government did nothing in connection with the subject that is engaging our attention? Sir John Macdonald and his party were in power during the first four years after 1866, when the heroism of these volunteers would be fresh in the minds of the people. Sir John Macdonald and his associates did not think it necessary to do anything in connection with this matter. In 1878 that famous statesman again came to the head of affairs in Canada and continued in that position until the time of his death sixteen or seventeen years afterwards, and during the whole of his career it did not occur to him that it was necessary to do anything in connection with this matter. If there be any virtue in connection with this question, and I suppose there must be some virtue in connection with it or it would not receive the attention of the present Minister of Militia, surely such a statesman, such a true representative of the public thought of the country, as Sir John Macdonald, would have thought about it and would have given some material effect to his ideas in regard to it. He did not do so; but are the people of Canada to put a black mark against the history of that great statesman and to say that he was no good and had no kindly thought for the veterans of Canada because he did not do anything far them? If that could not be said about Sir John Macdonald, it should

not be said about any other statesman who occupied a similar position in later years. It so happens that this idea developed in the days of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden), and his Minister of Militia, and this little act of kindness has been done by them to these veterans. I do not suppose that it would occur to the Minister of Militia that he was going to raise any political contention when he introduced this Bill; at all events, I hope it was not his idea. I had a better opinion of the hon. member for Queens and Shelburne than to suppose that he would again try to make political capital out of this matter when we were hoping to get away and hoping that all contentious questions would be dropped. As for myself, if it is the intention of the hon. member to come down to Victoria and try to defeat me by the speech which he has made to-night, he is	perfectly welcome to any capital
he can make out of it.	When
the question took concrete shape in this House, I supported the legislation. I spoke for it and voted for it. I assisted my people, who were entitled, to get this bounty and I think the whole of them got it who were entitled to it. I must say in respect to my horn, friend from Carle-ton (Mr. Carvell) that he is entitled to his own views .about this matter as to whether or not there is a scandal in Nova Scotia in connection. with it. I believe that every man in Nova Scotia who is receiving a dollar of this money is receiving it actuality and altogether within the law and because he is entitled to it. (Last summer I made out quite a number of applications myself. In one district in my county, the grand, old, Scotch district of Grand Narrows, I attended for the convenience of the old veterans so as to take their applications. I met about fifty of these men averaging from 75 to 115 years of age. I met one veteran by the name of Stephen McDougall who was 115 years of age. He was able to walk out a mile or two to the little store where I had my meeting with these people.


James Joseph Hughes: One hundred and fifteen was it?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: One hundred and fifteen years of age, and I am glad to know-


James Joseph Hughes: I saw several of the old section books, with the names of the men that my hon. friend refers to all written in it and the different drills that they attended.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It was a pleasure to
me to know that this old gentleman received $100. I regret to say that I understand he died since but still this $100 would help to give him a decent burial and to make some other preparations that he would perhaps not have been able to make had he not received this $100. I do not think there is very much fault to be found with this Act in Nova Scotia. This is only a sample of what was happening in other parts of the province and it is a sample of the way in which this Act brought some sunshine and gladness into the lives of these old men by giving them this money to which they were entitled at a time perhaps when they were not able to earn much money in any other way. It was all done in four or five hours and I received the applications of some forty-five or fifty people. I know nothing which gave me greater pleasure than to be able to serve the old men and I felt when I had the opportunity I would give to the minister an expression of the pleasure that I had in being -his officer in carrying out the provisions of the Act in that particular respect. While I am never averse to a scrap even with the hon. member for Queens and Shelburne or of any other hon. member when the occasion requires, I must say that I am not in any scrapping mood to-night.
The particular purpose I had in getting up was to urge upon the Prime Minister and the Minister of Militia the fairness and equity of extending this Act so .as to cover the cases of veterans' widows who may now be living.
It may strike the Prime Minister and the Minister of Militia that we have had enough of this, and that we should not be bothered any longer, and that, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Oarleton (Mr. Carvell) is scenting other scandals, we should not give him any opportunity, so far as Nova Scotia is concerned. A right to this recognition by Canada was earned the moment the act was performed in 1866, and it has existed ever since, and it was recognized in 1912. The mere fact that one veteran died and another lived does not make the slightest difference; the service to his country existed ever since the date of the Fenian raid. If a man is dead and has left, perhaps, an aged and decrepid widow, why should not this recognition enure to her benefit. I have had old women coming to my office last summer and the summer before, some of them blind

and led by the hand by their grandchildren, asking about the Minister of Militia, and I was pleased to tell them that he *was always in the pink of condition, and then they asked if this Act applied to them, *and they told me that their husbands had *died, some of them years ago, and some only in the middle of March, 1912, and it .pained me to have to tell them that they did not come under the operation of the Act. 1 submit to the Minister of Militia [DOT]that if this recognition was due to a man who was alive on the 1st of April, 1912, in virtue of his services Tendered in 1866, the right of the family of the veteran who died before the 1st of April, 1912, is equally [DOT]strong. Any lawyer in this House will [DOT]agree with me that, on the facts, a jury [DOT]would find that the family of the man who died before the 1st of April, 1912, was [DOT]equally entitled to this recognition as the [DOT]family of the man who had had the good [DOT]luck to live longer.
It is extremely disagreeable that political cantankerousness has been introduced into this matter, and particularly by a mild-mannered man like the hon.
12 m. member for Queens-Shelburne (Mr. McCurdy). It only shows ho.w deep-rooted this thing is among the rank and file of our Conservative friends in Nova Scotia, when they had to bring out in such an unusual role the gentleman whom they put forward to-night as their champion. I would not have paid so much attention to it if it had broken out from several gentlemen who are never averse to throwing stones across the floor; but coming from the quarter it did it showed how deep-TOoted the feeling is. I point out to the minister that there never has been an election in Nova Scotia since this Act was passed, in which it did not do service. We have repeatedly seen letters with great big red seals on them, purporting to come from Ottawa, and we have heard the holder of these red seals saying to the people: I have received this from the Minister of Militia, you know I am recognized in this district as the official representative of the Borden Administration; the minister has sent me this list for my approval, you made application and he does not know whether you are entitled to the money or not, and so he sent me this for verification, if I approve of your name you get the money and if I do not you will not get it, if you vote for my man in the elections I will give my approval and you will get the money, but if you do not I will put a cross opposite your name and that will show you are not entitled to
it. That is the way this thing has been done. Therefore, I am sure the Minister of Militia and the Prime Minister will excuse us if we are getting tired of this sort of thing. We had it carried even a little further in the election in Victoria last year, when this McLeod letter was paraded all over the county. [DOT]The first part of the letter is that this gentleman, Mr. McLeod, is in possession of information from Ottawa as to who will and who will not get Fenian Raid money. [DOT]And he says there is a report-a report from where? We have the right to believe that it was a report from Ottawa-that you made a false statement in making your .application and there may be some trouble '-quite possibly there may be a prosecution for perjury; but I can assure you that if you are my friend nothing shall come of [DOT]it. I submit that this is a most extraordinary statement for a candidate for the suffrages of the electors to make on the eve of an election. It is bribery; it is a corrupt act. But it is likely to be dealt with in another way. I call the attention of the Minister of Militia to the way his good intentions towards the veterans of [DOT]Nova Scotia are being used in this connection. My good friend from Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes) came to the fore with the statement that Mr. McLeod did not intend [DOT]what would ordinarily be read from this [DOT]language. The hon. gentleman was not in the county of Victoria at the time of the election, or he would have known very differently. He would have known that this letter was sent broadcast throughout the county by the agents, on foot and on horseback, of Mr. McLeod-agents who went from house to house, and who fo1-lowed the people telling them that they had information that these people had committed perjury, and if the people did not vote as the agents wanted them to [DOT]vote, prosecutions would follow, but if they voted right no prosecutions would follow. And on nomination day, in the town of [DOT]Baddeck, that was put up to one of the men who had made that statement-it was put up to him that he had been canvassing in this style. He was pressed with it on nomination day and did not deny it. If my statement is questioned by any hon. gentleman opposite, that hon. gentleman can learn who the man was to whom this question was put up if he will inquire of Mr. Rowlings or Dr. Hayes. These are the things that we had to contend against. Now, I want to press this a little closer,

perhaps, to the Prime Minister, and tell him why Mr. MeLeod and some of the other gentlemen associated with him in the drafting of this letter ventured to state that men could commit perjury and escape. They could well point out that there was a man in the county of Richmond, an officer of the right hon. gentleman's Government, who committed forgery and was sent to jail, or penitentiary I have forgotten which, and he was in only half his time when he was released. They could say: We have a most excellent and convenient Department of Justice, with a most pious and excellent man at the head of it; and if you tell him the proper story, he will let your man out-no matter about the perjury business, we have an institution above the courts and all the little powers in Nova Scotia that protects our friends. And they could say also:	There
was a man in Sydney about two years ago who was found guilty of perjury and sent to penitentiary for three years, but when he had served less than half that time, we got him out; we appealed to the DepaTt-1 ment of Justice at Ottawa and told our little story; we used our .political pull-and out he came. So that Mr. McLeod and his friends in this contest in Victoria county, when they were throwing broadcast this literature saying that people would be immune from prosecution for perjury if the voted the right way, were talking by the book, talking with authority, talking of something they knew about. It throws a clear light upon this letter of Mr. McLeod and shows that these people knew exactly what they were doing. I am not blaming Mr. McLeod. The Prime Minister knows him. Mr. McLeod never wrote the letter- the writing of i't is closer to the heart of the Conservative party than if Mr. McLeod had written it. The best organizers of the (Conservative party were in Baddeck when (this letter was dictated, printed and distributed. True, it was signed by Mr. (McLeod-and I have the original copy with his signature. But he had to consent to the methods of his organization. By reason tof the speech of the hon. member for SfaelJ fourne and Queens it has been dragged dn-'to the arena to-night because of the political use that has been made of this matter. I am glad to drop it there.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Did I understand the
hon. gentleman to say that when the different Fenian Raid Acts were up in the House, and the different votes were on, he always supported those Acts?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I did not say anything of the kind. I may have my weaknesses, but I defy my hon. friend to find me taking mean shelter anywhere. I said that ever since this matter took concrete form in the shape of a Bill I supported it and spoke for it. Whatever courses I took before that my hon. friend from Queens and Shelburne has spent a lot of ink in spreading knowledge of it all over, and this at a time when he was not in the House and knew nothing of my conduct. I saw his letter telling how I voted and what I did. I am prepared to take the consequences of my acts. When he is as long in politics as I have been, I shall be ready to compare notes with him either as to length of years or product of labour.
On section 2-definition:


John Howard Sinclair: This section contains
words that were not contained in the original Act. In line 8 of this section it describes the parties entitled to this bounty as those ' who actually served and did duty with such corps when thus called out.' Is that intended to exclude any of the parties who have applied for the bounty under the former Act?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: No.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the purpose of
it? .
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: It was drawn by the legal officer of the department; I presume that the object is merely to make the matter clear.


John Howard Sinclair: This will not require a renewal of the applications made under the old Act?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: No.


James Joseph Hughes: When the resolutions were before the committee a few days ago, the minister offered to put the words ' and Prince Edward Island ' after the words ' New Brunswick.' Will he do so now?


Mr. SAM HUGHES:: If it could be shown that they are entitled to it, so far as I am concerned I would be only too glad to oblige my hon. friend.


James Joseph Hughes: Would the minister not be willing to amend section 2 of the Act by adding the words ' and Prince Edward Island ' after the words * New Brunswick' ?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: That would do no good; we would have to have a new Act if

it were found that Prince Edward Island is entitled to it.


James Joseph Hughes: There will be no
time to do that; the whole thing expires on July 1, 1915.


Robert Laird Borden: There would be no use in putting in the words 'Prince Edward Island' unless there is some assurance that the Act as so amended would have some application to Prince Edward Island.
Mr. McKENZIE-i Could the minister not set a certain time for the receiving of the applications and then extend the time of payment? If the time for receiving applications and the time of payment run concurrently, it may give rise to some difficulty.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: I think the applications are pretty well ini now; hardly any applications are being received. My officers report that the trouble will be to get the warrants out; they are looking after the matter now. I move that section 3 be amended by striking out the word ' December ' and inserting in lieu thereof the word ' July ' and striking out ' 14 ' and inserting ' 15.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, -and section as amended agreed to.
On section 4-widow ox representative:
James Joseph Hughes: I move the same
amendment in respect of section 4 as was made to section 3.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George William Kyte: In accordance with the suggestion made by myself when this resolution was before the committee on a previous occasion and by the hon. member for South Cape Breton and the hon. member for North Cape Breton to-night, I move:
That section 4 be amended by striking out the words 'who was living on the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and twelve and' in the first and sixth lines thereof.
This is to make the provision applicable to the widows of men. who died previous to April 1, 1912, as well as of those who died subsequent -thereto.
Amendment negatived, and section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
On motion of Mr. Borden, the House adjourned at 12.22 a.m., Thursday.
Thursday, May 28, 1914.