1916-04-05

PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 77, respecting Colonial Bank (Canada).-Mr. Middlebro.
Bill No. 78, respecting British Trust Company.-Mr. Morris.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. HAZEN moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 81, to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
He said: This Bill proposes to repeal sections 442, 443 and 444 of the Canada Shipping Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, chapter 113, and to substitute two sections in lieu thereof. By the provisions of the Act, chapter 48 of the Statute of 1914, all powers with respect to pilots and apprentices, formerly vested in the Quebec Pilots Corporation, become vested in the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. It will therefore be seen that section 442 is no longer operative for the same reason. All the powers with respect to pilots in the Quebec district are now vested in the minister, and the only portion of section 443 as it stands at present that it is necessary to retain is the portion defining the number of pilots in the district. The effect of section 444 as it stands at present is that if the period1 of apprenticeship of an apprentice is interrupted for a longer period than four months, no matter for what cause, illness or any other cause over which the apprentice can have no control, even although the interruption may be in no way due to any fault of his own, it is not possible for the apprentice -to complete his term and obtain his license. The term of an apprentice is seven years, certain voyages and conditions being required during that period. An apprentice may be incapacitated in the sixth year of his ser-

vice for a longer period than four months, and it certainly would be an injustice for such an apprentice to be unable to complete his term of service after having served six years, if the interruption was due to a cause not his own fault. It is proposed by . the Bill under consideration to enable apprentices whose period of service may, for legitimate reasons, be interrupted, to make up for such time as has been lost, provided, of course, they, are in every other respect found suitable for appointment and that before a license is issued the full period of seven years apprenticeship has been filled.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

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

Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	How much money was subscribed by the public for the purchase of machine guns?
2.	How much was actually paid into the Militia Department or the Government for such purchases?
3.	Has all of such money been used for such purchases?
4.	How many of such guns have been ordered ?
5.	How many have been delivered to the Government?
6.	How many have been delivered to Canadian battalions?
7.	When will complete delivery of all 'he guns be made?


Mr. BLONDIN:: 1.	$1,265,752.92 actually paid in, including $500,000 from the Ontario Government. Theie may have been additional amounts subscribed for this purpose, hut afterwards utilized by the donors for other patriotic purposes.
2.	$1,265,752.92 including $500,000 from the Ontario Government.
3.	No, 'but it is the intention of the Government to apply to the purchase of machine guns the moneys which have been subscribed and paid in for that purpose.
4.	5, 6 and 7. It is not in the public interest to give this information at this time.


CARDETON DRUG CO.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	What is the explanation of the following items in the Report of the Auditor General for 1915: Page 1-81, Carleton Drug Co., $169.57, page K-84, Carleton Drug Co., $457.83, and page V-95, Carleton Drug Co., $50.68?

2.	Is this company of which W. F. Garland, ex-M.P., for Carleton county, Ont., is the manager?


Mr. BLONDIN:: Inland Revenue Department:	1. For
laboratory use in making analysis $169.57.
2.	No information.
Interior Department: 1. $457.83 for supplies required for the photographic and lithographic offices of the Topographical Surveys Branch. 2. No information.
Public Works Department: 1. Following goods purchased on October 3, 1914, on order of the Dominion police, to recharge fire extinguishers: 537 libs, sulphuric acid at 4c, $21.48; 6 kegs soda bicarbonate at $2.50, $15; 2 gross rubber stoppers at $1.10, $2.20; 5 gross rubber stoppers at $1.35, $6.75; 3 gross rubber stoppers at $1.75, $5.25; total, $50.68. 2. No information.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY FREIGHT SERVICE.
*Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has the Minister of Railways received complaints from merchants about the inefficiency of the freight service between St. Leonard Junction and Nicolet, P.Q.?
2.	How many freight trains are despatched over that line weekly between the two above-mentioned points?
3.	Is there a regular scheduled freight service established on that line? If so, on what days of the week is it operated?


Mr. REID:: 1.	No.
2.	Once or twice a week.
3.	No.


SALES OF AMMUNITION.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Did any one purchase from the Militia Department, since the 4th of August, 1914, any small arms ammunition?
2.	If so, what price was paid therefor?
3.	Who was the purchaser or purchasers?


Mr. KEMP:: 1.	Yes.
2 and 3. 13th Regiment, $30; Irish Rifle Club, $30; 57th Regiment, $30; Lt.-Col. LaRochelle, $30; Capt. Logan, $30; Capt. E. Bertrand, $30; Capt. B. A. Taylor, $30; J. R. Urquhart, $30; A. Squadron Rifle Association, $30; Department of Customs, $30; Dudewell R.A., $20; No. 195 C.R.A., $20; A. A. Bartlett, $10; A. A. Bartlett, $10; No. 195 C.R.A., $20; No. 478, C.R.A., $20; No. 237 C.R.A., $20; No. 360, C.R.A., $30; Capt. H. M. Fleming, $15.40; No. 1 C.R.A., $20; Major R. L. Boyle, $15.85; No. 443 C.R.A., $20; Guelph R.A., $20; J. D. Cummings, $20; Kazuabazua R.A., $20; P.E.I.
Provincial R.A.,	$20;	103rd Regiment,
$15.86; Major J. S. Thom, $20; Ross Rifle Co., $30; Maple R.A., $20; Canadian Pacific Railway, $20; R. Wilson, $20; Dominion Cartridge Co., $20; Spy Hill R.A., $20; A. Scott, $20; Savage Arms Co. (Mark VII, 1915), $30, represented to be for testing Lewis machine guns in process of manufacture for Canadian Government; R.N.W. M. Police (Mark VI, 1910)-price not yet arranged; for rifle practice and police duties; Vickers Limited (Mark VI, 1906-7 and 1912), $20, represented to be for testing machine guns.


WAR SUPPLIES-HAY.
Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Who has the contract for supplying hay and oats for military purposes at Ottawa?
2.	What is the price paid respectively?
3.	Were tenders called for new contracts in the autumn of 1915?
4.	If so, who was the lowest tenderer?
5.	What prices did he quote, respectively, for hay and oats?
6.	Was he given the contract? If not. why not?


Mr. KEMP:: 1.	F. D. Helps.	,
2.	Hay, $19.50 per ton; oats, 59 cents per bushel.
3.	Tenders were called for the -supply of hay and oats on August 15, 1915, and contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer for these supplies for one year from September 1, 1915; subsequently, tenders were again called in error. As contract had already been awarded, no action was necessary.
4.	5 and 6. Answered by No. 3.


RIVIERE DU LOUP WHARF.
Mr. BELLEMARE:: 1.	What was the name of the contractor for the wharf at Riviere du Loup, en haut, under the former Liberal administration?
2.	In what year was that wharf built?
3.	What did its construction cost?
4.	Who supplied the necessary materials, and what was the amount of each kind?
5.	In what year was it completed?
6.	How long did the work of construction last?
7.	Was there an engineer to superintend the work? If so, what is his name?
8.	Was there a superintendent or inspector of the work? If so, what is his name?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Was built by day labour, not by contract.
2.	1908.
3.	$7,703.11.

40	00 55 50
488 70
41	50 650 75
1,017 73
Accounts-
Damhousse et Cie, hardware.. .. Tourville Lumber Mills Co., lumber.
Louis Asselin, iron	
Auguste Desrosiers, timber ..	..
J. W. Gagnon, lumber	
Henry Gagnon, timber	
Joseph Masse, hardware	
L. A. Nobert. hardware	
Hormidas Barbeau, timber	
J. Bte. LafreniOre, timber	
O.	Desrosiers et Cie, iron	
Alphonse Gagnon, stone	
Desire Lafleche, stone	
F. X. Masse stone	
Arthur Noel, stone	
Mde. Joseph Noel, stone	
Edouard Paquin, stone	
Isidore Crobin, stone	
Adelard Lessard (fils de Ls),
timber	
Louis Lessard timber	
Ant. Bfiland ' (ftls d'Alexandre),
timber	
Joseph BOland, (fils d'Alexandre),
timber	
Joseph Bdland, (fils de Louis), timber	
LSon Bfiland, stone	
D. L. Gauthier, timber	
Rodrigue Bergeron, stone	
Abraham Bergeron, stone	
Adelard Noel, stone	
Chas. Ed. Bergeron, stone	
Canadian Iron and Foundry Co..
nigger heads and bolts	
Louis Lambert, stone	
Donat Laurent, stone	
Thomas LavallSe, stone	
F. X. St. Onge, stone	
Louis St. Pierre, stone	
Hercule Ricard, stone	
Lucien Voisard, stone	
A. L. Lambert, furniture	
Nap. Pagd, blacksmithing and
hardware	
F. X. Noel, boat	
Joseph Dupuis, timber	
Frangois Dupuis, timber	
Sundry small payments	
190 97 159 33 75 20 515 89 8 00 7 20 75 20 323 07 112 20 ,256 32 SO 24 00 5 00 4 00 12 00 28 66 1 00 41 00
151 52 53 76
40 00
32	64
192 00
7	71 1,004 53
24 00 22 50 24 85 12 00
33	70 9 00 9 64
12 88 4 28 4 66 21 00
8	00 4 40
144 66
18 00 44 80 84 32 44 85
Total	$7,703 11
5.	March, 1908.
6.	From 15th October, 1907, to 7th March, 1908.
7.	Yes, Mr. J. A. Mineau.
8.	Yes, Mr. Ant. Gagnon.


INLAND REVENUE CLERKS.
Mr. TURRIFF:: 1.	How many clerks are there in the Inland Revenue Department who belong to and are 
paid from the outside service vote and who work in the inside service?
2.	What are the names of said clerks?
3.	What salary is paid to each?
4.	How long has each been in the service of the Department?
5.	Have all or any of these clerks passed any examination? If so, what examination and on what date or dates?


Mr. PATENAUDE:: 1.	Twelve.
2. 1, Dennison, F.,; 2, MicEwen, iG. E.; 3, Trumpour, F. T. T.;. 4, Belanger, S. F.; 5, Kinsman, E. A.; 6, Labelle, V.; 7, Sheppard, C. F.; 8, Montreuil, Z. A.; 9, Oouillard, J. E.; 10, Charbonneau, J. A.; 11, Barbeau, C.; 12, Boudreault, J. H. L.
3.	1, $800; 2, $900; 3, $800; 4, $1,200; 5, $1,500; 6, $800; 7, $800; 8, $800; 9, $900; 10, $800; 11, $800; 12, $800. '
4.	Appointed since:	1, January 14, 1909;
2,	January 12, 1912; 3, September 13, 1912; 4, August 1, 1912; 5, December 13, 1912; 6, March 11, 1913; 7, July 2, 1913; 8, May 1, 1915; 9, June 10, 1915; 10, June 28, 1915; 11, August 1, 1915; 12, October 25, 1915.
5.	Six have passed examinations:	2,
Special, for electricity, December, 1911; 3, Preliminary, November, 1912; 4, Preliminary, May, 1912; 5, Special, for gas and electricity, October, 1912; 7, Preliminary, May, 1913; 8, Preliminary, November, 1915.


WAR SUPPLIES-AUTOMOBILES.
Mr. ETHIER:: 1.	How many automobiles have been purchased by the Militia Department for the Headquarters Staff?
2.	How many chauffeurs are engaged, and what pay do they receive?
3.	Has the department rented a garage? If ' so, from whom, what rent is paid, and how
many men are employed there as mechanics, or working in the building?
4.	What are the names of the officers or clerks who have been using these automobiles?
5.	Are any of these officers or clerks, or employees not within easy access of the street railway?
6.	What is the total amount of expenditure, including purchase of the automobiles, rental of garage, pay of chauffeurs, mechanics, and other employees for that service, from the 4th August, 1914, to date?


Mr. KEMP:: 1.	No cars have been purchased by the Militia Department directly for the Headquarters Staff, but cars purchased for various units have been used by them ddring test and pending shipment overseas.
2.	Chauffeurs are detailed when needed from the Mechanical 'Transport Unit, which is part of the Permanent Force, and are paid according to rank.
3.	A garage is rented for the storage, re-

pairing and inspection of trucks, ambulances, cars, motorcycles and other mechanical transport equipment. The building includes all offices for the Mechanical Transport Branch and ISchool of Instruction for Officers, and is rented from the Victoria Garage Company at $300 per month. The force working in the building is composed of the Mechanical Transport Unit, performing ail duties in connection with Mechanical Transport.
4 and 5. The hon. the Minister of Militia and private secretaries; the Deputy hjinister; the Chief of the General Staff; the Adjutant-General; the Quartermaster-General; the Master-General of the Ordnance, Directors and other officers of the Headquarters Staff, including civilians, who have to travel to the various offices in Ottawa, which are scattered all over town. The cars are also used to take to their homes at midnight, and later, women employees of the night staff of the department.
6.	Answered by 1, 2 and 3.
Note.-It may be added that the Mechanical Transport Unit provides transport for all stores received and shipped from Ottawa, averaging over 150 tons per day; also for the School of Instruction in Mechanical Transport.


CANADIAN NAVAL SERVICE.
Mir. SINCLAIR:: Referring to a debate on Naval aid, which . took place oh June 6, 1913, as reported in Hansard of 1912-13, page 13142, volume 6, concerning the defeat of the proposal to contribute three battleships to the British Navy, the right hon. Prime Minister made use of the following language:
" As the construction of these ships is to be proceeded with by the British Government, as they are apparently to be of the same character, the same strength and the same fighting value as those which we proposed; as they are to be employed for the same purpose, that of the common defence of this Empire, which we had in mind, it is the firm intention and determination of this Government, if it remains, as undoubtedly it will remain In power, to bring down, at a later date, a proposal for the acquisition or construction of three battleships, as was proposed in the Naval Aid Bill of 1912. In that way, before the completion of these ships, we hope and expect to be in a position to say to the British Government: Canada is prepared to do now what the unworthy action of a partisan majority in the Senate prevented her from doing before; Canada will take over and pay for and acquire these ships and will place them at the disposal of His Majesty the King for the common defence of the great Empire of which Canada forms a part."
2. Have the ships above referred to been built?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to make provision for the payment of these ships, as intimated by the Prime Minister?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: In the autumn of 1913 the Government had under consideration the re-introduction of the Naval Aid Bill of 1912, but thought such Te-intro-duction undesirable unless there was some reasonable prospect that it would not be defeated in the Senate. Confidential inquiries were made for the purpose of ascertaining whether such a Bill either in its original form or in some modified foTm might be expected to pass the Senate; thus enabling Canada to assume her proper share in maintaining the common defence of the Empire. It was reported to the Prime Minister as the Tesult of these inquiries that no assurance could be given of the acceptance by the Senate either of the Naval Aid Bill in its original form or of a modified, proposal which the Government were prepared to consider. For this reason no action was taken as it was thought undesirable to renew the controversy without any reasonable hope that the Government's proposal would be carried in the Senate. In 1914 with the view of formulating a permanent policy of naval defence it was arranged with the Admiralty that Admiral iSir John Jellicoe should visit Canada in August or September for the purpose of giving to the Government the benefit of his wide knowledge and experience. While arrangements for his visit were still in progress, the war broke out. Thereafter the Government ascertained that in the opinion of the Imperial authorities the efforts and resources of Canada should be concentrated during the present war upon the organization, training and equipment of military forces and that it would be inexpedient for the Canadian Government under the circumstances to undertake at present the provision of assistance in Naval Defence upon any considerable scale.


THE MINISTER OF MILITIA.
Mr. OOPP:: 1.	When did the Minister of Militia leave for the Old Country, and when did he return, in the years 1914 and 1915?
2.	Who was Acting Minister of Militia during his absence in those years?


Mt. KEMP:: 1914-left October 6; returned November 9. Acting Minister, Hon. Mr. Hazen. 1915-left June 3; returned September 2. Acting Minister, Hon. Senator Lougheed.


Mr. ETHIER:: How many officials accompany the Minister of Militia on his actual trips to Europe, what are their names, official capacity and salary, respectively?


Albert Edward Kemp: Trip 1913: All detailed information of personnel of party visiting, British and French manoeuvres in 1913 contained in a return presented to Parliament in February, 1914.
Trip October, 1914: Staff officer, Lieut.-Col. E. W. Wilson; orderly, Sergt. F. Wells, orderly, Sergt. H. Giles.
Trip June 1915: Orderly, Sergt. Weills, orderly, Sergt. Brockington.
Trip March, 1916: Staff officer, Capt. John Bassett, orderly, Sergt. Wells, orderly, Sergt. Giles.
Lieut.-Col. Wilson did not receive pay. Capt. Bassett receives $4 per diem pay and $3 per diem fidld allowance. Sergts. Wells, Giles and Brockington received pay and allowances of rank.


OTTAWA SEPARATE SCHOOL COMMISSION.
Mr. LAPOINTE:: On what date did the Secretary of State receive an authentic copy of the Act passed by the Ontario Legislature, 5 George Y, chapter 45?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: April 28, 1915.


WAR LOAN-$75,000,000.
Mr. GRAHAM:: Has the $75,000,000 loan recently authorized by Parliament been fully underwritten? If so, by whom and on what terms?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: 
TEMISKAMING DAM.
Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: Referring to page V-245, of volume 3, of the Auditor General's Report for the year ending 31st March, 1915, where the following item appears in connection with the construction of the Temiskaming dam: "Morel, H., 200 cedar ties, $130.20; 20,480 lin. ft. pine, $3,072; teaming, 343 d., $1,029 ; total, $4,231," is the Minis-
(Mr. Kemp.]	[DOT]
ter of Public Works aware that at the time of incurring this expenditure Mr. H. Morel was the Conservative member in the Ontario Legislature?


Mr. ROGERS:: The Minister of Public
Works was not aware what work was being done at the Temiskaming dam nor by whom. The engineer in charge certified that the work was done satisfactorily and that prices were fair and just.


FISHING BOUNTIES.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	What is the rate of bounty paid to boat fishermen for the past years, respectively?
2.	What is the rate that was paid for vessels for same period?


Mr. HAZEN:: 
LEASING OF LOCOMOTIVES.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Has the manager of Government railways recently leased a number of locomotives? If so, from whom, and at what price per day?
2.	What load were they guaranteed to haul, and how much is their effective capacity?
3.	What did it cost to repair them before being used?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes. Canadian Pacific railway, $13.50 per day per locomotive, Canada Iron Foundries Co., Limited, and Bangor .and Aroostook railroad, $15 per day per locomotive.
2.	Not guaranteed. Tractive effort, 27,000 pounds per locomotive; Canada Iron Foundries Co., Limited, 37,000 pounds per locomotive'; Bangor and Aroostook railroad, 23,152 pounds per locomotive.
3.	No information; did not cost the department anything.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR ' PAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Boulay.-For a copy of all questions asked of candidates for examination in the inside civil service since the 1st May, 1912.
Mr. Gauvreau.-For a copy of all telegrams and letters from LSo Bdrubd, lawyer, M.P.P., to the Minister of Justice relating to the production of the official and public documents asked for by C. A. Gauvreau, M.P., in the case of J. P. Dionne vs. the King, and of any answers of the Minister of Justice to such telegrams and letters.

Mr. MACDONALD moved:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, offers, tenders, reports, contracts and documents re-

lating to the sale or other disposal of small arms ammunition since August 4, 1914.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no objection to this motion passing, subject, of course, to some consideration as to giving the quantities. I shall also endeavour to expedite it, so that my hon. friend will lose nothing through having very courteously allowed the motion to stand over until to-day in order that I might have an opportunity to investigate it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	,

Mr. KYTE (for Mr. Carroll) moved:: For a return showing the names of those who have enlisted for overseas service from South Cape Breton with their home addresses and the battalions with which they are connected.


Robert Laird Borden: I have already explained that it would be useless to pass this motion, because it would involve the examination of 295,000 names in order to ascertain those of soldiers from a certain district. We have had other motions and questions on the Order Paper with regard to the same matter, having reference to other districts throughout the country. As my hon. friend will understand, the enormous labour involved in extracting information of that kind, renders it impossible to be undertaken at the present time. I suppose my hon. friend is not in a position to consent to the motion being dropped. In that case, it may stand.


George William Kyte: I am altogether unfamiliar with the object which the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) had in regard to this motion. I accept the statement of the Prime Minister as to the difficulty of getting the information.
Motion stands.


EXPORT OF CANNED LOBSTERS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. LOGGIE:: I have received an important letter which I would like to read to the House in the public interest, and especially for the information of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The letter is from one engaged in the lobster packing business, and the writer says:
In view of the possible embargo against shipments of canned lobsters and their importation into European countries, we are not at the moment anxious buyers for the coming season's pack. The uncertainty prevailing adds another difficulty to this year's business. The question of getting space for our goods in transatlantic
160i
steamers, high rates of freight prevailing, increased war risk charges, and the reduced rates of exchange prove a serious handicap to the business, and now this is further increased by the rumour that canned lobsters are likely to be considered among luxuries and therefore prohibited from Great Britain. Circulars from some of the English receivers have been received by many packers in these provinces during the past week. The fact that canned fruits are being classed as luxuries causes fear that canned lobsters because of their high price, will be so considered. We understand that the Department of Trade and Commerce is in communication with the Imperial authorities endeavouring to arrange so that all fish foods emanating from the colonies may not be discriminated against, but they are not yet in a position-so we are informed-to give us any satisfactory assurance on this point. You can readily see that if canned lobsters are prohibited from Great Britain, or if the steamship companies are instructed not to accept them as part of their freight that this will have a most disastrous effect upon the canned lobster business of 1916. Even the uncertainty that prevails causes a weakness in the market that renders a loss of revenue to the country itself.
In reference to the same matter, you will see by this morning's Citizen that the Hon. Reginald McKenna, Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced in the British House of Commons:
That the Government had resolved to deal with the importation of luxuries by stopping importation altogether rather than by tariffs.
Under the circumstances, I am sure that the Minister of Trade and Commerce would be looking after the interests of a very important branch of industry in Canada if he would take this matter up, and see if the Imperial authorities would consent to exclude canned lobsters from the commodities refused entry into the United Kingdom.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Correspondence has already taken place with reference to this matter. I will do the best I can to try to persuade the British Government that lobsters are not luxuries, but if, in the end, it is their judgment that they are luxuries, and if they think it is of public importance that they should not be allowed into Great Britain, I suppose we shall have to abide by that decision, and make the best of it. The steamships will not take them if they are not allowed entry into Great Britain, but there will be no effort on the part of this Government to prevent the steamships carrying them until the attitude of the British Government has been, definitely ascertained. I do not think I can give my hon. friend any clearer answer in the meantime.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: It is not very clear.


DISTURBANCES AT WINNIPEG.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Albert Edward Kemp: On Monday my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition inquired with reference to an alleged riot of soldiers in Winnipeg. The District Officer Commanding at Winnipeg telegraphs as follows:
Militia Headquarters, Winnipeg, Man.,
April 4, 1916.
The Secretary,
Militia Council, Ottawa.
Yours third re disturbances. There has been no trouble since four o'clock on the 2nd instant. Immediate cause of trouble was arrest of three soldiers by the city police, on charge of being drunk and disorderly. The arrest caused a collection of crowd in which were a number of soldiers who attacked the police and released the soldiers. The police reserves were brought up, rearrest the soldiers and some civilians. In a few minutes a crowd of several hundred was collected and a running fight kept up between the police and the mob. Some street car windows were broken. Provost Marshall's piquet came up and endeavoured to restore order. City police charged them among the others, apA parently not noticing their police badges. Apparently this ended the matter as far as actual rioting was concerned. An hour or two later, however crowds collected again and wished to attack the police station. On Sunday the mob assembled about the police station and broke the windows, also took some prisoners away from the piquet. I placed about one thousand men in charge of the central section of the city and although the crowds to the extent of several thousands lined the sidewalks until late at night we'h'ad no trouble after four o'clock afternoon of the 2nd instant, and there has been none since. City patrolled by small piquets from various regiments have picked up all stragglers. Much of trouble occasioned by men on week end leave from outside battalions. This has been stopped for the future, also all bar rooms placed out of bounds for the present. Only men hurt were three duty men run into by fire department. They are doing well. Investigation being held; matter will be reported fully.


Wilfrid Laurier: There have been several instances of riots in which soldiers have taken part. Everybody recognizes that the majority of these soldifers are young men, and we can forgive them a great deal; but they must be taught that the first duty of a soldier is to maintain discipline. Has a court martial, or an investigation of any sort by the military authorities been held in any case?


Albert Edward Kemp: I quite agree that the first duty of a soldier is to maintain discipline. But, considering the large number of men who have enlisted, I do not think the riots, or the alleged riots, have been very serious.


Robert Laird Borden: The men who have been guilty of conduct such as has been described have, I think, been handed over to the civil authorities.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, and what I had in mind was that it might have been better for the military authorities to deal with these cases. I think they could inculcate the necessity of maintaining discipline better than the civil authorities.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the practice in garrison towns has been to turn those who have been guilty of contravention of the civil law over to the civil authorities, and they are punished accordingly. There may be some military punishment besides; I do not know about that, but no doubt the acting minister will make inquiries.


Robert Rogers: Perhaps there has been no evidence to show that the soldiers were to blame.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no fault to find, but I have not observed that there has been any military inquiry in cases where it has been alleged, rightly or wrongly, that soldiers have participated in riots. I think the military authorities should impress upon the .soldier that his first duty is to obey the law. We know that these young men like to have a lark sometimes, and nobody will be severe on them for that; but they must be taught the necessity of discipline.
. THE MINISTER OF MILITIA.
On the Orders of the Day:


George William Kyte: Has any information been
read as to when the Minister of Militia intends to sail for Canada? Could the Prime Minister say why he did not sail on Saturday, as was expected?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know
about Saturday. I had a telegram yesterday, stating that he was to sail this morning, Wednesday.	(



PRIVILEGE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. F. B. McCURDY (Shelburne and Queens) :: I rise to a question of privilege.
In an edition of the Ottawa Citizen of this day, under the heading " Regrettable Oversight," my name is connected with the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company, and a meeting of that company recently held at New Glasgow, N.S. The Citizen in the

article referred to makes the statement, amongst other inaccuracies, that I am a large shareholder in the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company. Unfortunately, it is no novel thing for members of this House to be obliged to rise in their places to a question of privilege and correct untruthful allegations by this journal. In the present instance, it would have been a simple matter for the proprietors to have ascertained, before giving currency to the statements referred to, whether they were true or false. I merely desire in respect to the article alluded to, to apply the words which His Boyal Highness was obliged to use through the mouth of the Prime Minister on Monday last in reference to a war munitions matter, and brand the statements as untrue. I own no shares, either preferred or common, in the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company.



COL. JOHN WESLEY ALLISON.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. TUEEIFF:: I should like to know whether the report in this morning's Citizen that Col. J. Wesley Allison is coming back is true, anc( what steps the Government have taken to bring him back.


Sir EOBEET BOEDEN:: I have no official information on the subject. I did hear the statement, apparently well authenticated, that he had sent a telegram to Mr. Thompson, the counsel for the Davidson Commission, stating that he would return to Canada next week.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Where was the telegram sent from?


Frederick William Borden: I really could not say; I did not see it.



LABOUE IN MUNITIONS FACTOEIES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I noticed a statement in the Press the other day that the Minister of Labour had recommended that an Order in Council be passed making the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act applicable to concerns engaged in the manufacture of munitions, and it was said that the Order in Council had been passed. I should have thought that that would have had to be done by statute, instead of by Order in Council. Would the minister be good enough to state the position, and whether he considers an amendment to the Act is necessary to give effect to his wishes?


Hon. T. W. CEOTHEES (Minister of Labour):: Under the War Measures Act, an Order in Council was passed, as my hon. friend says, making that provision of. the Industrial Disputes Act applicable to all concerns in Canada engaged in the manufacture of war supplies for any of the Allied Governments.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: As the matter is one of importance, perhaps the minister would bring the Order in Council down, and read it, so that it may appear on Hansard.



SPECIAL EAILWAY BATES FOE SOLDIEES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: When we were discussing pensions some time ago, I suggested that the Government should take steps to give special railway rates to soldiers who had been granted leave to go home 'by their superior officers. The Prime Minister was good enough to say that he would take the matter up with the Eailway Department, and see whether something of that nature could not be done on the Government railways. Has the suggestion been considered at all?


Frederick William Borden: I intended to consult the Acting Minister of Eailways, and it is my impression that I did so, but I am not quite sure. However, his attention will be directed to the observations of my hon. friend, and he will give them consideration. Does the hon. gentleman know whether special rates are given on other railways in Canada?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I thought that if the Government railways set the example other railways would follow, especially if the Eailway Commission drew their attention to the matteT.


Frederick William Borden: The matter will be given immediate consideration.



PBOHIBITION OE BESTEICTION OF INTOXICATING LIQUOES.


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice), the House went into Committee on Bill No. 66, in aid of Provincial Legislation prohibiting or restricting the sale or use of intoxicating liquor®, Mr. Bhodes in the Chair.
[Stage Direction]
On section 1-persons not to send liquor into provinces knowing or intending that it shall be dealt with unlawfully; penalty:
Mr. DOHERTY:: Mr. Chairman, we had some considerable discussion in regard to this clause the other evening and a number of amendment? were suggested. I am not prepared to say that in regard to all of them they seem to me to be necessary to be made in this section. I am disposed to believe in regard to some of them that the wording of the section as it is in the Bill covered the cases sought to be met by the suggested amendments. But, there are one or two of them that I am disposed to believe it would be essential to add if we want to attain the object for which they were suggested. I am prepared to aoccapt certain of those suggestions, namely, the suggestion of the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) that our Bill would be strengthened if, in the first clause, we added to the prohibitions as to sending, shipping, and so forth, the words " or cause to be sent or shipped." While I thought and still think myself that the words as they stood would have covered cases of that kind, that is of causing to be sent, etc. nevertheless it is true that in on analogous section of theCan-ada Temperance Act the words suggested by the hon. member axe contained and it is perhaps well to avoid any suggestions that because of a difference in the wording of the two sections a different result was intended or proposed. I intend therefore to amend the section by inserting in the second line, after the words " or carried " the words " or causes to be sent, shipped, taken, brought or carried. " That is the first modification I propose to make. Then there was also a suggestion that the Bill would he strengthened by making this clause 1 apply not only to people who send or carry the goods as already provided, but by making it also applicable to the man who sells goods with knowledge that they are to be sent or shipped or carried into a province in which there is prohibition for the purpose of violating the law. It was pointed out, and I may say that after the Bill had been printed it occurred to myself, that there might be an opening for an evasion of the law founded on the fact that in order to come within its terms a person would have to send, ship or carry, either by himself or his agents, the goods into the province in question. That evasion might come about by the person selling the liquor for that purpose and making such

an arangement that he might sell to some other individual who would do the sending, shipping or carrying, and the person so selling, although he was selling with a perfect knowledge of the purpose, would escape- certainly might escape-the application of the law. I propose therefore to add after the words " as aforesaid " in the I2th line the following:
Or shall sell or cause to he sold any intoxicating liquors knowing or intending that such intoxicating liquor will be sent, shipped, taken, brought or carried into any province from any other province or from any place outside of Canada and thereafter dealt with in violation of the laws of the province into which such in-intoxicating liquor is sent, shipped, taken, brought, carried or imported as aforesaid.
It was further suggested that we should provide for maximum as well as minimum penalties. I propose to do that by making a first offence subject to a fine of not less than $100 and not exceeding $200, and a second offence subject to a fine of not less than $200 and not exceeding $400.
The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley) also suggested that there might be some difficulty as to the enforcement of the provision of the section which made the kegs, barrels, cases, bottles, packages, ot receptacles subject to forfeiture where an offence has been committed. The hon. gentleman suggested that a difficulty might arise if the section did not make the conviction itself a cause of forfeiture. I propose to meet that suggestion, which I think is a wise one, by substituting in line 32 for the words "such offence" the words "conviction" and for the word "committed" in the same line the word, "had." So that the provision in that regard will read:
And all intoxicating liquors with respect to which a conviction has been had, and all kegs, barrels, cases, bottles, packages or receptacles of any kind in which such liquor is contained, shall be forfeited.
And further by adding the words:
-and shall be destroyed or otherwise disposed of in such manner as the court may direct.
I propose to reach these results by moving to strike out, so that we may have it clearly before us, section 1 .as it appeared in the Bill and substitute a section such as it is in the Bill, (but with the modifications that I have already mentioned,. I beg to move that section 1 be struck out and the following substituted:
1. Any person who by himself, his clerk, servant or agent,
(a) shall send, ship, take, bring or carry or cause to be sent, shipped taken, brought or carried to or into any province from or out of

any other province or import into any province from any place outside of Canada any intoxicating liquor knowing or intending that such intoxicating liquor will or shall be thereafter dealt with in violation of the law of the province into which such intoxicating liquor is sent, shipped, taken, brought, carried or imported as aforesaid; or
(b) shall sell or cause to be sold any intoxicating liquor knowing or intending that such intoxicating liquor will be sent, shipped, taken, brought or carried into any province from any other province or from any place outside of Canada and thereafter dealt with in violation of the law of the province into which such intoxicating liquor is sent, shipped, taken, brought, carried or imported as aforesaid, shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty for the first offence of not less than one hundred dollars and not exceeding two hundred dollars or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two months with or without hard labour, and for a second offence to a penalty of not less than two hundred dollars and not exceeding four hundred dollars or imprisonment for a term not exceeding four months with or without hard labour, and for a third and every subsequent offence to imprisonment for a term not exceeding less than six months and not more than twelve months with or without hard labour ; and all intoxicating liquor with respect to which any conviction has been had and all kegs, barrels, cases, bottles, packages or receptacles of any kind in which such liquor is contained, shall, upon such conviction, be forfeited and shall be destroyed or otherwise disposed of in such manner as the court may direct.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: It has been suggested to me that if the word " believing " were put in after " knowing and intending," it would make it wider.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think that the purpose the hon. gentleman has in view is met by the next section, which creates a presumption that the man knew or intended, unless he proves the contrary. Section 2 says:
On any prosecution for the violation of this Act the accused person shall he deemed to have known or intended that such intoxicating liquor would he thereafter dealt with in violation of the law of the province into which such intoxicating liquor was sent, shipped, taken, brought, carried or imported, unless he proves that he had good reason for believing that the intoxicating liquor would only he dealt with in a lawful manner.


James Joseph Hughes: This applies to prosecution for the violation of the Act for selling, carrying, and so on. Suppose that a company is the carrier.


Charles Joseph Doherty: For the purpose of this Act, " person " covers not only a natural person but a fictitious person, a company.


James Joseph Hughes: How are you going to
put a company in gaol for the third offence?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The limit of our power would be to fine the company. I do not know of any way by which we can imprison a company.


James Joseph Hughes: Take the case of the
captain or the purser of a steamer that carries liquor; would he be guilty?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think our words are wide enough to apply to any individual who actually carries the goods in. Any person who knowingly violates the Act, I think, would not be entitled to escape on the plea that he acted as a representative of a company.-


James Joseph Hughes: How would it be in case the Government is the carrier? As a matter of fact, in our province the Government is the carrier of four-fifths of the goods, because these are carried on Government steamships or Government railways.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think we must' assume that the Crown will not violate the law. The section will not apply to the Crown unless the Crown is specifically mentioned-that is a general rule of the interpretation of statutes. It would be unusual to mention the Crown specifically in a statute that is essentially of the nature of a criminal statute. I should say it would apply to an officer of the Government', who was knowingly carrying these goods.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: Where the Crown has gone into the business of transportation, it would not reflect unduly upon the Government,-notwithstanding the respect we ought to have for the gentlemen occupying the Treasury benches-or upon the Crown or officers of the Crown, to provide expressly that this section shall apply to employees of the Intercolonial railway. As my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) says, all that the temperance people of Prince Edward Island have to fear in the way of transportation is in the operation of the Government railways and steamers.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I did not suggest that employees of the Crown had any immunity. A person is not excused for committing an unlawful act by pleading that he is a Government employee. There is no irresponsibility on the part of employees of the Crown unless we specifically enact it, and that we are not doing. But the -purpose of making special mention of the Crown, as I understand it, would be to make the Crown liable to fine or imprisonment, and I hardly think that necessary.


William Pugsley: But the transportation can hardly be said to be effected by the employee. It is not the conductor or brake-man that transports the goods, but the railway company. If you brought up the conductor or brakeman charged with violation of this statute, he would say: I have nothing to do with the transportation; it is the company that does that. As to the Crown, my hon. friend knows that no statute will apply to the Crown unless the Crown is specifically named. I have seen *so imany judgments cf an extraordinary nature in my lifetime,-and I say that not to reflect upon the judges-


George Eulas Foster: Probably it was the result of the work of the lawyers who advised the judges.


William Pugsley: 
William Stewart Loggie: Assuming that the prohibition in the province of New Brunswick is enforced in respect of the sale of intoxicating liquor and not against its importation for personal use, it seems to me that it would be unjust to the employees of the Government railways to require that they should know the purpose for which liquor is being sent into that province. The owners of the railway, that is to say, the Crown, ought to stand by the employee, if the employee should so accept liquor and so deliver it to the man who purposes using it himself. It would be absolutely unfair that the employee should be fined. I think that this matter deserves some consideration.


Charles Joseph Doherty: For the moment all we are concerned with is the first section, which imposes liabilities only on people who knowingly, knowing or intending that the law

is to be violated, carry this liquor. A person who is the employee of a railway is no more justified in committing the offence knowingly than is a person who is not the employee of a railway. It is no defence for a person charged with any violation of a law of this kind, which in its nature is analagous, to, if not absolutely a criminal law, to say: I committed the crime as the servant of somebody. It would not be suggested that the employee of a railway company which had sent its employees to steal my coal to run its engines could justify his action by saying:	I stole the coal, but I
was doing it only as agent of the railway company. So far as the protection of the employee is concerned, he is not liable to prosecution unless he knowingly, knowing or intending that there shall be a violation of the law, takes part in the operation. When we come to deal with the presumption, we shall be able to show that the position in which that employee would find himself would enable him to negative any presumption against him. It is difficult for me to conceive any circumstance under which he would not be able to show the court that personally or individually he had reason to suppose that everything was legal. There is a fair presumption in the very fact that the article is being publicly carried by a carrier with regard to whom responsibility under this Act would be clear. As to the suggestion of the hon. member for St. John that we should make this thing so clear that no magistrate should ever make a mistake in its application, I so thoroughly agree with his view of the fallibility of magistrates and judges that I renounce any advance to any such undertaking. The principle that the immunity of the Crown from the operation of a statute d,oes not apply to protect the employees of the Crown in violating a law of this nature is so clear that we can trust that it will be recognized. If we go so far as to put words into every statute so as to negative the possible error of any magistrate-well, this would be a very long Bill. It is not impressed on my mind that there is any special danger with regard to the particular matter that the hon. member for St. John points out.
Mr.: PUGSLEY: The Intercolonial railway does the whole of the transportation business in the northern section of the province of New Brunswick, and also between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, and through the larger part of Novia Scotia.

It is the great transportation system of a very considerable portion of the Maritime Provinces, operating, I think, something over 2,000 miles of road. The section says:
Any person who by himself, his clerk, servant or agent, shall send, ship, take, bring or carry to or into any province.
Let ms suppose that liquor is taken to the freight station of a railway company, put on board the train, and shipped to its destination in some other province. Would you say that the conductor of the train that carries it, the brakeman, the fireman, the engineer; would, you say that any one of these four employees is carrying that liquor? I say, no. It is the company that does it, through its officials.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Is not intent the essence of crime?


William Pugsley: I do not see that that has to do with the point I am raising just at the moirient. In my judgment, although you may sometimes find on the bench people as foolish as I am, and perhaps not knowing any more than I do, no court of any intelligence would hold that any one of these four persons is guilty of carrying that liquor. They are simply the 4 p.m. people who are operating the train for the time being. As the hon. member for Northumberland has said,, it would be most unjust to fine these people, because if they attempted to stop the train and throw that liquor off at some way station they would be dismissed very quickly by the general manager. It would be unjust to fine them under this section, because they are in no way responsible and in no way guilty of the offence with which this section is intended to deal. The minister could easily amend the Bill so as to impose liability upon the employees at the point of shipment or the employees at the point of reception, who would be the freight agents who are in charge of stations. But to say that employees who are running the trains should be liable would be most unjust.
Now as to the Crown. The Intercolonial have their freight department at Montreal. Some person takes a package containing liquor to their station in Montreal, consigned to some person in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island. It is very clear that the Crown would not be liable to a penalty unless the Crown was expressly mentioned. I do not think myself that the employees of the Crown would be liable unless the Crown was expressly mentioned, because the Crown can only act through its employees, and it has been held by the very highest authority that the Crown is not intended to be affected by a statute unless it is expressly mentioned in the statute. If the Crown would not be intended to be referred to or included in a statute unless expressly mentioned, neither, in my judgment, would the employees of the Crown be understood to be affected. The Intercolonial railway receives liquor at its freight station in Montreal, as I say, consigned to some place in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. Is it intended that the employees operating the railway train that carries that liquor are to be liable to and subject to 3 fine? Suppose a brakeman going through the train sees a parcel consigned to some one in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick which he suspects contains liquor, and he sees upon it the address of some person who he thinks is engaged in the illegal sale of liquor. If that brakeman, assisting in the operation of the Intercolonial railway train, is brought up before a magistrate, the onus of proof is on him, because as a brakeman he had to do with the operation of the train bringing the liquor into some part of Nova Scotia, and he has got to prove to the satisfaction of the magistrate that he had reason to believe it was intended simply for the use of the consignee and not for sale. Then if the magistrate fined him, that would be most unjust. He is engaged in the operation of the Government railway, and he ought not to be fined because he would lose his position at once if he attempted to interfere with any article of freight carried on that railway. Therefore it seems to me that the minister, knowing as he does that the Crown is engaged in this vast system of transportation, ought to expressly mention the Crown, and make the principal officials of the Intercolonial at the points of shipment or the points of reception liable under this statute. If he dobs not do that he is going to make this law nugatory so far as a large portion of the Maritime Provinces is concerned.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I cannot undertake to legislate on the assumption that the Crown will proceed to' violate this law, and if I inserted the Crown in this law I would be proceeding on that assumption. Then, as the hon. gentleman has pointed out, the Crown always acts through its agents. It is not quite conceivable to me how you are going to assume that the 'Crown, which can do no wrong, has violated the provisions

of a criminal or quasi-criminal statute. As to the hon. gentleman's appeal for the innocent brakesman, I do not see how it can be suggested that the brakesman who is turning the brakes on a car is carrying anything, or sending anything or bringing anything. He will not have any presumption against him because there will be nothing proved. The presumption does not come into play except as regards the question, of his knowledge; all the rest has first to be affirmatively proved by the Crown. I have no doubt that if a man approaches an official of the Intercolonial railway and induces him to send liquor into a prohibition province to be sold in that province, and that official takes it and sends or carries it into the province, such an official could not shield himself behind his quality of employee to say: I did not violate the law. It is no defence for a man who commits a crime to plead that he did. it in his quality of somebody's employee, and there is no immunity for the employee of the Crown more than for the employee of anybody else, if he does commit an offence. But the man in connection with the Intercolonial who would be liable to prosecution under any circumstances is the man who, in some way, knowingly and intentionally handles and sends the stuff. To hold that the conductor is carrying the goods that are in a freight train would be beyond any conception I could form of the judgment of any magistrate. The railway company is doing the carrying, and unless you have an individual who knowingly, personally does something that contributes to it, he is not doing the carrying. But if you have a brakeman, or a conductor, or anybody else on the train, who carries liquor in violation of the tew, that man will be committing an offence.


William Stewart Loggie: Not unless it is for sale?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In such a case that man would have to show, as any person else would, that he had reason to believe he was carrying the liquor for lawful purposes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. gentleman is speaking of a case in [DOT] which, in order to obtain a conviction, it must be shown that the person who received the liquor to be carried knows it is liquor. But this is how the thing is worked out on the Government railway to-day in places where we have the provincial law: A person in the city of Halifax sends a barrel of what are

called groceries and inside that barrel there may be a couple of cases of Scotch whisky. It is billed as groceries to the receiver, and it is afterwards sold to the people who desire to get whisky. Is there anything in this law which would permit of a conviction for taking or carrying liquor into a province under these circumstances?


Charles Joseph Doherty: 
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: And that he knew he carried liquor?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Of course if there is a possible method which can be suggested or devised by which we can better reach any man who carries liquor, knowing he is carrying liquor, we will be glad to adopt it. In- the suggested amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver which I have already expressed my willingness to accept, v.e are going to try to mast the condition which the hon. member for Pictou speaks of, so far as it is possible to meet it. That is to say, we are going to make it an obligation on everybody who ships liquor into such provinces to plainly label it on the outside. To that extent we will compel the man who ships the liquor to inform the carrier. There will be instances in which men will not do it-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The carrier may receive it without any marks, and it will be taken into the prohibited districts without anybody knowing of it until it reaches its destination.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Can the hon. gentleman suggest what could be done further than to make it an offence to ship the liquor without publicly announcing what it is.


William Pugsley: My view is that you
must not assume that the Crown is going to be innocent of these things. Agents of the Crown carrying liquor in violation of the law would be guilty of an offence just as much as the agents or managers of the Canadian Pacific railway, Grand Trunk railway, or Canadian Northern railway. You must treat them all alike; you must

put the - Crown in exactly the same position as the railway companies. That, I hold, is absolutely essential, having reference to the condition of affairs in the Maritime Provinces.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If I mentioned the (Crown, I would not produce any different result as regards the employees. Furthermore, if I did, I would be doing a most extraordinary thing. Does the hon. gentleman suggest that we should insert the name of the Crown in the (Criminal (Code?


William Pugsley: If they go into the
transportation business, why not.


Charles Joseph Doherty: My hon. friend may
he quite right, but, so far as my humble judgment goes I cannot accept his view. I am not prepared to -accept the suggestion that the Crown -should be mentioned in the Statute. As regards his suggestion that the manager of the Intercolonial, or of any *Government railway, will, under this Act, be in a different position- from the manager of the Canadian Pacific railway, unfortunately, I am not able to agree with him. I am quite convinced that the manager of the GOnterqalonial railway, if he knowingly accepts -for carriage, and carries these goods will be liable under this Act.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He would not be
unless it was expressly mentioned that it was liquor.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Does the hon. gentleman contend that a Government employee shares the immunity of the Crown for criminal or quasi criminal offences?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If he performed
duties prescribed by the -Crown, could he not shelter himself under the privilege of the Crowm? I think that is sound law. If the Crown commands one of its employees to do a certain act, if the Minister of Jus-tics asks a certain officer in his department to do a certain act, that person does it as a direct representative of the Crown. Does -the minister say that the official could not plead the immunity of the Crown?


Charles Joseph Doherty: 1 certainly say so if the thing I told him to do was a violation of the law of the country. It is a large feature of the protection of our liberties, that a man cannot plead an order of the Crown as justification for a violation of the law of the land. I am surprised-I think I may be pardoned for saying so-that the suggestion should be made. The hon. gentleman's argument comes to this: I may go into my department and send one of my clerks out to steal some object for the Crown, and then he may plead the immunity of the Crown. It is the real safeguard in our system that, while the Crown can do no wrong, an employee of the Crown cannot plead the instructions of his superior officer, any more than any other employee can plead the instructions of -his employer, as justification for his going out personally and violating the law of the land.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend says that if Mr. -Gutelius, the General Manager of the -Canadian -Government Railway, carried any liquor on his railway he could be proceeded against, provided, he says, that he knew thait he w-as carrying liquor. That is a very nice thing to say. My hon. friend knows that it would be -absolutely impossible to prove that Mr. -Gutelius knew anything about what was carried on the railway, -because he could not have personal knowledge unless he was present and knew something about the shipment. We come back to the point raised by my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley), that you could not proceed against Mr. Gutelius, or against any other official of the Intercolonial railway, who did not "know that it was liquor he was carrying. Is there anything in this Act to enable a prosecution to be successfully maintained against the man who delivers, which is the essential thing, at any point within a prohibited district, a certain box containing liquor or other article prohibited under the provincial law?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentlehian seems to think that the employees of the Intercolonial railway should, he treated differently from everybody else,* and that I should make it an offence in the case of an employee of the Intercolonial railway who has nothing to do with the carrying oi liquor, or who, if he has to do with it, is not in a position to know anything about the contents of the package. I have not iiea-rd it suggested yet that we should make the manager of the Intercolonial railway criminally liable because some employee, of whom he has no knowledge, takes this liquor into the province unknowingly. There is nothing peculiar about the position of the employees of the Intercolonial, from the point of view of responsibility, as contrasted with the employees of any other railway company. This I do concede: that the Crown, the Intercolonial railway being

vested in the Crown, is not in the position of, say, the Canadian Pacific railway company. Save in so far as recourse under this Act against the company itself is concerned, there would be absolutely no difference between the working of this Act on the Intercolonial railway and its working on any other railway system. Unless some one commits the offences provided for under this'Act, we will not be .able to prosecute, and it is essential-I do not see how we can make it otherwise-to the commission of the offences, for which you are going to punish a. person, that he should have some knowledge that he is committing an offence.


William Pugsley: I have not suggested that the Grown should be treated differently from railway companies. All I am insisting upon is that they should he treated exactly the same as the ordinary transportation companies. What I contend is that the employees of the Intercolonial railway-being a common carrier, though owned by the Crown-necessarily do the same business as the employees of ordinary railway companies. The same offence will be committed as will be committed toy the other railway companies. A company can toe fined and can be made to pay the fine under this statute. I presume also those who have special charge of the handling of freight at the point of shipment, and at the point of receiving, will be liable. Oan there be any objection to providing expressly that the Government railway, the managers and the employees, shall be in the same position as the railways and employees of private companies? That is all I suggest, and I think myself that in accordance with the principle of. law the Crown will not be deemed to be affected by a statute unless it is expressly named. Upon that principle, in so far as the carrying of liquors is concerned on the Government railway, I think the 'court would hold that the Government railways being owned by the Crown, it was not intended by Parliament to include them in its provisions. I do not see that the court could possibly do anything else in accordance with the general principles. It is so easy to make it plain that the management of the Intercolonial railway would be in the same position, and liable to the same penalty, as a railway company and 'its employees would he. When it is so easy to put that in I do not think it is any answer for the Minister of Justice to say that it will not be presumed that the 
Crown, which means the managers of the Intercolonial railway, will be guilty of a violation of the law. The Crown can only be guilty of an offence if its agents are guilty of an offence, and when my hon. friend knows that the agents 'and managers of these Government railways are just as apt to be guilty of an offence under the proposed statute as the managers and employees of a private railway company, he ought to make provision to meet the case which must necessarily arise in the transportation business of the Maritime Provinces. I admit he cannot provide that the (Crown shall suffer a penalty, or that the Crown shall pay a fine, but he can provide that for any offence against this statute the managers and employees of the Intercolonial railway shall be liable equally as the managers and employees of any private transportation company shall be liable. My hon. friend knows that for a great many years in this country it was held before the law was changed, that the Crown could not be sued, on the theory that the Crown could be guilty of no wrong. It took a long time before Parliament came to a realization of the fact that it would be only just to give an individual the right of action against the 'Crown. Previously it was supposed that the only proper remedy was to apply by petition of right to the grace and favour of His Majesty. That has all been done away with and to-day, in the case of small claims, .at all events, the subject is allowed to bring action .against the 'Crown and to have it tried in the ordinary courts of the country. I think action is brought against the general manager.


James Joseph Hughes: First the managing board and then the general manager.


William Pugsley: Yes, the general manager. My hon. friend knows the general manager previous to this Change in the law could not be sued for any wrong which was -done in the operation of the Government railways. ;A Government railway locomotive might, by reason of a .spark being carried by the wind across the track and into the field of a private individual, destroy that individual's building, or his forest and. there was no liability. I doubt if there is any liability to-day unless the fire actually starts upon the Intercolonial railway itself and spreads to the property of the individual. I think we ought to do away with this old idea that the Crown is .supposed not to do any wrong and not to be liable in damages and that the in-

dividual ought simply to 'look to the grace and favour of the Crown. When t'he Crown has gone into the transportation business, the same as an ordinary railway or steamboat company, we ought to expressly include Government railways in the Bill and expressly place the management of the Intercolonial, and the officers and employees of that railway, on the same basis as the managers and employees of any ordinary railway or steamboat company engaged in the transportation business.
Mr. LOGGIE; The minister mentioned that by another section of the Bill he would make it imperative that a package shall be labelled "intoxicating liquor." Might I suggest to him that there would be a certain safeguard if the shipper would attach to the way bill, or to the bill of lading, a certificate to the effect that the consignee made the statement that the liquor was for his personal use?


Mr. STEVENS:: Would he not do that in any case? The railway company would provide its own rules.


William Stewart Loggie: I do not think so.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We would be more likely to make some progress with the Bill if we would deal with the matters that arise under the present section. When the suggested amendments come we can discuss the effect of those amendments. I do not want to curtail discussion at all but we should get along as systematically as we * can and confine ourselves to the matters that are before us.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON:: There seems to be a difference of opinion between the Minister of Justice, the hon. member for St. John, and the hon. member for Pictou as to the effect of the law on officers of the Government. I do not wish to enter into that discussion or to say who is right or who is wrong, but the illustration which the minister gives shows that he is not on the right track. He compares the situation to a case where he as a minister of the Crown sends out a servant with instructions to steal from some one; and he says that the man would be liable. Granted that he would, does not the minister see the tremendous difference? The servant Whom he sends out is sent out to do something that is not in the ordinary course of his business. But in the other case the man is acting in the ordinary course of his business; under instructions, and therefore there could be no comparison between the two cases.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He could never in the
ordinary course of business commit a crime.


Levi Thomson: I shall not argue that
point further. If I understand this section correctly; it provides for the punishment not only of the individual but also of a company.


Charles Joseph Doherty: You will have to get
that combination of circumstances which it is not quite easy to get in regard to a corporation where you can bring home to the company itself, the actual showing and intending certain things to be done. I cannot make this law more general than by providing for its application to every person.


Levi Thomson: The minister is entirely astray as to my intention; perhaps I have not been plain enough in my statement. I wish to refer to the punishment for a third offence. It seems that under this section the punishment is provided for a' first and .second offence by a company, but there is no way to punish a company for a third offence. Would my hon. friend have any objection to adding something which would provide a penalty in the case of a third offence? An individual who .offends the third time must be imprisoned. Could he not make provision that in the case of company a very heavy pecuniary penalty may be inflicted? I presume it is the intention to punish the man who receives liquor, knowing that it is going to be used for an improper purpose, as well as the sender. I am not quite sure that the wording is clear on that point.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The receiver will be the person in the province in which the provincial prohibition law is in force, and the provincial law will take care of him. The reason we are legislating is to get at people who are outside of the province, and therefore not governed by the provincial prohibition law. The man who receives liquor in violation of the law of the province will be taken care of by the law of that province.


Levi Thomson: If that is quite clear, I am satisfied.


Charles Joseph Doherty: When I say he will be taken care of, it depends, of course, on whether the province legislates. At all events, the province has him right under * its hand.


Levi Thomson: Trade and commerce, of course, comes undeT the jurisdiction of the Dominion Parliament; and

if an importer comes under trade and com- . meroe, and there is any question as to the right of the province to punish him, my hon. friend could meet that by simply adding " or who imports or receives."


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think this covers the importer, because our legislation is applicable to everybody who carries or takes liquor into the province, or who brings it in or causes it to be brought in. So if there is any danger of the province not being able to get the man within the province who does import, he will come under our legislation, because he will have caused the liquor to be brought in. It was suggested the other evening that the Bill would be strengthened by adding the words " or who causes to be brought into the province," and we have adopted that suggestion, but the words do not appear in the printed Bill. Personally, I think myself that the man who imports liquor would come under the head of the man who brings it in, even without these additional words; but with these additional words, there is, I think, no doubt that' the man who imports it is the man who causes it to be brought into the province.


Levi Thomson: The words
" take " and " bring " are both in the printed Bill, and it struck me that a judge, when construing the section, would be liable to say that the intention was to cover merely the bringing in of liquor in the way that a carrier would bring it in; and I think he might be justified in interpreting it in that way. If the intention is to cover the importer, why not add " who receives or imports."


Charles Joseph Doherty: What is it the importer does, except to bring liquor into the province or cause it to be brought in? I do not like to multiply repetitions of words that mean the same thing. We have used the word " importer " in the Bill, and I should like to reserve that word for designating the person who imports from outside the Dominion. I think we have covered the case when we add the words "or who causes to be brought into the province."


James Joseph Hughes: The man who brings it
in can be prosecuted, as well as the seller?
* Mr. DOHERTY: Yes. We want to make that quite clear. We do not want to leave him to the provincial law, because it might be said, even when he was caught with the liquor in his possession, that the bringing of the liquor across the line put

him outside the provincial law. So we cover the case of the man who brings the liquor into the province, takes it in, carries it in, brings it in, or causes it to be brought in.


William Stewart Loggie: A seller living outside the Dominion, in Buffalo, for instance, would not come under the law at all?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, I am afraid we would not be able to catch him.


James Joseph Hughes: Who will bring the prosecutions under the Act?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We are making no special provision for that, but we are providing as to the places at which prosecutions may be brought, and we are making them susceptible of being brought within the prohibition province; that is to say, though my offence, supposing I committed one, may be in the province where I sell the liquor or send it from, under a subsequent provision it is enacted that I may be prosecuted in the province where the liquor was sent to. That puts it within the power of the prohibition province, or of the authorities or people living in that province, to bring about a prosecution against the man who does not reside within the province. We leave the laying of information under the general law. Any one may do that who has knowledge that an offence has been committed, and the case may be proceeded with as ordinary violations of the provincial law, or as violations of a statute of this nature are proceeded with.


James Joseph Hughes: We know from experience that the enforcing of a prohibitory law is left pretty much to people who organize themselves into a body for that purpose, and it is pretty expensive. It is rather hard to expect these people to bring proceedings when they are doubtful as to the result of the action. As the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) has said, the result of an action against the Crown or the Intercolonial railway would be very doubtful.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think we agreed that there would be no doubt as to the result.


James Joseph Hughes: The freight agent at the receiving point is the man above all others who would have knowledge of the offence, particularly if the package was marked and plainly showed to whom it was addressed. The freight agent would also b'e able to form a pretty good idea from the party who was making the shipment. I think it would

be a good idea to mention him in the Bill. The Government Railways Small Claims Act specifies the general manager as the one against whom an action may be brought, and I think that mentioning ari official in this way makes him take greater precautions. If an action can be brought with fair prospects of success against the officials of the Government, I think greater care would be exercised by them at all events. My own judgment is that, unless something .of that kind is done, so .far as the province of 'Prince Edward Island is concerned, this Act would be of very little use to prevent importation.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In my own judgment,
the freight agent referred to will be like every other citizen of Canada. If he knowingly ships that liquor, or causes it to be shipped, he will be liable to prosecution. If I mention that freight agent specially, and do not mention every other officer of the Intercolonial, I shall be open to the suggestion that by the mention of the one I intend to exclude the other. With all deference to the opinion of the hon. member for St. John, my opinion is that my Bill applies to everybody in Canada, including that freight agent and all the other employees


James Joseph Hughes: If you mention the general manager, you include them all.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It includes the general manager now. This is criminal or quasicriminal legislation. It is not to be compared with the small claims legislation in which the general manager is designated as the party to the suit. That does not mean that the general manager is to pay the money if the suit is lost; it simply gives a figurehead to avoid a petition of right in instituting proceedings against the Crown, and if the prosecution succeeds, the Crown pays. There is no analogy between that case and this. It would not be suggested that Mr. Guteliua should be made liable to be fined, or sent to jail because some freight agent, without his knowledge or consent, violated the law. Everybody will have to stand on his own personal responsibility, so far as violation of the law is concerned.


John Gillanders Turriff: Not being a lawyer, I do, not propose to discuss the legal phase of this matter. But if there is anything in ' what my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) claims-and it certainly sounds reasonable-this Act will! be of very little
service. For, in addition to the Intercolonial railway, we have the Transcontinental between the East and Winnipeg, under control of the Government. It looks very much as if the Government would have to take over the Canadian Northern in a very short time, and if, besides, they have to take over aleo the Grand Trank Pacific from Winnipeg to Prince Rupert, something over half the railways, of the country will be in the hands of the Government. Then, if the contention of my hon. friend from St. John is right, this law will be practically a dead letter, so far ae half the country is concerned. Even if that hon. gentleman is altogether wrong in his legal opinion on this matter, the law will be a dead letter anyway, for the Minister o'f Justice does not propose to appoint anybody to see to the carrying out 'of the law. In Saskatchewan, when the law for partial prohibition was passed-when the bars were done away with-the Government, knowing that if the work of laying information were left to the general public it would be a difficult matter to have the law carried into effect, simply because what is everybody's business is nobody's business, and people do not like to become informers or prosecutors, appointed a public prosecutor, so that anybody who has belief that the law is being violated need simply drop a line to the public prosecutor who then sends his detectives or whatever force he thinks best to find out the facts. Then, if there has been violation, the public prosecutor takes action at once. The result is that so far, at all events-and the law has been in force since the 1st o'f July last-where there have been infractions of the law, the guilty parties have been very quickly got at and punishment has been severe in a number of cases. Ip that way, the law is being well observed. Now that the minister sees the difficulties standing in the way, would not it be advisable for him to withdraw this Bill, which, after all, is only a sidestepping Bill to get clear of Dominion-wide prohibition, and take the legislation suggested by the member for Vancouver. That would be more in the interest of the whole Dominion. That is what the people are asking for and, it is what they would be much more interested in carrying into effect than this quasi-legislation which it will be nobody's business, nobody's duty, except in a general way, to look after the enforcement of. The measure will not bring about any result, in my opinion, ex-

cept that of getting the Government out of a present difficulty.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN:: It has been suggested to me that (this first clause would not cover the case of a brakeman or conductor on a railway, or a captain of a steamboat. It says: "Any person who by himself, his clerk, servant, or agent, shall send," and so on. The clerk or agent might not be liable, but only the person who employed him. When the Prince Edward Island law was put in operation, in 1900, these words were used, but subsequently an amendment was passed, which would cover any person who sold the liquor. If th-e words: "by himself, his clerk, servant, or agent," were struck out, it would cover any person who brought in the goods. 1 do not know whether or not that is a proper interpretation of the law, tout I am making the suggestion, which has been made to me. If the conductor knew that the liquor was brought in for illegal purposes, would he, in the opinion of the minister, be liable, or would his principal only be liable?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the conductor took any personal part whatever in the handling of this liquor and bringing it in he would be liable. But the conductor, as I understand it, does not determine what is to be put in or what is not. 1 do not think the hon. gentleman wants to suggest that the conductor of a railway train, who has no control over these express packages, ought to be compelled to find out what is in them. He is not actually carrying them. As to the suggestion that anything would be gained by striking out the words " by himself or his agent," we are putting these words in only to make it clear that any person who, either himself or through his agents does this thing shall be liable to the provisions of this legislation. To take these words out would limit the application of the Bill, not extend it in the slightest.


Angus Alexander McLean: It is the superintendent of the railway, then, who would be liable, and he alone?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, it would be the
person or persons who knowingly took part in the carrying. If the superintendent of the railway knows absolutely nothing about the facts, we will not send him to jail because the conductor, for instance, took the liquor from me and carried it. In that case the conductor would be responsible; if the superintendent took it from me and FMr. Turriff. 1
gave me a bill of lading, the superintendent would be responsible. The person who does the thing will be responsible. I regret that I do not agree with the view of tbe hon. member for St. John, and that therefore I do not apprehend the ineffectiveness of this Bill as he suggests. When the Canadian Northern and all the other railroads that the hon. gentleman had in mind as being vested in the Dominion are passed over to this Government, every employee of these roads will be in just the same position under this Act as he was before. As to the distinctions sought to be made between the action of the Government of Saskatchewan and the action taken in connection with this Bill, I would point out, in the first place, that the administration of justice is the business of the provinces. Our duty is done when the law is made; the whole criminal law is administered by provincial authority. In the second' place, I should think that the province of Saskatchewan, which is so anxious to see its own law respected that it has provided a prosecutor to see that it is respected, would be only too glad to see that this legislation, made for the purpose of protecting the effectiveness of the provincial legislation, is enforced' and carried out. The hon. gentleman suggests that after I have seen all the difficulties I may withdraw the Bill. I must say that although I have heard a large number of suggested difficulties, I do not as yet perceive one, so that I see no reason why I should withdraw this Bill. This is not the time to discuss the principle of the Bill or to meet the suggestion that there is any sidestepping about it: Personally, I am quite satisfied that, if the provinces do their duty, we are, in proceeding in this way, assuring a much more effective prohibition measure than we would if rwe had proceeded by Dominion legislation. As to the hon. gentleman's assurance of what it is that the people want, I could, show him communications that I thave received from people who have spent their lives in the promotion of temperance, whose sincerity cannot be doubted, and who express the greatest satisfaction with this proposed legislation.


John Howard Sinclair: One of the difficulties with this Bill is the failure of the minister >
to provide any means of enforcing the law after it is passed. The provinces do not require any assistance from us so far as enforcing their provincial legislation is

ooncerned. We are attempting here to make it an offence for a person in any other province to ship liquor into a dry province. Suppose a merchant in the city of St. John ships a package of liquor to the town of Guysborough. If the liquor were sold by a local dealer in Guysborough, all that the people would have to do would be to go .before the stipendiary magistrate or two justices of the peace and prosecute him. But horw are the (people of that municipality to carry on a prosecution against a merchant in the city of St. John?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Just go and lay information before the stipendiary magistrate right in the local place. That is provided for by another section. If the hon. gentleman would let us proceed section by section, we would more readily meet these difficulties.


John Howard Sinclair: The reason I spoke was that the minister himself referred to this matter in his remarks to the committee. In 1908 a large number of counties in Canada adopted the Scott Act, and it was regarded as a grievance that people outside of the Scott Act area were shipping liquor into counties where the Act had been adopted. The temperance people approached the Dominion Government of that day and a law was enacted making it a crime to ship or send liquor into counties in which the Scott Act had been adopted. I am familiar with the working of that law, and I do not know of a single case in which prosecution has been successfully carried on outside the province or county into which the liquor had been sent. It is practically impossible for the people in the locality where the provincial Act is in force to get at the party outside. That work should be undertaken by the minister's department, so that when a dealer in an outside province ships liquor into a province that has adopted prohibition the party aggrieved may go to the Department of Justice and have the Solicitor General or some authority in the department carry on the prosecution. If the minister will agree to a proposal of that kind, he will give us a workable Act that will be of some use. If he refuses to do so, I am very much inclined to think that his Act will be a dead letter.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am sorry the hon.
gentleman tells us that the provinces, which aTe so anxious to have their own legislation effectively protected, do not care enough about it to carry out a law when we give
it to them. The hon. gentleman contrasts the facility of going to the stipendiary magistrate or two justices of the peace and laying information under the provincial law with what has to be done under this law. If he had waited to rqad the third section of this Bill, he would have seen 5 p.m. that just the same thing could be done under that section. But he must deal with this on the first section; he will not read the third one; he builds his whole grievance on the supposed difference between the tribunal to whom application will have to be made for the enforcement of this law and that under which application is to be made for the enforcement of the provincial law. It is true that you may have to send outside of the province to get the man, but that is true of all offences that are committed within a province, if the fellow gets outside. Does the hon. gentleman ignore the fact that the enforcement of the entire criminal law, so far as it depends upon Government, is the duty and business of Provincial Governments? It is not the function of this Government to administer justice; it is the function of Provincial Governments. I do not see what there is in this law which should call for a shifting from the shoulders of Provincial Governments of the responsibility for the performance of. their duty. I should say, on the contrary! that the very nature of this law makes it peculiarly the' business of Provincial Governments to see to its enforcement, because this is a law to protect the provinces in the enforcement of their own laws.


William Pugsley: The minister talks as if this Government were conferring a tremendous favour on the provinces when it passes a statute to assist the provinces in enforcing prohibition. You would think from the way he talks that this Parliament had no interest whatever in prohibition, no interest in improving the condition of affairs throughout the Dominion, and that when it simply puts upon the statute book a law which will the better enable the provinces to enforce prohibition, it does a wonderful thing, for which it is entitled to the gratitude of the provinces, and that there is no obligation upon this Parliament or this Government to go to tlie slightest expense towards seeing that the law is enforced^ This being a Dominion law, I do not see why this Government does not go to some expense in enforcing it. I quite agree with the minister that the punishment of crime in the different prov-



inces belongs to the provincial authorities. That is quite true. But this law, while it provides for the punishment of offences in which one province may be especially interested, provides also for the punishment of offences in other provinces. For instance, if a distiller in Ontario improperly jships liquor into Prince Edward Island, that distiller may be punished. But the minister says: Oh, let the Government of Prince Edward Island go up to Ontario and employ officers there to prosecute distillers in Ontario. Does not my hon. friend see that this is different from the ease of an ordinary criminal law in respect to which offences in a province are dealt with by the authorities of that province? It does seem to me that where the minister recognizes that it is desirable to make it an offence on the part of a shipper in a distant part of the Dominion to send liquor into a province to be used contrary to the law of that province it would not be unreasonable for the Dominion . Government to take authority to appoint public prosecutors whose duty it would be to see that the Dominion law is enforced. I quite agree with the hon. member for Guysbor-ough on the desirability of having prosecutors for the purpose of enforcing the law, and that unless that is done this law is likely to be an absolute dpad letter. The Minister of Justice has not lived in a section of Canada where there has been a prohibitory law." Those of us who come from New Brunswick know that we have had the Scott Act in force for a great many years. When it was brought into operation, twenty years or more ago, there was an earnest desire to enforce it. The temperance people went to large expense; they employed counsel; they organized} they put their hands in their own pockets to provide funds in an attempt to enforce the law. But they naturally became tired, after a while, of bearing these burdens, and there -are places in New Brunswick to-day where the Scott Act is a dead letter, whereas fifteen or twenty years ago it was vigorously enforced. To-day in many places fines are regularly imposed by common consent, and those fines take the place of license, and the prohibitory law is a dead letter; whereas when the law was first brought into operation it was vigorously enforced. If you are going to enfosee the law satisfactorily and continuously and effectively, you must have public prosecutors paid by the Dominion, whose duty it will be to assist the provinces m 
the enforcement of the law. When it is brought to the attention of this prosecutor that some distiller in Ontario is violating this law by sending liquor down into Prince Edward Island, that public prosecutor should take the necessary proceedings for the punishment of the offender. Unless you have some such system as that, this law is going to bd a dead letter, and I think that as, notwithstanding a very strong sentiment in favour of Dominion-wide prohibition, many of the members of this Parliament have yielded thefr views in regard to Dominion-wide prohibition and are supporting the Government


Mr. DAVIDSON:: Does the hon. gentleman believe in Dominion-wide prohibition?


William Pugsley: I am in favour of this Bill, but there are many gentlemen who are strongly wedded to Dominion-wide prohibition.


Avard Longley Davidson: Do you believe in it?


William Pugsley: I am in favour of this
Bill in preference to Dominion-wide prohibition.


Avard Longley Davidson: I do not think the hon. gentleman has answered my question.


William Pugsley: I am in favour of this
Bill in preference to Dominion-wide prohibition. I stated-that the other day; my hon. friend perhaps did not hear me. What I say is that, when many gentlemen in this House, who have been strongly in favour of Dominion-wide prohibition, who feel that it would be far preferable to pass a law for Dominion-wide prohibition rather than to pass this law, the very least that they can ask the Government to do would be to pass a law to assist the provinces in the enforcement of prohibition; the very least the Government can do is to provide a reasonable sum for the appointment of a public prosecutor who will see that the law is carried out. I say'that the experience of the past 25 years in the different provinces of Canada where they have had prohibition under local option proves that you must have public prosecutors to carry out the law, and surely this Dominion, which provides that offences may be punished outside of the province immediately affected, can well afford to go to the expense of providing officers to enforce the law. This Parliament represents the whole people of Canada, who are interested in the enforcement of law, and it should take measures to see that the law which it enacts is en-

forced, and as I have said, it can only be enforced through public officials whose duty it is to see that it is enforced. Laws which axe not enforced, which are simply put on the statute-book to satisfy people who do not seem to be so much concerned in the enforcement of law as in having a law on. the statute-book, simply excite contempt among the people for all law, and, unless this Government is prepared to take the necessary steps to enforce the law, I think they had better not enact it at all, because it will prove, in the end, to be almost a dead letter and will do more harm than good to the cause of temperance.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-accused must prove that he had good reason for believing liquoT would not be dealt with illegally:
Henry Herbert Stevens: I wish to move, with the approval of the Minister of Justice, who, I think, has already stated that he would consent to it, that the amendment, of which I gave notice, be inserted in the Bill as clause 2. Clause 2 would then read:
In addition to any other penalties prescribed for a violation of section one of this Act any person holding a license to carry on the business or trade of a distiller or brewer, issued under the provisions of the Inland Revenue Act, who violates the provisions of section one of this Act, or who sells or delivers intoxicating liquor in violation of the law in force it) afny province, shall also he liable in any prosecution under this Aqt, on conviction for a first offence, to the suspension of such license for any period not exceeding three months, and on conviction for a second offence, to the suspension of his license for any period not exceeding six months, and on conviction for a third offence, shall forfeit his license and shall thereafter be unable to hold such a license.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have given consideration to the suggested amendment, and I am quite pleased to welcome it into the Bill. I think it is on the lines of the measure, as originally proposed, and is, I believe, likely to be a very effective protection against the violation of this Act, or of any provincial legislation, by persons who happen to hold licenses as distillers or brewers under the Inland Revenue Act.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I am very glad to know that the minister has decided to accept the amendment offered by my hon. friend from Vancouver, but after all it is only a half measure, or a half proposal. It proposes to penalize any brewer or distiller who commits a breach of the prohibitory liquor law which any province of Canada may adopt. They are penalized already,
or will be -by any provincial laws which may be enacted, and the mere fact of their being brewers or distillers will not free them from liability under the provincial statutes. If they break the law they can be fined.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But they cannot suspend their licenses.


Hugh Guthrie: The only addition to the penalties would be that proposed now by my hon. friend from Vancouver in -the way of suspension of their license. I have always understood that the prohibitionists of Canada have -always considered that the manufacture within, and importation into the provinces of Canada are the chief defects in any scheme or system of provincial prohibition of the liquor traffic. In memorials and petitions to this House, -and to other public bodies, you will find that universally they ask to prohibit the manufacture and importation. In the Bill, my hon. friend the Minister of Justice attempts to deal with one branch of that request only, importation. Until the amendment was moved by my hon. friend from Vancouver, the Minister of Justice made no attempt whatever to do anything with regard to the manufacture. He proposed what in my judgment is hut a half measure, which will not- satisfy the vast majority of the people of this cc untry who are today asking foT -prohibitory liquo-r laws.


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: You hope not, 1 suppose.


Hugh Guthrie: I hope it will, but I am satisfied that a half measure -is little better than no measure at all. So long as you permit the manufacture of liquor within the provinces, there is going to be sale, and illegal sale and consumption of that liquor. That is the view of the people who seek this legislation, and that certainly is my view. In the legislation which is being passed in the provinces, there is no doubt that the enactments are hitting the hotel keeper and the liquor store keeper. These interests are -being soaked by present or proposed legislation in the provinces; the manufacturer, the brewer and the distiller, are practically being left unaffected. Why not, in this measure, take the other step, and stop manufacture in the provinces which have passed, or are about to pass, prohibitory liquor laws. We can do it; this House has the power to do it, and I have just drafted a proposal, by way of amendment, which I desire to submit

to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice; and I would ask him to consider it. It may be that I will have to move it and divide the House upon it. I have drafted it hastily, and perhaps it may not be entirely free from objection, so far as the language employed is concerned. I have drafted it as follows:
No license shall hereafter be granted or renewed under the provisions of the Inland Revenue Act to any person to enable such person to carry on business as a distiller, brewer, or maltster in any province wherein a provincial Act is in force prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor.
Section 15 of the Inland Revenue Act provides for the issue of licenses to brewers, distillers, and maltsters. These are annual licenses which expire on the 30th June each year. Consequently, they will all run out on the 30th June next. If the .amendment, suggested is adopted, no brewers', distillers', or maltsters' licenses could be renewed in any province which has passed a law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors. If this House will adopt an amendment of this kind, it will satisfy the great bulk of public opinion in Canada to-day, and it will do more for the adequate and proper' enforcement of those provincial laws than any other restriction, or any other legislation, which could be suggested by any hon. members of this House. I offer this merely as a suggestion to the Minister of Justice, and I ask him to consider it. I trust he will favourably consider it; if not, we might have a division and take the sense of the House upon it later on.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Before saying anything about the suggestion of my hon. friend, I would point out that we have before the Chair the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver to insert in the Bill the clause which he proposes. It is quite true that this measure does not deal with the manufacture of liquor. I explained the other evening the reasons which led me to believe that it was not necessary to do so in this measure, and I pointed out that, to introduce into this measure provisions with regard to the manufacture of liquor on the assumption that tile Dominion Parliament alo*ne can deal with the subject of manufacture, would be a departure from the principle of the Bill. That principle is legislation for the protection of the effectiveness of provincial legislation from outside interference. I do not wish to repeat again-I do not think anything would be gained by doing so-what I said the

other evening with regard' to the question of the manufacture of liquor, and to the measure of the power of the provincial legislatures in relation thereto. In my judgment, they certainly have a measure of power- in that regard. Their lordships of the Privy Council have said so. No Provincial Legislature as yet, has seen -fit to exercise, nor do I understand there is any proposition for any Provincial Legislature to exercise, such a measure of power in regard to the control of manufacture as they may possess. Until they have done that, if we are to be consistent with the principle of legislation that this House adopted the other night and with the principle of this very measure, the time is not yet come, if indeed it ever should come, when this Government, even if any action by this Government would be necessary to supplement Provincial Legislation in regard to manufacture, a question which it is not necessary to deal with now, should deal with the question. I am not prepared to depart from the principle of this measure, endorsed as it has been by the House, for the purpose of enacting a substantial, direct prohibition measure by this Dominion Parliament in the exercise of its prohibitory power. I reiterate the view which I entertained the other evening as to the necessity of this Parliament's action in order to deal with the question of manufacture. There is no purpose to be served by tmy repeating but I do entertain a very strong conviction that there is a very large measure of power in the Provincial Legislatures to deal with the question of the manufacture of liquor within- the provinces-.


Hugh Guthrie: The propriety has always -been recognized of this Government prohibiting the manufacture of intoxicating liquors in certain parts of the Dominion of Canada irrespective of other parts. That is specially provided for in the Inland Revenue Act. We know that there was a time when, in the Northwest Territories, there was prohibition while there was no prohibition in the rest of Canada.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There was no Provincial Legislature in the territories then.


Hugh Guthrie: Clause 6 of the Inland Revenue Act provides:
No license shall be issued under this Act,- That is, to brewers, distillers and maltsters.	,
-nor shall any business subject to excise be carried on in any unsurveyed or unsettled tract

of country, or in any district or place prohibited by Order in Council.
So that it was always contemplated by Parliament that one section of the country might be designated by Order in Council and that in that section no license for a brewer, distiller or a maltster should be granted. By Order in Council, the present Government, without any further legislation, can provide that in any province where prohibitory legislation has been enacted no license shall be granted to a brewer, distiller or a maltster.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not suggest that
we have not power to do that.


Hugh Guthrie: As I understood by hon. friend's remark a night or two ago he questioned very much the propriety of refusing a license, or of prohibiting manufacture in one province while it was permitted in another. But evidently that was in the contemplation of the framers of the Inland Revenue Act, and this power is really there and can be exercised by Order in Council.


Charles Joseph Doherty: What was suggested to me the other evening was that this House should enact Dominion legislation and make its effectiveness entirely dependent upon provincial legislation; that we should pass some general measure of prohibition or manufacture to be applicable only where a province had enacted certain prohibitory measures; in other words, legislation not for the entire Dominion. The Act that is cited is legislation governing the issue of licenses as regards the whole Dominion. Among the conditions that are fixed is one that they may not be issued in certain districts which are named. Throughout the Dominion as a whole authority is given the Governor in Council not to issue licenses in certain parts of the Dominion. But it is not linked up with provincial legislation, and the non-issuance of licenses is not made to rest upon the legislative action by particular provinces. I am quite prepared to say that I do not dispute the power of this Parliament to prohibit manufacture, and perhaps it is necessary, but I must confess to serious doubts of our authority, in the exercise of our power to prohibit manufacture, to deal with the question sectionally. The Privy Council, in maintaining the power of this Parliament to enact prohibitory legislation, so maintained it because it held that under certain conditions the evil could be looked upon as a Dominionwide, or national, evil, and because so considered the .subject was one properly
to be dealt with by the Parliament of the country as coming under the head of legislation for - the jieace, order and good government of Canada. The Privy Council on the other hand has held that this matter might be looked upon as a local evil in the province and that, if it is so looked upon, so long as the Dominion has not exercised its legislative power on the subject, the province might deal with the abatement of that evil, treat it as a local or provincial evil within the province, and enact such measures as in its judgment are necessary for the abatement of the evil. In that condition I think it would be very unwise for us to introduce into this House legislation which, in my judgment, at all events, is quite safe as against any attack for unconstitutionality, prohibiting manufacture and making our prohibition effective only in spots, so to speak, and making its effectiveness dependent upon provincial legislation and that effectiveness itself only existent within the areas of particular provinces.


John Gillanders Turriff: Is that not what you are doing by this Bill?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Absolutely and totally
different. As I pointed out the other evening, this Bill makes it identically the same offence wherever the act is committed within the limits of this wide Dominion.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It depends where
they send the liquor.


Charles Joseph Doherty: But the act can be done anywhere in this Dominion. The enactment is that for a man anywhere in this Dominion to bring about a violation within any province of a provincial law upon the subject of the sale of liquor is to commit an offence. This law is in effect throughout the whole Dominion, and no man anywhere in the Dominion can do that thing without being guilty of a crime.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What my hon. friend overlooks is this: a man could arrange to send liquor into a certain province, and the sending into that province might not be a crime; but it might be a crime to send the liquor into another province.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is one of the conditions of the offence. But what is the proposition of the hon. member for South Wellington? It is that there should be a direct substantive law of this Dominion, which law itself, in virtue of its being

the law of this Dominion, should make it a crime for a man to manufacture liquor, say in the province of Ontario.


Hugh Guthrie: I am only asking that no licenses be granted.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Well, then, he is asking that it be made unlawful for any man to manufacture liquor in Ontario.


William Pugsley: In a province where there is provincial prohibition.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Certainly. Let us be absolutely exact. The proposition of my hon. friend is that we should enact a law which will produce this result: that if the province of Ontario passes a prohibitory law, it will be unlawful, in virtue of the enactment of the Dominion Parliament, to manufacture liquor in Ontario, while at the same time it would be absolutely lawful under the general law of this Dominion to manufacture liquor in Quebec.


William Pugsley: Now how does that differ in principle from the fact that it may be unlawful to import liquor into Ontario, we will say, and yet absolutely lawful to import liquor into Quebec or New Brunswick, where there is no prohibitory law?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It differs in this respect, that the Act which we are making unlawful will be unlawful anywhere in the Dominion, and the principle of it is that you cannot conspire anywhere in the Dominion to bring about something which, when it gets into that province, will be a violation of the provincial law. We are asked to pass a law to make unlawful in Ontario something that the Ontario law does not prohibit; namely, the manufacture of liquor. We are asked to make unlawful a thing which is not unlawful by the law of the particular province concerned.


William Pugsley: Are you not by this Bill prohibiting importation into a province whose legislature has not prohibited importation?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We are prohibiting the doing of something outside of that province. We are dealing with men outside the province right throughout this Dominion. What we are saying is: You shall not anywhere in the Dominion set to work to contrive to bring about the violation of provincial law. That is ah entirely different proposition. The hon. member for South Wellington assumes that the province either cannot or will not-I think he assumed that the prbv-ince cannot-prohibit the manufacture of

liquor; as it cannot, it does not; therefore, the manufacture of liquor, so far as the provincial law is concerned, is a lawful thing. Then he asks this Parliament to step in and say: I of my authority make it unlawful to manufacture liquor in Ontario, although the manufacture of liquor is no violation of the law of Ontario; I make manufacture unlawful in a province which has passed a law saying: you shall not sell liquor. Into such a province, where the manufacture of liquor is a perfectly lawful thing, he asks this Parliament to go and legislate specifically for that province, saying: The Parliament of Canada, not as a national thing, not as dealing with something that is of Dominion-wide interest, but simply because the province of Ontario thinks it well that liquor should not bq sold, enacts that liquor shall not be manufactured, in Ontario, although that particular province has said nothing about manufacture, and at the .same time he wants us to say that everywhere else licenses shall be issued and the manufacture of liquor be perfectly lawful. In other words, because this Parliament put itself on record the other night, that the manufacture of liquor is not a matter to 'be presently at all events dealt with as one of Dominion concern, and that we should not now have Dominionwide prohibition, the hon. member wants us to declare that the manufacture of liquor is .a special evil in Ontario, assuming for the moment that Ontario passes a prohibitory law. y v


William Pugsley: There are more distilleries there.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. member for South Wellington wants us to he good enough to declare that the manufacture of liquor, though not a matter of Dominionwide concern, is a matter of provincial concern. We are asked to enact laws that will be effective in one place and not in another, and to do that by virtue of the power which we have to deal with the question as one of Dominion-wide concern. As I pointed out, my law-this particular law- it has been spoken of so often as my law that it is quite evidqnt I must take the responsibility for it which I do not hesitate to do.


William Pugsley: You are not getting much backing up over there; you have to do all the talking.


Charles Joseph Doherty: 
John Howard Sinclair: I am not just quite clear as to the minister's attitude with regard to manufacture. Assuming the proposal of my hon. friend from South Wellington is adopted, will not that stop the manufacture of intoxicating liquors in the province of Ontario, in the event of Ontario passing a prohibitory law?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If no license is issued in Ontario, there will be no manufacture in Ontario, whether the law of Ontario does or does not prohibit the sale of liquor.


John Howard Sinclair: Very well. Supposing , the provinces of Ontario passes a law prohibiting the manufacture of intoxicating liquors in that province, and that the minister allows the licenses to remain as they are at present, will that stop the manufacture of liquor in Ontario?


Charles Joseph Doherty: When the province of Ontario legislates to prohibit the manufacture I shall give serious consideration to the question whether any supplementary legislation is necessary on the part of this Parliament. I would point out to the hon. gentleman that if the province of Ontario has constitutional power to prohibit the manufacture, the mere license of this Dominion will not entitle a man to manufacture.


John Howard Sinclair: It is quite clear, then, that the province of Ontario has not the power to prohibit the manufacture of liquor in that province.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I differ with the hon. gentleman. *


John Howard Sinclair: It is also clear that this Parliament has that power. Therefore, the responsibility must rest upon this Parliament. The Government not very long ago, if I remember rightly, introduced a Bill to prohibit the manufacture of white phosphorus matches. He does not mean that that can be disregarded by any of the provinces? [DOT]


Charles Joseph Doherty: No., I never suggested that.


John Howard Sinclair: Then, we agree that this Parliament alone has the power to prohibit the .manufacture of any article in any province of Canada.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Oh, no, the hon. gentleman and I would fall out, perhaps, in more than one respect; but particularly I would differ with him in this: It does not follow that because a subject may be within the subject matters with which -this Parliament may deal, looking at it from a Dominion point of view, that the province has no power to deal with that same thing, dealing with it from the local or provincial point of view. With regard to this specific matter of prohibition, the judges are on record as maintaining the Canada Temperance Act, and therefore this Parliament has prohibitory legislative power; and as maintaining at the same time the Manitoba and Ontario Provincial Prohibition Acts, so that the provinces have the power of prohibition;-in effect holding that there is a	power	in	either this	Parliamentor a Provincial Parliament to deal with the subject. The case where the Dominion, alone would have the power is	where	the	matter is	dealt withas	one of	Dominion	concernlegislation directed against what is looked upon as a national evil. But, so long as Parliament does not look at it and deal with it in that way, the provincial legislature has the power, dealing with it as a local or provincial evil, to enact legislation for its abatement. Now, as regards the question of manufacture, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sinclair) says it is perfectly clear that the province has no power to absolutely forbid it. I do not undertake to define the exact limit of the power of the provinces to prohibit the manufacture, but I say there is a measure of such power in the provincial legislature. That, I say, repeating, not the words but cer-
tainly the sense of the words, of their Lordships of the Privy Council. If the exigencies of the local law for the abatement of the use-observe the word-of liquor, in order to remove a local or provincial evil, should necessitate the disappearance of the manufacturing, my own personal opinion is that the legislature, dealing with the question from that point of view and for that purpose, could deal with the manufacture. As I have said I do not want to fix the precise line or measure of that power; but, whatever it may be, it has not as yet been exercised by any province. When a province has chosen to do that, then will be time for us to consider two questions,-first, whether any supplementary or ancillary legislation is needed to make it effective, and second, whether it is a proper thing for this Parliament to do in view of what I have .pointed out, that this Parliament, exercising that power, doing that thing, would be doing it in the exercise of its own power of direct prohibition; and I think a serious question would arise as to whether we should exercise this direct power if we exercise it otherwise than in such a manner as to make our law effective throughout the Dominion. I am not saying it could not be done. But I leave it to the people who believe that the measure now before the House is at all events a useful measure, a progressive measure, one that will have its own uses even if you choose to describe it as within a limited field, to say whether it would be wise for us by seeking to graft upon it legislation which, perhaps, may1 be of doubtful validity, to expose the entire measure to being defeated. Let us have this measure, then. It is a good measure; it will give effective assistance. Assume, for the moment, that it zs not .all that this Parliament could do. But it is-it seems to me it cannot be disputed, with all due respect to what I have heard from the other side-an exercise of the power of this Parliament, so far as it may be exclusively within the authority of this Parliament to deal with the importation-


William Pugsley: Would the hon. minister pardon me? He made a statement a moment ago that surprised me, and I would like to know if I understood him correctly. It_was, as I understood it, that the inser-ment ago that surprised me, and I would prohibit the manufacture within a province might endanger the whole Bill. Hae it not
[Mr. Doherty. 7
been held that one section of a Bill might bb ultra vires and the rest not be affected?


Charles Joseph Doherty: So far from that being a clearly settled, matter, I may say that, in connection with a recent judgment declaring a couple of sections of an Act to be unconstitutional, we reached the conclusion that it would be the part of prudence for us to seek the re-enactment of the whole Bill. The hon. gentleman will do me the justice to note that I did not- speak dogmatically, I merely said that there would be .a serious question.


John Gillanders Turriff: If I understand the matter rightly, my hon. friend the Minister ,of Justice has been rather arguing to-day that the provinces have the right to prohibit the manufacture of liquor. But I understand the argument of my hon. friend yesterday or the day before to be that under the decision of the Privy Council that was quoted the provinces could prohibit only in so far as the sale of the product of the factory' was made in that particular province. I think my hon. friend knows as well as anyone else in this House that in few, if any, cases does a distillery or brewery confine its business to one particular province. Part of the product of every distillery or brewery is sold to outside provinces. They have a few breweries in the province of Saskatchewan, and the beer is shipped to Manitoba and Alberta as well as to points throughout the province of Saskatchewan. According to the argument of my hon. friend, it would be impossible for the province of Saskatchewan to prohibit the manufacture of beer in a factory within that pro- . vince which was shipping to Manitoba and* Alberta as well as to hotels and liquor stores in the province of Saskatchewan. That is the way I understand his argument.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is not quite correct.


John Gillanders Turriff: I do not believe that the Government of any province in Canada believe they have the power to prohibit the manufacture oif liquor and beer within, their province. If the provinces adopting a prohibitory law in respect of the sale of intoxicating liquor within their bounds felt or knew that at the same time they could prohibit the manufacture of liquor within their bounds, they would do so. The reason why they do not prohibit the manufacture is because they feel that they have no power so to prohibit. I venture to say that if any

province had prohibited the manufacture of beer or liquor within its bounds, the legislation so prohibiting would be set at naught because of the fact that only the Dominion Government has the power to deal with importation and manufacture. My hon. friend realizes that, because he has come forward with a Bill designed to assist in preventing importation into the provinces, but leaving out altogether the question of manufacture. Any province seeking to do away with the liquor evil proceeds to do away with the sale. According to the argument of my hon. friend, we shall now be able to stop the importation, but not the manufacture. You cannot have a satisfactory prohibitory law in any province within which the manufacture of liquors is permitted. That has been the one great objection to all provincial and county laws up to the present time. If this Government want to adopt a law that will be of any service to the provinces that have adopted prohibition they should make that law apply just as much to the manufacture of liquor within the bounds of the province as to its importation into the province.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in (Committee of Supply, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
Department of Railways and Canals chargeable to capital, $5,161,173.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (South Renfrew): It has been the practice of the Minister of Railways, on going into committee for the first time, to make a somewhat lengthy statement of the work of the department for the year. We are all very sorry that the minister himself is absent from the House through illness, and we trust that his illness may be of short duration, and that he will be able to return to his place in the department and the Government within a very short time. I wish to make a few observations generally on the work of the department before we proceed to discuss in detail some of the items. I do not intend to go over the whole realm of discussion of the Transcontinental railway; some of us have done that at length at other times. But from what has come to my ears during the past three months, I feel confident that one of the
reasons why there has been a disagreement between the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Government lies in the ambition of the general manager of the Government railways to become the head, as manager, of a transcontinental railway. I say that advisedly from what I have heard during the past two or three months. From the time that Mr. Gutelius was called into advise the Government, there have been things done and things left undone to. give the company a reason for not taking over the road. I am not going to discuss whether they were large things or small things; but certain things in the contract, on the advice of Mr. Gutelius, were departed from, notwithstanding the fact that the president of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway had stated positively that if that course were taken he would not take over the road. But these changes were made just the same. I would go so far as to say that . it is possible the Government did not fully understand the situation in this respect at the time.
At Quebec changes were made without. even the semblance of consent of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Enormous expenditures were made and there were alterations of. the whole plan, of the terminal facilities and entrance at Quebec. These alone would be full reason why the company could not take over the line without, I believe, going to its shareholders and getting authority to make a new contract or to deviate from the old contract on which they had financed and made all their calculations. In addition to that, I submit to the committee that the changes made at Quebec, so far as the road is concerned, are absolutely wrong and detrimental to it as a transcontinental line, and altogether subversive of the object for which it is being constructed, so far as the port of Quebec is concerned The previous Government, after several consultations with the city of Quebec, the Grand Trunk Pacific and some other railway companies, the Public Works Department and the Department of Marine and Fisheries, had arranged for certain things to be done at Quebec.
A line had been contracted for by the old Quebec Bridge Company to run from the main line just north of the bridge to a point in Quebec at Champlain market. The Transcontinental Commission took that contract over from the Bridge Company and proceeded to build that line. We had arranged for a handsome station at what ' is known as the Champlain market, and we made arrangements, after some difli-
[Stage Direction]
culty, with the city of Quebec to secure certain properties in that vicinity. Just in the locality is a magnificent site for deep water terminals, conveniently situated in the very heart of the trading section of the city. To these conditions, and to that proposition, all parties agreed. Under the Government of which I was a member, shops were to be constructed on the main line at the north end of the bridge. Any person, who knows anything about railway operation, will agree that the less hauling you have of any material for which you get no pay, the better it is. With the shops on the main line, the " lame ducks," as railway men call the cars that are injured or broken in any way, could be shunted and repaired without any expense whatever, so far as hauling is concerned.
Acting on the advice of somebody, the new commission decided that they would not-have the shops on the main line of the system for which they were to be constructed, and so, these shops, which are expensive, have been constructed six miles from the main line. In ordeT to reach these -shops so situated, the Government had either to build a new railway, buy one of the existing lines from the Canadian Pacific railway or Canadian Northern railway, or get running rights. They proceeded to purchase from the Canadian Northern railway, about six miles of road, and to-day the Government owns these six miles of railway, and has to upkeep and maintain them, so that the Canadian Northern is relieved of the expense of keeping up this line to get at the shops. That is not the most serious feature of placing these shops away from the main line. If a thousand cars have to be repaired, say in a year, that means the expense of hauling one oar 12,000 milee, which, -as any railway man can figure out, would amount to quite a sum. Every dollar that is added to the expenses of the road means that much additional cost on the transportation of the goods of the people of Canada. I submit that it is no good to the city of Quebec, particularly, to have the shops down there, or at all events, no more good than if they had been placed where it was originally intended they should be placed.- 'Certainly the location is not so 'beneficial to the line itself. Then these expensive shops have 'been constructed, hut there is no machinery in them. I admiit that at the present time the expenditure of money has to be carefully guarded, and at this moment perhaps, in

the position in which it finds itself, the Government is perhaps justified in being careful, but there was no justification for not going on with the construction of the shops where they were intended to be located. They would have been completed long before the outbreak of the war had not the whole original scheme been abandoned for some reason, which I have never yet heard explained satisfactorily, and to which the people of Quebec, I believe, object. There was to be a goods station-and this was part of the arrangement with the city and with the -Grand Trunk Pacific under the contract-erected on the 'site of the Champlain market, which is right on the river front. That would have been in keeping with the Chateau Frontenac and with the great city of Quebec, and with the traffic that was expected to be through traffic east and west of that city. A small building has been put up o-n the Champlain market, and an arrangement has been entered inlto with the 'Canadian Pacific Railway for the construction of a union station, but that arrangement means that the passenger traffic will not tgo straight down, as was originally intended, but will go away around, following the St. Charles river [DOT] until it enters the Canadian Pacific Railway station. I have asked for -the correspondence time and again, and I think I have seen it all, and it shows th-at the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company would not agree to that. The arrangement was however gone on with. The Grand Trunk Pacific could not agree to it, because there was no -provision that the parent company, the Grand Trunk, could have on any terms the joint use, with the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Pacific Railway, of the Union station. The effect of that would be that if the Grand Trunk Company, which has guaranteed the bonds of a great portion of the Grand Trunk Pacific, ran a through train from Montreal to the Quebec bridge and into the city of Quebec, it could not run into the Union station.
['Yes, thanks very much.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 11.45 p.m.\nThursday, April 6, 1916.']
Mt. REID:: Wiry not?


George Perry Graham: The Grand Trunk trains never go over that track, because there is no Quebec bridge and no union station. But in the agreement the Grand Trunk was not included, and was not allowed to use the Canadian Pacific railway line. To my mind the agreement was so absolutely indefensible, from a traffic standpoint, that the Grand Trunk Pacific could not for a

moment think of consenting to it, and the Canadian Pacific railway knew that well.
The situation in Quebec at the present time is that, practically speaking, they might just as well have never heard of the Transcontinental railway. They have a -small station at the Champlain market, and they have practically no freight sheds? and no deep water terminals. For any traffic that may come to Quebec, expecting to be transhipped, there is at the present time absolutely no provision, any more than there was before the Transcontinental was thought of. The Board of Trade of Quebec city absolutely agrees, as I shall show in a few moments, with what I am now placing before the committee. In order to get over this long haul to the Union Station by the St. Charles river, putting Quebec on -a side line, instead; of on the main line of the Transcontinental, it was arranged that a tunnel should be constructed to run from a point on the line that runs from the north end of the bridge to Champlain market, through -and under the city, to the Canadian Pacific railway new station. I have my doubts whether that tunnel will ever 'be constructed. The people of Quebec think at t'he present time that the Government has abandoned the idea of its construction, and, from what I heard in the discussion of the matter in this House last session, I have also come to that conclusion. The Prime Minister went to Quebec and prpmised the people that this tunnel would be constructed. But nothing has been done, and Quebec is really up in arms over the treatment that has been given that city in so far as the Transcontinental railway and its terminals are concerned. All this has cost more money than the old scheme would have cost, and it will cost millions of dollars more than the old scheme before it is through. If we capitalize what the Government have to pay the Canadian Pacific for the joint use of the station, and put in the cost of the new shops, the buying of new land, the buying of a piece of line from the Canadian Northern, and the cost of the train haul away around by the St. Charles, we find that the cost of construction and operation will be a great deal more than it would have been under the original contract. I have been over the territory, whether the acting minister has or not, I know the ground and I have a bird's eye view in my mind of the whole situation. The original scheme was not arrived at without a good deal of consideration and examination. All those suggestions that were made to the
old Government and rejected were made to the new Government and accepted, though a large amount of money had been invested in the former scheme, which investment will to a large extent now be valueless. Nobody is suited by the arrangement in Quebec, and it has cost the people of Canada a lot of money. No benefit comes to the city of Quebec, but injury is done to the transportation problem as a whole. Let me show to the committee what the Board of Trade of Quebec thinks of the situation.
I have here the report of the annual meeting of the Quebec Board of Trade:
Annual Meeting of the Quebec Board of Trade, Feb. 22, 1916.
President's Address.
I shall just read a few extracts from the report. At page 2 the president says:
We have pointed out to the Government that the present entrance from the bridge to the city is not satisfactory, as it involves a detour by Cap Rouge, making the distance over eleven miles, whereas the distance from the bridge to the Champlain market is only about six- miles. This should be remedied, either by making the proposed tunnel from Wolfe's Cove to St. Malo, or by giving suitable terminal accommodation for the south shore roads at the Champlain
market____A few weeks ago, without any
warning and without consulting our commercial men who furnish the traffic, the authorities of the Intercolonial have thought proper to change this system and to send their goods to the Canadian Pacific railway station at the Palais, an unnecessary detour via Cap Rouge of sixteen miles, using the steamer Leonard for the purpose of crossing the river... . Though by no means ,a large or costly edifice, as compared with those built or being built in other cities as union stations, it will no doubt be sufficient for these two roads. No decision seems yet to have been arrived at as to a station for the south shore roads to use, after the completion of the bridge.
That larger scheme, which had been discussed before with the old Government, was simply wiped out, with the result that Quebec is in the situation that I have described. My words have not been really too strong, as my hon. friend will find by reading the address of the president and the report of the Board of Trade. Just let me give another paragraph or two. On page 8 of the president's address, he says:
Of what use was it for Canada to have built three transcontinental railways, at enormous cost, if we have not facilities at our seaports to handle the goods they bring there? The necessity of this was foreseen when the city of Quebec signed a contract with the Commissioners of the Transcontinental railway on the 20th August, 1910, by which in consideration of the transfer by the city of the valuable Champlain market property, at a nominal figure, the Government were to build docks, dock frontage, storage facilities, and terminals on the St. Lawrence front, in Champlain Ward, to the

value of three millions of dollars, exclusive of the cost of right of way and of the workshops. To obtain these concessions, for which the city should not have been called upon to make any sacrifices-other cities were not-the city of Quebec has had to give property and undertake expenditures, which the official report of the city printed in our annual report, estimates at over three millions of dollars, a vast sum, which, this small city can ill afford to contribute at the present time. Subsequent agreements with the Government, as to the use of a union passenger station and the change of location for the Workshops, have not waived in any way our1 right to these freight and shipping terminals, and yet nothing whatever has been done towards them and without them this railway is going to be of very little use to us or to the country. A deputation of your board had an interview with the Prime Minister on this subject, in Ottawa, on the 22nd June last and pointing out to him this alarming position, suggested that the three docks and basins, west of Lampson's Cove, originally recommended by the engineers' joint report of 1906 as freight terminals for this railway, together with grain ' storage for ten millions bushels should be put in at once, and that the 1,800 feet of deep water dock frontage between I.ampson's Cove and the Champlain market, which was under contract when the city signed its agreement with the Government Commissioners in 1910 should also be completed. Sir Robert Borden assured us that he quite understood the necessity of proper facilities for the freight traffic of the transcontinental, but that the war had interfered with, financial matters to such an extent that at Halifax, where a vast plan of similar terminals was under contract, they had been obliged to limit the work for the present, to one unit out of six. Nevertheless he said he appreciated the importance of keeping Canadian trade in Canadian channels and he would certainly do, under the circumstances, all that he could to fulfil his duty.
The Board of Trade winds up by saying that it is the Government's duty to announce what they propose to do with this terminal, even if at the present moment conditions are such that the work cannot be proceeded with. I want to add that if no change had been made in the scheme, which change had injured it very materially from the transportation point of view, the delay would not have occurred, and much of this work would have been done before there was any war. The president says further:
The great sacrifices which the city of Quebec is making for them should entitle us to this. Unless we are going to get what was agreed upon, it seems to me that it would be much wiser for the city of Quebec to cancel - the arrangements for a union station with the Canadian Pacific railway and revert to the position we held under the agreement of August 20, 1910.
Take the report of the Quebec Board of Trade itself, which contains some of the correspondence.
 ,


Robert Rogers: I thought my hon. friend was reading from the report of the Quebec Board of Trade.


George Perry Graham: No, I was reading from the annual address of the president of the Quebec Board of Trade. The report of the Quebec Board of Trade, which, by the way, is a very interesting document, gives a lot of material concerning the facilities of that port. The documents from which I am going to quote have a direct bearing on this question. A good deal of correspondence took place between the Quebec Board of Trade, its officials, and the Government. Here is the report of the annual meetiug of the Quebec Board of Trade:
At a meeting of the council held on the 26th day of March (1915) among the correspondence read were letters from Hon. T. Chase Casgrain, Postmaster General, giving some particulars about the public works to be continued in the port of Quebec. , In the last letter he said: " You may be sure it is the Government's intention to push work for the handling of the Transcontinental railway during the summer months. Both the passenger stations will go on, as will also the work of the Harbour Commission, the damming of the St. Charles river and the Graving dock at Lauzon. The amount voted for the Transcontinental at all points between Winnipeg and Moncton, is $5,000,000 and $3,500,000 to continue work on the bridge."
As the council desired to secure more particulars about terminals the secretary was directed to write the Postmaster General concerning them.
Certain resolutions in reference to trade, freight rates, etc., were passed by the board and copies sent to the different Boards of Trade in Canada, as far west as the Pacific, I think. I should like to quote from a letter written to the Postmaster General. A letter was also written to the Minister of Railways, covering about the same ground, but touching on other matters as well. On page 230 of this report we find some correspondence from the Quebec B-oarid of Trade to the minister representing them in the Cabinet, as follows:
When the Government or the Transcontinental authorities came to the decision to make use of a union station with the Canadian Pacific railway at the Palais, instead of the large maritime station then under contract at the Champlain market, many business men doubted the wisdom of the changebut as it was then well understood that the freight business of the road would be done on the St. Lawrence front, and as the Government have since erected a building on the Champlain market site for that purpose, the question of passenger business being considered of minor importance, no objection was raised to a union passenger station. But this new departure of the Intercolonial authorities, as to the ferry and as to removal of the freight from the water front, reopens the whole question of railway terminals at Quebec, and this question is so important for us, that

I hope you will pardon me if I give you the following summary of the views of our commercial men on the subject;
1.	The Union station is not a Union station unless the passenger trains of all south shore roads can and will come into it. If it is restricted to the use of the Canadian Pacific railway and the Tran scon: mental, of what use will it be to the city when the bridge is built? If it is open to the use of the south shore roads upon what terms can they use it? The Grand Trunk and the Delaware and Hudson have asked us this question, and we cannot tell them. Is there any agreement signed between the Government and the Canadian Pacific railway for the use and operation of this station? Even if the south shore roads are to be admitted, it is certain that they will not come to the Palais via Cap Rouge, a distance of 11 miles from the north end of the bridge, when the distance to the Champlain Market is only 6 miles.


John Dowsley Reid: Why can not they use the
Champlain Market station now?


George Perry Graham: The building was only
erected a short time ago.


John Dowsley Reid: The tracks are there.


George Perry Graham: There is not accommodation for more than one road. The idea of making it a terminal has been abandoned. No one would think of using that as a joint station. There are no railway facilities around to handle the traffic, and there is only one small building, which the people of Quebec call " The Match-Box." The report goes on:
The only way to bring them to the Union station will be to build the tunnel from Wolfe's Cove to St. Malo, and even this will only reduce the distance to 8.03 miles. If there is to be no tunnel, it would be better to abandon the idea of a union station at the Palais, and revert to the original plan of a maritime station at the Champlain market, similar to that being built at Halifax. This would relieve the city of Quebec of some of the heavy obligations it has undertaken.
.We are still strongly of the opinion that all the freight business of the Transcontinental railway should be done on the St. Lawrence front; that docks and elevators should be built between Lampsons' Cove and Wolfes' Cove, and that a deep water sea wall should be built between Lampsons' and the Champlain market which would not only do away with the disgraceful appearance of the railway approach to the city, but would give the railway valuable property and steamship berths on the deep water frontage. All these things were to have been done by the former Transcontinental Commission, and that was the consideration for which the city gave away the valuable Champlain market property for a nominal price.
Another clause reads:
The wholesale trade complain very much of the removal of the freight business of the Intercolonial railway to the Palais, and say that their cartage costs them 50 per cent more than at any other place, besides greater delay in handling.
I could read a great deal more, but I think I have read enough to show that the Board of Trade, representing the citizens of Quebec, absolutely concurs in the view I have placed before the committee, that the new scheme is not as good for the city of Quebec; it is not as good for the business men, and will add very materially to the cost of handling all traffic that goes into the city. As a matter of fact, as regards both passengers and freight, it will place Quebec several miles further away from the Transcontinental than it was under the previous arrangement.
At Halifax enormous sums of money are being expended, running into many, many millions of dollars. Undoubtedly it is necessary to expend a large sum of money on our ocean ports; but did the Government go about this matter as business men would have done who were trying to make a success of transportation? The terminal facilities in contemplation at Halifax are far and away in execess of the hauling capacity of the railway to Halifax. Let me explain what I mean. All the way from Moncton to Halifax there is but one line of railway-the Intercolonial. Goods that go by rail to Halifax, whether belonging to the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Intercolonial, must go over that one line of track. Now, to provide for very, very adequate terminals without making preparations for the haulage of a sufficient quantity of goods to occupy those terminals, would not be considered good business by railway companies. If the terminals at Halifax are necessary-and I am not disputing that for the moment-it is, and has been, absolutely necessary that at least a double track, or perhaps a track through another section of the country, should be constructed from Moncton to Halifax in order to carry the traffic. This is not a new matter; it has been discussed for many years; in fact, from the moment the large terminal facilities were started at Halifax. I submit that the added ability, so to speak, of the railway to carry this expected increase in traffic should have been made simultaneously with the building of the terminals. I do not know that I want to discuss that phase any further, although I have a good many things before me concerning it.
Let me now turn to operation. I say without fear of contradiction that whatever the design may have been, the result of the operation of the Transcontinental has been to make that road, east of Cochrane^ value-

less. A cheap homeseekers' excursion, I am told, is run on the Intercolonial railway from the Maritime Provinces. If I am wrong in this I wish to be corrected. I am told that that excursion did not use the Transcontinental railway as it ought (to do. The .train runs to Montreal, and .there the traffic is given-to the Grand Trunk and goes thence by the Grand Trunk through to North Bay, then by the Ontario Government railway to join the Transcontinental, entirely ignoring thev Transcontinental from Quebec city through to Cochrane. It may be argued that that was done in order to pick up traffic along the road. There can be no other .reason, and if that .is not the reason the manager of the Intercolonial railway, if he arranged, that through homeseekers' excursion, has no business to take our traffic and give the big share of the profits to the Grand Trunk railway. The minister tells us that the Intercolonial has done wonderfully well in the past year. I am convinced that no effort is being made, so far as operation is concerned, to give the Transcontinental east of Cochrane the faintest ghost of a chance. Is my hon.' friend sure that goods coming into Quebec from the West are not handed over to the Intercolonial to swell the traffic of that road, instead of being sent through to Moncton on the Transcontinental? It is the easiest thing in the world, when two Toads have the same management, to hand the traffic over from one road to the other .so that the receipts of the one will be swelled immensely and the receipts of the other made practically nil. An^ is it not true that traffic originating in the Maritime Provinces and destined for the West is carried over the Intercolonial? Does this not explain in part why the Intercolonial is congested, and why we are told that it has not power enough, or not enough cars, so that there is complaint of congestion along that line, while the Transcontinental is scarcely running a train? The Transcontinental could take a laTge share of that freight, and avoid the congestion. The minister may say that we have not the oaTS, but why have not the cars been secured to handle a fair amount of traffic on the Transcontinental? I am afraid, from the information that has come to me within the past few weeks from certain shippers, that their goods have been crowded on the Intercolonial when they might have been handled expeditiously and conveniently on the Transcontinental, and that traffic has been handed to the Inter-[Alr. Graham.]
colonial that should not have gone on that road at all until it reached Moncton.
The operation of the Transcontinental east of Cochrane is no operation at all; that is it is not what railway men would call operation. My hon. friend said the other night that up to date it had paid its way. Well, if the road can pay its way with the abortive operation that has been given it, it might do far better if it had any kind of a fair chance. We find that there is only an occasional passenger train run over the line, and when I say passenger train, I mean a real passenger train. That is no way to develop trade over a railroad; that is no way to bring a railroad before the public. If I am rightly informed as to the kind of management there has been, and if that kind of management is to continue the Transcontinental east of Cochrane cannot help but be a failure. There may be some reason for a more irregular traffic east of Cochrane to some points than there is west; but I submit to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Marine, that the Transcontinental east of Quebec is not being used for the convenience of the people as it should be, but is kept practically closed, while the Intercolonial is said to be congested. Every time a complaint is made as to lack of accommodation on the Intercolonial, the answer is sent from Moncton: we are doing the best we can, but the traffic is congested. We have two roads, and there is no reason why traffic should be congested unless there is neglect in the getting the rolling stock necessary to move the traffic, or unless the line is being misused, for what purpose I know not.
For what purpose was the Transcontinental constructed? We all agree that one object was to develop the ocean ports of Canada. At the present moment not one practical step is being taken to bring the traffic to these ocean ports over the Transcontinental.
We find that a fast train is run tri-weekly from the city of Toronto through to the city of Winnipeg, over the Grand Trunk, the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario, and the Transcontinental, whilst east of Cochrane the people hardly know that there is a Transcontinental railway though they have paid their share of the money to construct it. If it is argued that the line does not pay at the present time, let me tell the minister that his manager does not know whether it will pay or not because he has not given it a trial. Many .railways in Canada have been run for two or three

years at a loss, and yet the Board of Railway Commissioners would compel them to operate if they attempted to cease operating, and the law very properly gives the Railway Commissioners that power because there is something above the making of profits, and that is the accommodation of the people. The people east of Cochrane, so far as the Transcontinental is concerned, are not being accommodated, though _ they have in it the same investment per capita of population as have the people west of Cochrane, or as have the people of any portion of the Dominion. I have been in the province of Quebec more or less and have heard a good many complaints which I am laying before the minister in as practical a way as I can. I say that it iis the duty of the Government to see to it that the manager of the Government railways makes at least an experiment in the operation of the Transcontinental east of Cochrane. On the road running from Toronto 'to the West via Cochrane, it is advertised by this Government that the Transcontinental is the last word in the perfection of railway construction. I am glad that they think that now. But the railway east of Cochrane to the city of Quebec is just as good as a railway as it is west of Cochrane, and, except for ope or two pusher grades, the Tailway 'from Quebec to Moncton has no equal on the continent of America. And yet, for some reason, it is left to-day practically unused, for fear that for the time being it will not pay. I say it is the duty of the Government, no matter what the manager may think, to give the operation of this portion of the Toad a fair trial. During the past few months, the income of other railways has increased at a very rapid rate, and I believe that if the railway east of Cochrane had been operated for the accommodation of the people, even to a somewhat limited extent, the result would have been quite surprising to the Government and to the manager. We have said in this House -and the Prime Ministers of Ontario and Quebec have said it also-that' along the line of the Transcontinental railway east of Cochrane there is much valuable terri. tory to be developed. If the railway, for which the people have paid, is not made the means of affording them an opportunity to go to that territory, it will remain as unexplored and undeveloped, as if there had been no Tailway.
One great means of progress for the hinterland of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec would be the operation of that railway from Cochrane east to the city of Quebec and a fairly good operation from Quebec east. If we are not going to use the line east of Cochrane; if the Government is going to stop at that terminal and hand the traffic that goes east over to the Grand Trunk Pacific to go by Scotia Junction and over the Grand Trunk line to Montreal; if that is to be the settled policy, what is to become of Quebec, Halifax and St. -John as ocean terminals? If that is to be done, these ports might as well have no increased terminal facilities; the spending of all this money will be of no use. Sir, the time has confe when the Government must take a hand in the management of this road. They should advise its manager that the Trancontinental was built for the purpose of carrying the goods of the people, not only to Cochrane, but all the way from the city of Winnipeg to the city of Moncton. If the Grand Trunk Pacific railway had had the road, the Board of Railway Commissioners would have compelled them to operate that portion of the line. The Government of Canada is setting a mighty bad example by giving a poorer service to the people who paid for the road and who own it than they would require from a company which had spent its own money in constructing the road.
Let me refer for two or three minutes to the question of the Trent canal. I have a good many familiar documents here, though perhaps they are not so familiar to this Government as they are to me. I think it is fair that somefone should set forth the position of Federal authority with reference to the Trent Valley water-power. If has been intimated that the Dominion Government were interlopers on that territory so far as power development was concerned. Originally the water-powers along the Trent system were divided into very small entities or units. Some of the patents go back over a hundred years; there was a diversity of patents in respect of little water-powers owned by certain individuals. When there was a plentiful supply of timber in the Trent valley, the Provincial Government of Ontario had the rights in the dams, in many of the lakes and waters generally along that system. When the supply of timber became nearly exhausted the Ontario Government found that the upkeep of these dams and locks was very expensive, and they wished to be relieved of the expense of that upkeep. The expense to the Ontario Government, if I

remember correctly, was about $20,000 a year. As long as the dues from lumbermen were received the upkeep of these dams was a paying investment, but when the timber supply was exhausted it was a case of an outlay without any in-9 p.m. come. When the construction of the Trent canal was being proceeded with, the Federal authorities found that they needed all these waters for the purposes of navigation, and that in the further development of them and in the construction of the canal, further water poweT would of necessity result. The correspondence began in 1904, when Mr. Justice Latohford was Commissioner of Public Works for Ontario, and Mr. Campbell, the present Deputy Minister of Railways at Ottawa was Deputy Commissioner of Public Works at Toronto. Mr. Campbell made a Teport to his chief, the Commissioner of Public Works, on March 1, 1904, in which he set out the cost of maintain-enee of these dams and suggested what ought to he included in any agreement made for their transference to the Dominion. I think I can make it clear that *the Ontario Government handed these over of their own free will by Order in Council to the Federal authority without any compensation whatever and without retaining for themselves any right they might have in provincial water powers. Mr. Campbell, in this first report that he made to the commissioner, said:
That the transfer of these locks, dams and other works does in no way prejudice or interfere with provincial rights upon or adjacent to . any streams, lakes or other waters affected, as regards water-powers, which it may hereafter be desirable to utilize, navigation to be aided, Crown lands to be flooded, mines to be developed, or other valuable privilege.


John Hampden Burnham: Would it not be well to quote the report agreed upon by the two Governments in 1905 and 1906?


George Perry Graham: It will be quoted to the satisfaction-well, maybe not to the satisfaction of my hon. friend, but at any rate to the extent of substantiating what I am saying. I am pointing out that the then Deputy Commissioner of Public Works in Ontario impressed on his Government the necessity of having a clause put in the agreement providing that there should be retained to the province all the rights that they might have in these water powers. 1 find that Mr. Jones, secretary of the Department of Railways and Canals, wrote in reply to this memorandum, which no doubt was sent to Ottawa, a letter in which he

refers to this very section which I have read. Of course, his reference to it would mean a reference to it by the Department of .Railways. He said: [DOT]
Section 4 should be more fully explained as the terms seem to be ambiguous. As regards any water-powers that are at the dams, 1 should think they should go with the dams. If the Dominion Government are to he hampered by the consideration of water users at the several dams, as they surely would he when the waters above the dams would be drawn down to the lowest possible level, the usefulness of the reservoirs would be very much impaired, and the object for which the transfer is to be made would he defeated. The same remark might apply to the reference "Navigation to he aided."
That has reference, as will be observed, to the clause which I read regarding the retention by the Ontario Government of their rights in respect of water-powers. I find a letter from H. H. Hansard, law clerk of the Department of Railways and Canals, to which these matters were referred in September, 1914. I wish to read the clauses referring to the question which has been so much discussed:
As to guaranteeing to existing owners or lessees of water-powers derived from or depending on any of the present dams, etc.
The continuance of such existing rights to he guaranteed, or compensation to he paid therefor in the usual manner.
Provincial rights, however, to water-powers derived from or depending on any of the same dams to be transferred to the Dominion and no guarantee or compensation to be given in respect thereof.
I am calling attention to this to show that the matter was fully discussed, pro and con, before a decision was arrived at. I find a letter from Richard B. Rogers, superintending engineer of the Trent canal, dated December 7, 1904, and written to Mr. Collingwood Schreiber.


Robert Rogers: Sir Collingwood Schreiber.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Collingwood Schreiber then; Sir Collingwood Schreiber now.
With reference to water-powers at the dams to be handed over, or hereafter to he constructed, Jhe assistant commissioner objected to the wording of the statement made in the report of our last interview by Mr. Hansard, in section 3 of such report, namely:	" Such
right to be transferred." He contended that if the dams were handed over to the Dominion Government, or new dams were constructed by the Dominion Government, that the Ontario Government would have no water-power rights at these dams, and therefore it was unnecessary to refer to " The rights being transferred." The same reference to transferring water-powers is made also in sectidn 9 of said report. If such is the contention I see no reason why this omission should not be made.

That is, it was decided that if the dams went the water powers would go as a matter of course, and there was no need of mentioning rights, so they did not mention them at all, it being understood between them that when the dams went the right to water powers went with them. I find a letter from Mr. Alward, assistant law clerk of the department, dated the 7th of December, 1904, in which he deals with the matter in this way:
That the proposed transfer of dams and rights to construct or reconstruct, maintain and operate dams on the said water shall include the transfer of provincial rights to and in water-powers only at the point of such dams that now exist or that may hereafter exist; and the rights to operate any such dam. ...
He was of the opinion that it would be well to put in a clause stating in so many words that they were not transferred.
I wish to refer to the Order in Council of the Ontario Government, dated the 22nd of July, 1905. I call the attention of the committee to the fact that in the meantime the Government of Ontario had changed, and the Conservative Government, of which my friend, Sir Adam Beck, was a member, came into office before this transfer took place. In July, 1905, an Order in Council was passed by the present Ontario Government, and I propose to read this Order in Council, so that there can be no mistake about it, because I think the Federal authority has been criticised unduly for its handling of these water powers. As a matter of fact, these dams and lakes were given over voluntarily to the Dominion, and the Ontario Government was glad to get rid of them in order to avoid expense. The Order in Council of the Conservative Government of Ontario, which has since been reor-ganizecj, is dated July 22, 1905, and is as follows:
Upon consideration of the report of the Hon. the Commissioner of Public Works, dated 15th May, 1905, the Committee of Council advise that certain dams, canals, and other works on waters tributary to the Trent Valley canal heretofore constructed and maintained by the Department of Public Works, Ontario, be transferred to the Department of Railways and Canals, Canada, upon the following terms, in order that the said waters and works may be regulated for the purposes of the said Trent Valley canal:
1.	That all the locks, dams, rights in waters and flooded lands and other works as shown by the hereto attached list and plan be transferred to the Dominion Government represented by the Department of Railways and Canals free of all cost.
2.	That the Dominion Government shall assume, operate and keep in good repair and condition for all time, the lock and three swing
bridges at Lindsay, the lock at Balsam river, and the lock and swing bridge at Yonge'8 Point, together with all minor works in connection with the maintenance and operation of the locks and bridges at Lindsay, Balsam river and Yonge's Point, relieving the province from all expense and responsibility in connection therewith.
3.	That the right of reservoir construction by the Dominion Government shalj be exercisable on and limited to the following: Gull river, Burnt river, Squaw river, Nogies creek. Deer bay, Mississauga creek, Eel's creek and Jack's creek and the drainage areas of such rivers and creeks.
4.	That the following dams shall he maintained for all time by the Dominion Government, subject as hereinafter provided:
On Gull river waters: Balsam lake, Gull lake, Horseshoe lake, Hawk lake. Paint lake, Hall's lake, Keneeris lake, Redstone lake, Eagle and Moose lake, Oblong and Haliburton lake, Percy lake.
On Burnt river waters: Kocklong lake, Drag lake, Loon lake, Big Bear lake, Otter lake, Grace lake, Farquar lake.
On Noggies creek: Swamp lake.
On Mississauga creek: Gull lake, Eagle lake.
5.	That with regard to the smaller or other dams not being actually required by the department for the proposed reservoir system, but now utilized for the flotation of logs, the Dominion Government shall not be required to maintain these dams except only for so long as they are of material use for the purpose of log flotation or log navigation.
6.	That the Dominion will pay to the province at the rate of 50 cents per acre for all unpatented provincial lands flooded through the construction of the proposed reservoir; that compensation for the flooding of patented lands and for damage done to timber on patented lands or on unpatented lands under license to lumberman and others he a matter of agreement between the Dominion Government and the owners or licensees of such lands or timber, and in the event of failure of such owners or licensees to agree with the Dominion Government regarding such compensation, then the matter shall he left to the determination of the Exchequer .Court of Canada in the usual manner.
7.	That the Minister of Railways and Canals shall have the right at any time to rebuild and maintain dams at present existing or at any time to construct and maintain dams in lieu thereof, at other than the present sites for the same; to increase or decrease the heights of all or any of such dams; to determine the size and capacity of the openings therein and the means of controlling the water supply thereat, and to construct or reconstruct, operate and maintain the works necessary to the same, also from time to time to build and maintain new dams wherever he may deem advisable for the proper carrying out of proposed reservoir system, and to maintain and operate the same.
8.	That all mines and minerals in unpatented provincial lands taken over and flooded in th/.i course of construction of reservoirs be reserved to the province, and that all mines and minerals on unpatented lands are still to remain the property of the patentee until proper compensation he granted therefor, and all reasonable provisions essential to the operation and working of the same be allowed subject to the requirements of navigation of the Trent canal.
9.	That the Dominion Government guarantees



to the owners and lessees of timber lands tributary to the streams and lakes affected by this ' Order and to lumbermen now or hereafter operating on such streams and lakes all rights they at present enjoy or are entitled to, by any law or statute now in force with regard to the use and enjoyment of rivers and streams, and also guarantees to the owners and lessees from time to time on any waater power derived from such lakes and streams all rights they at present enjoy or are entitled to by virtue of any law or statute now in force, and in the event of such rights being injuriously affected by the action of the Dominion Government their successors, assigns, employees or representatives in connection with such waters and streams, then the owners and lessees of such timber lands, timber and water power shall have the right to submit their claims to the Exchequer Court of Canada for adjudication and compensation in the usual manner.
Certified.
Lonsdale Copreol, Clerk, Executive Council.
My reason for reading this document is that I wanted it to go on Hansard, because it will be seen that the entire terms of the transfer are contained in it. It will be seen that the province of Ontario saw to it that the Dominion guaranteed to protect the owners of small water powers which had evidently been granted to them by the Provincial Government, but so far as their own water powers were concerned nothing was said about them. An Order in Council was passed by the Dominion Government on February 16, 1906, which is practically a copy of the Order in Council of the Ontario Government, accepting the terms of the Ontario Government. I think it is but fair to the Federal authority that the country should know that they did not take possession of these lakes, reservoirs and water powers in an arbitrary manner. The present Ontario Government, with Sir Adam Beck as one of its members, passed, an Order in Council in 1905 giving these water reservoirs, dams, and everything connected with them, to the Dominion Government free of all cost, the stipulation that they made being that lands flooded should be paid for by the Dominion Government, and that any small holders of water-powers should have their rights protected by the Federal authority, as they would have been protected by the province. That was, in my opinion, the only reasonable thing for both Governments to do. The Dominion Government could not well go on constructing the canal, depending on the supply of water, and on what the province might do. It was only wisdom that the proprietorship of these waters should be handed over to the authority that was going to build the canal and that needed the 
water, and the Ontario Government did not care to keep on expending $20,000 for the upkeep of dams, from which it received no revenue. Up to that date there was no difference of opinion. As the canal construc-, tion continued, it will be readily understood that a comparatively large development of water powers would necessarily take place, though the construction of the canal was the prime object. Then the water powers, of course, as well as others that were vested, as the federal authority claimed in the Dominion, belonged to the federal authority, as outlined in the Order in Council, and something had to be done in order to utilize these powers.


John Hampden Burnham: Had the late Government developed a water-power policy?


George Perry Graham: I will come to that in a moment. There are two ways of reasoning, and two ways of getting at an object. You know, when a squirrel wants to get to a certain limb of a tree, it goes around the-tree first, but a bird flies straight to the point, and, in like manner, my hon. friend from Peterborough jumps to his conclusions; whereas I feel my way as I go, and in the end we may arrive at the same point. In 1907, when I was called to the Government, I found the condition that I have outlined, and so far as the water-powers were concerned, they had been handed over to the Dominion Government. We were proceeding to construct a canal and to erect dams at the particular places outlined, at which a great amount of extra power was being developed. Arrangements had to be made with every small owner so that he should receive an equivalent in electricity or on water-power for that which he owned when we took possession of his property. I think I am safe in saying that there were scores and scores of such cases. If one looks over the reports of the Hydro-Electric Commission he will see that it was urged-the report on this very Trent canal project was made iby the engineer of the Hydro-Electric, if I remember rightly-and urged with reason, that the only way to get power fairly cheap from the Trent system was to have it combined into one distributing system. A multitude of small powers could not be developed, and, particularly, could not be distributed with any degree of success, so far as the consumer was concerned.
That being the case, after a good many months of consultation, I arranged with certain gentlemen that if they, instead of

us, would undertake to get control of these smaller powers, we would deal with them re one body, instead of dealing with them individually, and we would arrange with them, if satisfactory arrangements could be made, ae they were made, that they should undertake to distribute the power under certain restrictions passed by the Dominion Government. West of Toronto at that time, power was 'being distributed very cheaply, and to the advantage of 'the people, from the development of Niagara by the HydroElectric, and the people of central Ontario were at a great disadvantage in the matter of power. Tihat arrangement was' made, and in order that the rates might be controlled, an amendment was made to the Railway Act 'giving the Board of Railway Commissioners power to settle the price at which electricity should be .sold by this company. Ae I remember, it went further, and gave the Railway Commissioners power to compel the company to supply electricity at any point, even in small quantities, at a price which the commissioners thought was fair. The reason for that was that the objection was raised at the time, that some large companies, having interests at one point, would give that particular point a supply of power at the expense of some other point in which they had no interest, and which could not get the power at the same price. That clause was put in the Act to give the Board of Railway Commissioners power to compel the company to supply power where it was needed, and at a price to be fixed by the commissioners. To that I do not think there was one dissenting voice.


John Hampden Burnham: They did not know anything about it then.


George Perry Graham: It was a fair arrangement. That company went on developing power, and a good many towns have received cheap power since. Certain unforeseen complications arose concerning certain cities, and undoubtedly, there was some reason for their complaint. But, what has happened during the last few weeks? While those other places in central Ontario, had the benefit of cheap power for several years, under the conditions I have named, the time has come when the Hydro-Electric wishes to extend its territory further east. How is that to be accomplished? The only way in which it could be accomplished, and the only fair way, is that which has been adopted. I have heard some criticism of the fact that the Ontario Government stepped in and purchased the Seymour Power Company. I say that that was a reasonable thing to do, and the right thing to do, so long as they did not pay too much for it, and I understand that both parties to the agreement considered it to be a fair arrangement. I know that they got a good plant and a good distributing outfit. No disadvantage is coming to any person as the result of that arrangement, and I commend the Ontario Government for it. The Hydro-Electric is extending its work east of Toronto, and it seems reasonable and fair, and in the interests of the entire public, that the distribution should be in the hands of one central power. So far as I am concerned, I am heartily in favour of the action which the Ontario Government has taken, and I trust that the power users in central Ontario will receive all the benefit possible from the new arrangement. Possibly the overhead expenses can be reduced when the1 distribution is under one central authority. The next thing will be, I suppose, to extend the work still further east and give the people of eastern Ontario the advantage.
I consider that one of the great benefits that has come to the province of Ontario during the past few years has come from the work of the Hydro-Electric Commission. They have given electric powers such as have never been given before, and they have distributed to thp small user as well as the large user. The people west of Toronto, particularly, and those to the east, now that the Commission is extending its work, are receiving a benefit which, I believe, they would never have received under other circumstances.
I wish to ask the minister a question or two before I sit down. We ought to have the terms of the lease of the road from Superior Junction to Lake Superior. We ought to have before us the full expenditure that has been made on Halifax harbour up to date. We ought to have the receipts and expenditures of the line from Superior Junction to Lake Superior since it came under Government control. We ought to have the receipts and expenditures of the new train from Toronto to Winnipeg, or our portion of it at least. We ought to have the number of trains that are run daily or weekly between Cochrane and La Tuque, between La Tuque and Quebec, and over the different sections of the railway east of Quebec, with the receipts and expenditures and the amount of traffic hauled.


John Hampden Burnham: Mr. Chairman, I think we may safely say that the resume, or synopsis, which the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) has given of the history of the Trent water-powers, is both fairly clear and reasonable up to a certain point. I believe the ex-minister is a man of very statesmanlike inclinations; that he is thoroughly interested in Canada, as a patriot, and that he desires to do the best he can. But, unfortunately, like the rest of us, he has his limitations, and we must all be judged by our limitations. The history of the Trent water-powers may be truthfully summed up by saying that when that district ceased to be a revenue-producing district to the Ontario Government, they were quite willing to get rid of it to anybody who would take it. The Dominion Government had an interest in it-the interest of navigation. They were then beginning to develop that historic waterway known as the Trent canal. They wanted control over the water, and in 1905 and 1906 the two Governments, the Ontario Government and the Dominion Government, came together and completed the transfer. At that time there appeared to be, and there were, a great many valuable water-powers. Now, I find serious fault with the late Government, with the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, and with his immediate predecessor, in that they did not foresee the necessity of retaining for the people of Canada the ownership of these same water-powers. They had no objection to devise a policy, undoubtedly on the correct principle and of the utmost value in theory to the people of that district, not, however, for the Government of Canada to carry out, but for other people to carry out. Here was a lot of water-power that was soon to be exceedingly valuable to the people, but, strange to say, although it seemed to be an extremely valuable asset to the people, they alienated it for next to nothing. There is where the inexcusable blunder took place. The result has been that we have had recently to buy back our own water-powers for $8,350,000, in order to develop and round off a policy which should have been foreseen and provided for by any reasonable Government in the past.


George Perry Graham: Was that $8,350,000 for the water powers?


John Hampden Burnham: For the power and any development of the property.


George Perry Graham: For the property.


John Hampden Burnham: For the property. I
will give the hon. gentleman an instance of what I mean.


George Perry Graham: I suppose my hon.
friend will admit he is incorrect in saying it was for the water-powers.


John Hampden Burnham: I do not mean for the power; I mean for the property.


George Perry Graham: That is what you said.


John Hampden Burnham: I am not now discanting on the theory of power. But I was speaking of the powers and of everything that goes with them. In order to illustrate my point, I will take the power near Burleigh falls since tlie hon. gentleman desires to have a concrete instance. Burleigh falls is a most valuable waterpower. It has a fore' bay that extends for many miles and there are many thousands of acres of water in it. There is a lake called Chemong lake, a lake called Pigeon lake, and a lake called Buekhorn lake, which are stayed by a dam called Buekhorn dam and which is merely an adjunct of the famous Burleigh Falls dam. The Burleigh Falls dam has practically for a fore bay a lake called Lovesick lake which is enlarged by a place called Deer bay. The water at Burleigh falls is retained by a magnificent concrete dam that was built at great expense to the people of Canada in order to enable the locksl to be managed at that point so that the boats could be transferred from Lovesick lake down to Stony lake. The water-power actually in place there at the present time, and which has been there for many years, or ever since this dam was built and, as a matter of fact, since the previous dam was built, has been, by the computation of the best electrical engineers estimated, at low water, and during the summer time, at
7.000	horse-power, and at high water, at
10.000	horse-power. By the raising of the water level to its full height by means of stop logs and by putting in a small dam at a small cost at the natural spillway called Perry's creek, they can hold still more water and by reserving the water *at the fore bay of Lovesick lake and by raising the level they can almost double that amount of power at almost no expense. The consequence is that at Burleigh falls there is not less than 10,000 or 12,000 horse-power. Yet, would you believe it, the late Government, beginning with Hon. Mr. Blair in 1899, and endorsed by my hon. friend (Mr. Graham) subsequently, transferred the lease of that water-power for
'

sixty years to a private company for the magnificent sum of one dollar a year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Against the protests of the people.


John Hampden Burnham: That is what I call foreseeing the possibility of retaining the public utilities for the people of Canada with a vengeance.


George Perry Graham: Would the hon. gentleman give the whole history of that, and not cut it off there?


John Hampden Burnham: I do not think I am giving an improper account of it. I am sure that the account I am giving is strictly according to the letter.


George Perry Graham: Well, but not all of the account.


John Hampden Burnham: What would my hon. friend like me to give?


George Perry Graham: What the hon. gentleman knows.


John Hampden Burnham: I am telling you what I know. I have described to you the value of the property. I have not exaggerated that, have I ?


George Perry Graham: I do not think so.


Mr. GLASS:: Can the hon. gentleman state what it cost to get that back?


John Hampden Burnham: No, I cannot tell you that. I cannot tell you how much of1 that is included in the recent bargain. The minister (Mr. Reid) may know that. He knows more about that than I do. It has just been completed. I have not seen the details of the bargain. If you will read the lease you will see that the management of the water-power was to be all in favour of the lessees, In fact, you would have thought that the late Government were under some obligation to the lessees, because these water-powers were to be managed, always, of course, as far as possible having regard to the rights of navi-, gation, for the benefit of the lessees. What right the lessees had, paying the sum of $1 a year for sixty years, is more than I can tell and more than anybody else on earth can tell, but notwithstanding, that was the lease. As I have said once before in this House, by the assistance of men high in public life in Canada,, this extraordinary transaction-I do not call it a deal-was brought about.
The value of the water-power to the people Who acquired it was	about
$1,000,000. It was transferred, I am told,
on very, very good authority, by the original speculators, who never developed one single horse-power, for some $230,000 or $240,000; which meant that, having paid only one dollar a year without any further expenses to themselves except, perhaps, the paper the agreement was written on, they realized an enormous sum. Now this lease was granted in the first place' by the Dominion Government, and as the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) has often assured us, this Government is a continuing Government: obligations incurred by one Government must be carried out 'by the succeeding Government. The consequence was that when the time came that the Hydro-Electric Commission had the poweT and privilege of acquiring by purchase, as they did, the water-powers of the Trent, they had to take this Burleigh Falls power into consideration. A howl at once went up about vested rights; they had disposed of the water-power to the Seymour Power Company (properly speaking, the Electric Power Company) for a large sum; that must be taken into consideration, as well as prospective advantages, no doubt. I do not know that it is of. any use to indulge in recriminations. Mistakes are mistakes, appalling as they may be; and it is only by committing mistakes and rectifying them that we progress. I have no wish to lay the burden of the odium that has arisen from this shortsighted policy upon any one; it rests there, without anything further being said. The confession of the blunder goes largely to atone for it now. This extraordinary policy in the Trent district, which I am referring to at the immediate request of the ex-Minister of Railways, in order that he might get an idea of what I am speaking of, resulted in an immense loss to the people of Canada-a loss which it has cost them many millions of dollars to repair. Fortunately, however, we have rescued ourselves, and are now in a position to utilize the public property for the public benefit. That consummation has at last been reached; but how this tremendous blunder ever could have been committed by reasonable and intelligent men is more than I can understand. Havipg decided that it was necessary in the public interest to keep control of these water powers, how they could alienate these powers it is impossible for me to understand,


John Dowsley Reid: I shall be able to give the different statements the hon. member for South Renfrew has asked for, as we come

to the items. With reference to his remarks on the Trent canal water powers, these powers have always, I believe, beeai the property of the Dominion Government. I think the Trent ca'nal is specially mentioned in the British North America Act as being under our control, and therefore these water-powers were the property of the Dominion Government. The hon. member has given1 the history of the dams along the Trent river, and of the arrangements that were made between the Ontario and, the Dominion Governments. His statements, I believe, are correct with this exception, that the agreement in regard to the dams concerned the upper section of the Trent, and there were really no water powers there at all.


George Perry Graham: Oh, yes, there were quite a lot of water-powers there. The one at Burleigh falls that the hon. member for Peterborough has been speaking of is at the upper end.


John Hampden Burnham: If the hon. gentleman means the upper Gull river, certainly not.


John Dowsley Reid: I understood the hon. member for South Renfrew to say that he made an arrangement with some parties who were to purchase several water-powers along the Trent and other rivers and operate them under one management, thereby giving cheaper power to the people of eastern Ontario. In other words, his proposition was to give the Seymour Power Company a monopoly of the entire water-powers of eastern Ontario. That, in my opinion, is not the way to get cheap power for the people of eastern Ontario. I do not believe a monopoly of that kind is in the public interests. But even if that were the best policy, I cannot see why the Government should have given a lease of the power at Burleigh falls for sixty years at a dollar a year, without the Government reserving the right to cancel the lease, or being able to take possession of the water-power in case the lessee did not develop it. That is the first lease I have ever heard of in regard to water-powers which did not have a clause of that kind in it. In all the waterpower leases granted by the Department of Railways and Canals there is a clause stipulating that if the powers are not developed, or are required for Government purposes, they can be taken possession of by the Government, compensation being given for work done by the lessee. But in this particular lease there was no such clause whatsoever, and the minute the lessee got the lease for the water-power at Burleigh Falls he sold it for $250,000, although he had not spent a cent developing the power, and the Government of course could not get the lease back without paying the $250,000. The result was that when the arrangement was made the other day with the Seymour Power Company, the $250,000 which was received by the original lessee for doing nothing, had to be included in the purchase price paid by the Ontario Government. What should have been done, in my opinion, is that the Dominion Government should have kept the power in its own right until the Seymour Power Company was prepared to come to them and say: Now, we have developed to their fullest extent all the powers that we have purchased, or have leased direct from the Dominion Government, and we need more power, and as you have promised that we are to have all the powers on the Trent canal we now ask for Burleigh falls at a reasonable rental, and we will guarantee to develop it and give the power to the people of eastern Ontario. Be that as it may, the Seymour Power Company did certainly expend a lot of money. I believe that this company is now known as the Electrical Development Company. The Ontario Government are getting the property for the actual amount, as I understand it, that this Electrical Development Company paid for it, but, as I have stated, in this amount there are certain sums which this company was compelled to pay on account of leases that were granted for a long period and to persons who really never intended to develop, but merely to speculate in the lease.


Samuel Francis Glass: Do I understand that this $250,000 is included in the price paid by the Ontario Government?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes; they paid $250,000 for the lease on which no money for development had 'been expended. The Dominion Government leased Burleigh falls, as I recollect it, for one dollar per annum for sixty years. The party who got the lease Horn the Dominion Government did not spend a dollar, but sold his rights for $250,000 to the Seymour Power Company, and I think it passed through one or two hands before reaching the Electrical Development Company.


William Pugsley: I remember hearing some years ago that there were quite a
[Mr. J. D. Reid.l

number of water powers in which a certain person or persons who also had Burleigh falls were interested, and a settlement was come to between them and 'the Dominion Government, under which they weie allowed to retain their rights to Burleigh falls, on condition that they surrendered to the Government their rights in the other powers. Has the minister looked into that?
Mr. R-EID: I have looked into it but very little.


William Pugsley: Does not the hon. minister think he should have looked into it very carefully before making the statement that Burleigh falls was leased for one dollar a year?


John Dowsley Reid: I may say that the Dominion Government gave


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is the minister sure of what he is saying?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. gentleman thought he was sure of what he said before.


John Dowsley Reid: I am sure of it now, because it came up in connection with the Trent canal matter a few days ago. The lease was given by the Dominion Government to a person named Culverwell for sixty years at one dollar a year, and there was no condition as to development


William Pugsley: That is not what 1
asked the minister. Are there not on file documents which show that the same people who were interested in Burleigh falls were interested in other water-powers which they surrendered to the Government, on condition of the Government giving them a lease of Burleigh falls at one dollar a year?


John Dowsley Reid: I think the hon. gentleman
is mistaken.


William Pugsley: Has the minister looked to see?


John Dowsley Reid: I have looked to see that the lease was given.


George Perry Graham: There may have been no conditions in the lease, but there was something more in the arrangement than the minister states.


William Pugsley: Does not the minister
think that if a settlement of that kind was made it would greatly affect the case? Suppose that one party owned a number of
water-powers and that the Government, when Mr. Blair was minister, was desirous of getting control of as' many leases as possible, so that the development of the canal system might not be interfered with; and suppose that those parties surrendered their rights in three or four other water-powers, and in consideration of that surrender they were given Burleigh falls for one dollar a year-would that not be very different from Mr. Blair giving away Burleigh falls without this consideration?


John Dowsley Reid: If there were anything in the supposition, it would be different. But I say there is nothing in the supposition; the party got the lease for one dollar a year without conditions.


William Pugsley: Has the hon. minister looked into it?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


George Perry Graham: There were no conditions in the lease, but there were conditions causing the lease to be made.


John Hampden Burnham: I know there were no conditions.	[DOT]


John Dowsley Reid: When we are on the Estimates for the Trent canal, I will have the information before me.


William Pugsley: The point is not the conditions stated in this particular lease; but is it not true that the same parties who got an absolute lease of Burleigh falls were interested in several other water-powers which Mr. Blair, as minister, was anxious to get control of, and-


John Hampden Burnham: If the hon. minister would allow me, I can tell these hon. gentlemen that the parties could hardly get this water-power out of Mr. Blair's hands, but men high in the public life of Canada wrote to him and badgered the life out of him until he did it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How do you know?


John Hampden Burnham: I know what I am talking about.


William Pugsley: And I know that no man, no dozen of men, could have induced Mr. Blair to do what he thought was not in the public interest. As I understand it, this was a settlement with the same people who were interested in three or four other water-powers to which Mr. Blair wanted to get a clear title, and he gave the lease of the Burleigh falls in order to secure that title. I may be wrong, but that is what I heard.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman is too good a lawyer not to know that if there had been conditions of that kind they would have been mentioned in the lease.


William Pugsley: Not in the lease, but in a separate agreement. There would be one agreement under which these people would surrender their lease in the other powers, and another under which the Government would give the lease of Burleigh falls.


John Dowsley Reid: Does the hon. gentleman say that Mr. Culverwell was interested in other leases?


William Pugsley: So I understood.


John Dowsley Reid: I understood he was not.


George Perry Graham: He got one from the Ontario Government. What about his transfer?


John Dowsley Reid: He did not transfer it in consideration of this lease at one dollar a year. However, I think we are all glad-at least we in eastern Ontario are glad-to isee this question of water-powers settled, and to know that the Hydro-Electric now have control of practically all the water-powers in eastern Ontario, and that the public will have the advantage of rates as low as the electrical energy can be developed and furnished for. The hon. member for South Renfrew dealt a little with the Transcontinental. Of course, I must admit that I am not as well acquainted with this whole matter as the Minister of Railways himself or as the ex-Minister of Railways.


William Pugsley: If the acting minister cannot make a longer speech than the minister (Mr. Cochrane) used to, I shall be surprised.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister used to say a great deal in a few words. He probably did not make his 'speeches as long as those of the hon. member for St. John, but there was more meat in theim.


William Pugsley: They could not compare with those of the acting minister.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member for South Renfrew seems to be somewhat worked up over the taking over of this railroad and its operation by the Government. I think that the real complaint of the hon. gentleman is in regard to the general management.


George Perry Graham: Oh, no.
Mr.'REID: I think it is more that than anything else. The hon. gentleman first

found fault with the situation at the city of Quebec. The hon. member knows that since this Government came into power we have been doing our beet to put the port of Quebec in such condition that it will be equal to any port in (he woTld. Within the last three or four years some $20,000,000 or $25,000,000 have been expended at the port of Quebec. We are continuing the work and intend, as I say, to make it, if possible, one of the best ports in the world, but on account of the war we cannot go ahead as fast as we should like. The hon. gentleman states that so far as getting into the city of Quebec is concerned we are not in the same position as we were when the original plans were laid out, but I believe that we are in a much be'tteT position and for this reason: On Champlain market a station has been erected and the station on Champlain market was approved by the president of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, Mr. Chamberlin.


George Perry Graham: 
William Pugsley: Would the minister be good enough to bring down that approval?


John Dowsley Reid: I am stating what took place between Mr. Chamberlin and myself. If there is any record of it, I shall certainly be glad to bring it down.


William Pugsley: There smely must be a record of it.


John Dowsley Reid: The plans, as I say, were approved. The railroad runs down to Champlain market.
iMr. GRAHAM: If the minister will pardon me, this is a very important point. It is said that certain plans were approved.
If the taking over of a project
10 p.m. depended on the approval of *any changes that were made, surely the acting minister would not, in a matter so important, accept a verbal approval, in view of the fact that the re-

coTds would have to show that the approval was made. If that approval was made, it must be on record.


John Dowsley Reid: I gave the hon. member the reason the company have not taken over the road.


George Perry Graham: I am referring to the Champlain market. I have been told once or twice that certain things were approved, but the correspondence shows that they were objected to and never approved. Anything that is approved in connection with a great undertaking like this as between the Government and the company must be on record or it is not an approval at all. The approval could not be given in a conversation.


John Dowsley Reid: All I can say is that the
president did not object to this station; they are satisfied with the station erected under the contract.


William Pugsley: The contract provides
that these plans shall be approved by the chief engineer of the Government and the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. We had evidence some time ago that instead of approving, the chief engineers strenuously objected. There is a letter on file to that effect. I hope that the minister will bring down the correspondence.	.


John Dowsley Reid: Any correspondence that 1
have I shall be glad to bring down. As the hon. member for South Renfrew knows, the tracks run to Champlain market, as originally intended and it is near Champlain market that the ferry crosses from Levis. Passenger trains crossing the bridge can run down to that station just the same as was originally intended. With regard to the Union station at the city of Quebec-


Mr. LEMIEUX:: You mean the Canadian Pacific Railway station.


John Dowsley Reid: I mean the Union station.
The Canadian Pacific railway comes in there, as also does the Canadian Northern, which runs through to Chicoutimi, and several other railroads. It is a good thing, I should say, for the city of Quebec that a union station should be at that point. At the St. Charles river and at the Louise basin are all the freight sheds, and there is the elevator for receiving grain. That is the point where all the ocean steamers come to now and have been coming to for years. The Harbour Commission of Quebec are making slips and basins for the
steamers to come to. The Government purchased for a small sum that branch of the Canadian Northern which runs from Sillery to what is to be the Union station. We can bring grain over the Trancontin-ental from the far west and land it in the elevator at Quebec; we can bring freight from the West and hand it over to the slips to which these ocean-going vessels have been coming for years and will always be coming, on account of the great work being done by the Harbour Commission. As I have said, passenger trains can run through either the Union station or the station at Champlain market.
The hon. member knows that under his original plan' the Transcontinental railway would 'have had no possible connection between the Champlain market, where the station was to be, and the eastern side of the oity of Quebec, where the elevator has been erected by the Harbour Commission, where all the freight sheds are, where all the ocean-going vessels dock. There was no connection between the terminus of the Transcontinental in the city of Quebec and the great shipping part of the city. The hon. member knows that an agitation arose in that city. The citizens were unanimous in demanding that, instead of having this great big station on Champlain market, a tunnel should be built, and t'he trains run through the tunnel into what is now being made a union station in the city of Quebec. The mayor and all the people in Quebec held up both hands to have that done. They asked that the original plan of the Transcontinental to stop at Champlain market be abandoned,, that a smaller station should be built there, and that the trains be run through a tunnel. In addition to that, as the hon. member stated, the proposition of the Transcontinental Commission, undeT the previous Government, was that from Champlain market up the river in a westerly direction, for a mile or two, large piers were to be built, and land was to be filledj in. This plan would have cost a very, very large amount of money. With this war on, with the condition that we are in at the present time, does not the hon. member think it was good policy to acquire this small piece of land, at a cost of about $175,000, by the acquisition of which we are able not only to carry out the original policy of the hoh. member for South Renfrew when he was Minister of Railways, that is to rum into Champlain market, but in addition to that to run right into the Canadian Pacific Tailway and

Canadian Northern railway station, and to have the use and advantage of all the terminals on the eastern side of the city of Quebec, and of the elevators and other accommodations that are necessary for a great railway.	By this arrangement
we are placed in a good position in the meantime, and when the war is over, or when we are in a better position to take this matter up, there will be no difficulty, if it is found advantageous, in proceeding with the construction of any docks which may be necessary between Sillery cove and Champlain market. The hon. member has cited some other things that were not done on the Transcontinental and gives them as a reason why the Grand Trunk Pacific does not take over the Transcontinental railway. Let me say that I disagree with the hon. member. The Grand Trunk Pacific were pressed bard by the Government to take over this Transcontinental railway system between Winnipeg and Moncton.


William Pugsley: Wa3 that in writing, that they were pressed hard?


John Dowsley Reid: They were written to and
asked to take it. *


William Pugsley: I have myself asked to have that correspondence brought down, but I have been informed that there was no correspondence. I have asked for the letters and replies. We were promised them, but they have never been brought down so far.


John Dowsley Reid: If there is any correspondence I will see that it is brought down.


William Pugsley: It is very strange that on an important matter like this there should not be any correspondence.


John Dowsley Reid: The Grand Trunk Pacific
refused to take over this Transcontinental railway.


William Pugsley: Verbally or in writing.


John Dowsley Reid: One of my officials tells me that it is in writing, and that the letters have been brought down.


William Pugsley: Setting forth their reasons? There is one reason.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member said nothing had been brought down.


William Pugsley: That was previously,
when they were objecting to the alteration of the grades and the alteration of the terminals at Quebec, they stated that until the contract was complied with they could

not be expected to take it over. That is what was brought down.


John Dowsley Reid: If there is any more corre-ispandeoice than has been brought down I will give it to the hon. member when we come to the item. At all events, my own opinion is that the Teason they would not take it over is that there is no doubt at all that this Transcontinental line between Winnipeg and Moncton cannot pay.


George Perry Graham: Part of it has paid now.


John Dowsley Reid: It paid between the 1st of July and the 1st of December, but from the 1st of December on, in the winter months, of course the railroad does not pay, and there will be a considerable 'loss during the fiscal year. I do not think that they expected it would pay for very very many years. In addition to that, a large amount must be spent each year for upkeep and the hon. member knows that even on the Grand Trunk Pacific west they have not 'been able to make the line pay up to the present time on account, I suppose, of the road not being completed. The Transcontinental was handed over to the Government without any equipment whatever. The Government had not any equipment. The hon. member expects this Government to take over a railway from Winnipeg to Moncton and to operate lit within a few months, not having any equipment to start with. The road has been operated. We started with passenger trains between Toronto and Winnipeg, and freight, of course, has been going over, the whole road. In order to get equipment for this line, we had to take some 75 engines and a very large number of oars off the Intercolonial. Every other railway had its oars employed and thus taking these cars and engines off the Intercolonial in order to operate the Transcontinental was a very serious matter for the Intercolonial, while, at the1 same time, it did not afford a sufficient equipment to operate the Transcontinental railway as it should be operated. However, everything was done as well as it could be under the circumstances, and, so far as I can understand, there is not the dissatisfaction that the hon. member alleges. The hon. member complains that we have not been operating the line between Cochrane and Quebec in as efficient a manner 'as the line from Cochrane west. That is true, for reasons that I have already stated.


George Perry Graham: I did not say that.


John Dowsley Reid: I understood the hon. member to complain that the line between Cochrane and Quebec was not being operated in as complete a manner as that between Cochrane and Winnipeg.


George Perry Graham: I think the minister will find that my language concerning that is qualified. I was anxious about having it operated in some kind of a way. It should be operated in a fairly reasonable way.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not wish to'misrepresent the hon. member, and I accept the explanation he has given. We had not the equipment. We had to organize the system. Between Cochrane and Quebec we have been operating a train twice a week, I think, or two or three times a week.


William Pugsley: A mixed train.


John Dowsley Reid: There was not sufficient local traffic along the line to justify any more. The Minister of Railways and Canals has taken this matter up with the general manager with the view of carrying out [DOT] what was originally intended on the Transcontinental, that is, to Tun through passenger trains between Halifax and St. John and Winnipeg. That is the intention; that has always been the intention, and there is no doubt that it is what should be done, and what will be done for the reason that any freight that goes over the Intercolonial for the West, or over that part of the Transcontinental between Moncton and Quebec should go over our line to the West. With the view of carrying out that policy, we have been getting other equipment, the engines and cars that are necessary to run a passenger service. The hon. member knows that we must have engines, Pullman cars, first class -cars, baggage cars, and all the equipment necessary to run through trains.
As I stated a few moments ago, it was difficult to get that equipment within a few months. In discussing this -matter only a few days ago with the general manager, it .was a-rranged that within a short time passenger trains should be run through from Halifax and St. John to Winnipeg. I hope and believe that it will be a very short time before we are able to advertise trains running from Halifax to Vancouver over the Transcontinental system.


William Pugsley: The minister always forgets St. John.	.


John Dowsley Reid: I think that hon. members will agree that I have included St. John.


William Pugsley: In describing his large vision, the minister stated that passenger trains would run from Halifax to Winnipeg.


John Dowsley Reid: When we get the S-t. John Valley road, in operation 'between St. John and the point where it will connect with the Transcontinental.


William Pugsley: Where?


John Dowsley Reid: I think it is McGivney's Junction.


William Pugsley: Where will it run from?


John Dowsley Reid: From St. John over the St. John Valley road to the point where it will meet the Transcontinental line. A car will be put on-


William Pugsley: The Minister of Public Works not many evenings ago announced that the arrangement is that the road will run from Centreville to Westfield, where it will connect with the Canadian Pacific railway. There is no arrangement to run from St. John at all, except over the Canadian Pacific Railway line.


John Dowsley Reid: I think the hon. member is quibbling. When the St. John Valley road runs to Westfield, we can get running rights over the 10 miles into St. John. Does my hon. friend object to us getting into St. John at once? We will run trains from St. John through to Winnipeg on the Transcontinental. We will run through passenger trains and through freight trains to Winnipeg over the Transcontinental within a very short time, and everything will be done to put through all the freight as well as to run all passenger trains that may be necessary, not only between Winnipeg and Cochrane, but between Cochrane and Quebec, or on any other portion of the Transcontinental.
The hon. member, speaking of the Transcontinental between Quebec and Moncton, and of the Intercolonial between Levis and Moncton, asked what we were going to do with the freight from Moncton to Halifax, seeing that we had only a single track. I would like to ask my hon. friend this question: When they first planned to build the Transcontinental from Winnipeg to Moncton, how did they expect to get the freight from Moncton to Halifax, seeing that there was only the one track? They never proposed to double track.


George Perry Graham: Oh, yes.


John Dowsley Reid: There was no proposition that when the Transcontinental road was built to Moncton they would double track the

Intercolonial to Halifax. As I remember the discussion which took place in this House when the plans were submitted, the idea was that the line should run to Moncton, but that it was not necessary to go any further because we had the Intercolonial from Moncton to Halifax, and therefore we could take freight over the Intercolonial.


George Perry Graham: The minister will have to read some of my speeches on that point.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member was not Minister of Railways when the Transcori-tinental policy originated. I am referring to the time when the plans were first submitted to Parliament. They said that they did not require a railway further than Moncton, because the Intercolonial would be able to take the freight from Moncton to Halifax. We have the Transcontinental railway between Quebec and Moncton, and we have the Intercolonial railway, and if the late Government had doubled the track of the Intercolonial, it would have been better in the end. However, we have the Transcontinental line between Quebec and Moncton, and everything that can be done by the Government in order to assist development along that route is being done. That part of the road will be operated in the best interests of the people in that part of the country, and of the people of Canada as a whole. I do not know that I can say any more on this matter at present. I will be glad to give any information concerning the items as we proceed with them.


William Pugsley: Two sessions ago, I think, when we were discussing the Transcontinental railway, I called the attention of the Minister of Railways to the fact that before the late Government went out of office, a sub-Committee of Council was appointed, with whom the late president of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, Mr. Hays, conferred. He made an offer to the effect that, without waiting for the entire completion of the 'Transcontinental, the Grand Trunk Pacific would, as a section was completed, enter upon its operation, furnish the rolling stock, and keep an account of the earnings and operating expenses, upon the agreement that in case of loss the Government would guarantee to make good the deficiency. But that deficiency should be added to the coi&t of the road upon which the Grand Trunk Pacific was to pay interest the same as on any other items of cost. The Minister of Railways and Canals promised me that he would make an effort to have the Grand 'Trunk Pacific take a lease upon these

terms. He promised to bring down to the House the correspondence which would take .place in reference to it and the result. Although I have twice asked for that correspondence we have not been favoured with any information upon the point. I am sure my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Railways and Canals will see that it was a very important proposition. It so impressed the sub-committee of council when the late Government were in power because we thought it would be exceedingly desirable to have the Grand Trunk Pacific enter as early as possible upon the operation of the line. It would give new hope, confidence and inspiration to all the people when they would see the trains of the Grand Trunk Pacific running to the cities of St. John and Halifax. The Minister of Railways and Canals seemed to agree with it, but we never could get any information laid before the House. Is the acting minister prepared to submit the correspondence that took place in reference to that important project and has he any information as to the result of it?


John Dowsley Reid: If there is any correspondence that I can find I will be only too pleased to submit it. But, of course, the hon. member understands that the minister himself knows this whole matter thoroughly. I am not fully acquainted with it. I do not know what took place in the department. The hon. member states that there was a sub-committee formed and that they took this up with Mr. Hays. If he was a member of that sub-committee, he knows whether there were any documents or correspondence connected with it, and if there are I will be very glad to submit them.


William Pugsley: I called the attention ol the Minister of Railways and Canals to the proposal that Mr. Hays had made to us. I told him that the late Government were favourable to it, and I asked him if he would take up the subject again with the Grand Trunk Pacific. I understood him to say that he would do so and that he would submit to the House the result of it. Surely, there must be some correspondence upon it.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member tells the
House there was a sub-committee and that there was an arrangement made.


William Pugsley: That was during the
time of the late Government.
Mr.'REID:	Yes. Does the hon. gentleman know if there was anything in writing?


William Pugsley: Nothing in writing at
that time.


John Dowsley Reid: If there is nothing in writing there is nothing that has changed the situation since that time. If there was anything in writing you could deal with the matter but apparently there was nothing at all. The hon. gentleman knows that there was an understanding between the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Government that the road was to be taken over in sections by the Grand Trunk Pacific when it was completed and that it was to he taken over and operated on such conditions as the arbitrator, Sir William Whyte, should determine. The first section between Superior Junction and Winnipeg was taken over in order that the Grand Trunk Pacific might operate between Winnipeg and Fort William going over their own Superior Junction branch. Had an arrangement, such as the hon. gentleman has mentioned, been agreed upon there would have been no necessity for arbitration. The Grand Trunk Pacific never put up any agreement such as that described by the hon. gentleman, but they left it to Sir William Whyte and Sir William Whyte, in his award, said that they would pay so much per annum rental on each section taken over. But they never took over any other portions of the road because they were not completed. The whole road was handed over then at the end of two years. They leased that portion of the road between Winnipeg and Superior Junction for two years. The reason they took a two years lease was that that portion of the road was ready to be operated. But, from Superior Junction east the road was not in a condition to operate trains over and the very minute it was completed, the two years were up, their lease expired, they refused to take over any portion of the Transcontinental railway between Winnipeg and Moncton and the Government have had to operate it.


William Pugsley: Before we pass the
Estimates, will the minister bring down that correspondence? I cannot imagine that it is possible, in an important matter like the operation of the Transcontinental railway, that this refusal should be based simply upon a verbal statement. There must be something in writing and this Parliament is entitled to have the correspondence. H the Grand Trunk Pacific have refused to take the road over, Parliament has the right to be informed of the grounds upon which they have refused, the terms
of their refusal and the request which the Government have made to them to operate. That request would he in writing. iSo far this Parliament has no information whatever of a written character but just that the Grand 'Trunk Pacific complained of the degrading of the railway, complained of the alteration in the terminals at Quebec without their consent, and claimed that they were not bound by the contract to undertake the operation until the specifications were carried out in that respect. That is the only written information which this Parliament has and I submit that before these Estimates are passed this Parliament should be informed on the subject and should have the correspondence.
I am particularly concerned, on behalf of my constituency and the Maritime Provinces generally, in the arrangement made between the Government and the Grand Trunk Pacific being carried out in good faith and in its entirety. I think that the taking over by the Government of a part of the Transcontinental railway and the attempt to operate it, if there had been a .chance of getting the Grand Trunk Pacific to undertake its operation under a temporary arrangement pending the completion of the line, when they would enter into a lease, is an operation of the most farcical character and one that is not in the interest of the Maritime Provinces or of Canada as a whole. If the Grand Trunk Pacific had undertaken the operation of the road, as they were willing to do, as they offered the late Government to* do, as I believe they have always been willing to do for the present Government, they would be interested in the development of industries, in the increasing of traffic, and in the bringing about of an increased earning power that would be to their own benefit in the future. The Intercolonial railway is not interested in developing industries along that line, and is not interested in doing anything for the future if it is to be handed over to the Grand Trunk Pacific. I charge that upon the railway between Cochrane and Moncton the Government are not giving a service that is worthy of being called a railway service. Between Cochrane and Winnipeg, on an average, it takes about an hour to run 13 miles.


Mr. H. BOULAY:: That is fast enough.


William Pugsley: And they do not run at night. No encouragement is given to traffic.


Herménégilde Boulay: There is no traffic.


William Pugsley: No effort is made to operate the road as it should be operated. When the Transcontinental was built, it was built under an implied contract between all the provinces of Canada. It was intended to be a transcontinental line, extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific, every mile of which would be on Canadian territory. That was the essence and spirit of the contract. It was provided that traffic originating on the Grand Trunk Pacific in the West should be carried in winter and in summer to Canadian ports. We all knew that the Grand Trunk Pacific was deeply interested in the American port of Portland, in the state of Maine, and the Government stipulated that the Grand Trunk Pacific should carry (its traffic to Canadian ports. Under the terms of the -agreement, it was to the interest of the Grand Trunk Pacific that their traffic should be so carried, for they were to operate the eastern division when the road was completed. I do not hesitate to say th-at it was one of the most monstrous and unjustifiable thing-s the Government could have done to go to work and violate the specifications and the terms of the agreement, -so as to make it impossible for the officers of the Grand Trunk Pacific, if they had regard to the interests of their shareholders, to enter on the operation of the road. This Government fa-as so acted by altering the grades and the terminals without the consent of the Grand Trunk Pacific, as to mak-e it the duty, of the officials of that railway company to refuse, in the interests of their shareholders, to enter upon the operation of the line until the specifica

 tions have been lived up to. But as I understand it, the Grand Trunk Pacific have already said to this Government that when the specifications are fulfilled they will be prepared to enter into a lease, and operate the road according to its terms; and until the Minister of Railways denies the truth of what I have said, I shall believe that the president of the Grand Trunk Pacific has told this Government and the present Minister of Railways, just as he told our Government, that pending the completion of the road in accordance with the specifications, they will be- willing to enter on the operation of sections as they are completed, under the terms- I have mentioned as having been submitted by the late president to a committee of the Council of the late Government. ' It is, I am sorry to say, too -much the fashion 
of gentlemen on- the other side of the House to disparage the Transcontinental. Not long .ago the Solicitor General was reported to have referred, in the city of Montreal, to the Transcontinental as simply being two streaks of rust which were of no use to the country, and which remained as a monument to the folly of the late Government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. PU-GSLEY: And gentlemen are found to-night to say " hear, hear." The other night the hon. -member for Lambton- (Mr. Armstrong) said -that the sleepers on the Transcontinental were rotting, and the rails rusting. I ask my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Railways if these statements are true. I ask him if the Transcontinental all the wpy from -the city of Moncton to *the city of Winnipeg is not one of the finest roads on the American continent. He knows there is no 'better road on the American continent to-day than the Transcontinental all the way from the city of Moncton to the city of Winnipeg. We have heard remarks -made before in this House, as well as this session, in disparagement of the Transcontinental. It was my pleasure not long -ago to travel over a part of the -Transcontinental, and I wish to say that I took great delight in reading a folder issued jointly by the Minister of Railways, through the' officials of his department, the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway, The terms in which they speak of the Transcontinental and the magnificent country through which it passes-a country of splendid resources-was exceedingly gratifying to me.
Mr. REID1: You are not objecting to that.


William Pugsley: No. I am glad to see the truth brought out 'by this Government, even though it may falsify the declarations, which its supporters have made from time to time for partisan purposes. Let me read what the Government say of this Transcontinental, -a road which the present right hon. leader of the Opposition said, when he made his plans for its construction, was to roll back the map of Canada, and open -a new empire in this Dominion of our-s. This is wh-at the folder says:
Three railways are combining to make the passenger service over this new route the equal of that offered anywhere on this continent. The finest equipment is being used in the service from its very inception, while the smooth, straight and level roadbed embodies all that

has been learnt in three-quarters of a century by those who build our railways. The greatest comfort is therefore assured both by day and night.
What better testimony could you have of the excellence of the Transcontinental than is afforded by this folder, and afforded truthfully, as I can say, because I have travelled over many of the 'best railroads of the United States, and have never travelled upon a line of railway where *there was more comfort than upon the Transcontinental.


John Dowsley Reid: That speaks well for the operation.


William Pugsley: It sipeake well for the engineers who built the road under the auspices of the late Government, and it speaks well for the present Department of Railways and Canals for supplying such splendid equipment upon the road between 'Cochrane and Winnipeg. I can only wish that they had extended the same treatment as far -east as Moncton, and given the people of eastern Canada something like the service they aTe giving between Cochrane and Winnipeg.


John Dowsley Reid: They will have that very soon.


William Pugsley: I hope so. The folder goes on:
" The National " is the name which has been chosen for the principal train in the service on both its east and westbound journeys. It will operate between Toronto and Winnipeg over the lines of the Canadian Government, the Grand Trunk and the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railways, known as " the Transcontinental Line," providing accommodation that will meet the demands of the most exacting.
Then the folder goes on to describe the country traversed by the railway,' a country that hon. gentlemen opposite said would be worthless and never pay for the operation of the road, but in which the Liberal party had such supreme faith that they inaugurated this great undertaking:
At New Liskeard the famous clay belt begins providing a soil for the agriculturist which has few equals. As is the case throughout vast stretches of Northern Ontario the land has been sheltered for ages by the forests. The mould can be measured by feet and underneath is the clay loam. On these lands, in the future, scores of thousands of settlers will make their homes. Englehart is a divisional point, and further on is Sesekinika, with its islands, beautiful playground possibilities, and entry is made into the height of land country. Here the waters divide, heading southward for Lake Timiskaming, the .Ottawa river and the sea, and northward, by way of innumerable lakes to James bay. At Monteith is an interesting experimental farm,
and at Iroquois falls a branch line runs to the world-famous Porcupine gold fields. I
Cochrane is the junction point with the Transcontinental railway, being in the centre of a fertile agricultural country, and is an up-to-date town with a population of 3,000 people.
Much agricultural development in certain sections has already taken place in the territory west of Cochrane to Grant station; this is more especially noticed in the vicinity of Hearst, where a thriving town has sprung up, and it is here that the junction with the Algoma Central railway for Sault St. Marie is made.
The real extent and richnes of Ontario can be realized. The province, three, and one-third times the size of Great Britain and Ireland, is divided into two great sections. The new, or Northern Ontario, through which we are passing is much larger than the older section, covering an area of 350,000 square miles. It is estimated that there are twenty million acres of fertile land awaiting the strong arm of the settler in this region, to say nothing of the natural resources in the form of timber, minerals, game and scenery. There are hundreds of square miles of spruce and poplar lying in easy proximity to great water-powers capable of providing the hydraulic and electric energy necessary to convert the pulpwood into pulp and paper. Splendid crops of grain, hay and potatoes are already being produced.
It goes on to speak of the water-power and of the other wonderful possibilities of that country, making it plain that it was one of the grandest conceptions which public .men could hope to realize that entered into the minds of my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), then the leader of the Government, and his colleagues, when they conceived the idea of this new Transcontinental railway. This folder proceeds to say, and to say truthfully:
Wherever this new railway reaches, it opens a new empire, providing homes for the workers of the earth where they may plant and reap abundantly.
And it has the same story to tell when it comes to deal with the millions of acres of land available for settlement as the line crosses the prairie and before it reaches the mountains.
I bring this before the House in the hope that we may hear no more frqm public men in disparagement of the Transcontinental railway. Let us have confidence in that road. I-t is a magnificent undertaking, and if properly managed will develop a country of enormous possibilities, where, in the not distant future, will be found the comfortable homes of hundreds of thousands of people. I have faith in the paying qualities of the Transcontinental railway. But let the Minister of Railways not treat the several sections merely as local roads, but let him, by operation, link up all parts of the system, from the ports on the Atlantic and the grand old city of Quebec to the

cities of the western prairies, and the great province of British Columbia. Let these sections he operated as a transcontinental system;' encourage travel; encourage freight traffic. Operated in the progressive way I have suggested, it will not be long before the earnings of this road will be great and satisfactory. Let me again beg of the acting minister, who has charge of the department: Do not allow the general manager, Mr. Gutelius, to impress upon you the idea that this road is to be operated as part of the Government railway system. That is what Mr. Gutelius has in his mind; that is what he wants to work out; that is what be aims at when he links up MoGivney Junction with the city of Fredericton to connect with the Valley road. That is what he is trying to work out when he is making the Valley road merely a local road and an adjunct of the Canadian Pacific. What we want is to treat the Transcontinental road as a system by itself. We want,, in the very near future, to double track the Intercolonial from Moncton to Halifax, for there will be an enormous trade brought over the Transcontinental if it is operated in a progressive manner. And let there be a direct, short connection between the Transcontinental and the port of St. John. A few years ago, when Mir. Hays was president of the Grand Trunk, and before the late Government went out of power, plans were inaugurated on a large iscale for making great terminal facilities at Quebec, at Halifax, and also at the port of St. John. It provided that immense developments should be made at Courtenay bay, where a new harbour was to be created. Plans were prepared, with the approval of the Grand Trunk Pacific, for that harbour, and it was expected that this would be one of the termini of that system. But- and I am stating to the minister now somer* Li nil i-f . V* /-V ^ AAQ TV /"tff T\ O TT O + loTV+inri
LIILI-Iq VV liiLli, li 1X0 VxOoo HV-'U pcij uiitfouuivi*
to it, he and his colleagues will hear from the public-through the bungling, or worse than bungling of this Government and their associates in political life in New Brunswick who have control in local politics in that province, the Valley railway has been treated in such a way as to keep it from being part of the Transcontinental railway. The plan under which this Government agreed to aid the Valley railway and build the bridges was that that road should be built all the way from Grand Falls to the port of St. John, that it iShould cross the river twenty or thirty miles above the city, and should come in and join the Inter-

colonial at Rothesay, and run over the rails of the Intercolonial to these magnificent terminals that were to be created at Courtenay bay, but which are being created at a very slow rate, I am sorry to say, by this Government. It was a grand idea. There were to be great terminals, with elevators, and every other facility, and the Valley railway was to be linked up with the Transcontinental railway system from Grand Falls to St. John. That is being destroyed, as I have said, by this. Government and their associates in New Brunswick. This Government had legislation passed in 1912 authorizing them to give aid to the bridges, and under that legislation the people of New Brunswick were encouraged to take upon themselves these burdens, amounting to $6,000,000, a staggering obligation for a people of 350,000. But now we are told that this Government say they will not build the bridges, that, in fact, when they put that in the statutes they never had any serious thought of building the bridges. Let me say, as one of the representatives of the province of New Brunswick, that we not only ask but demand that this Government should carry out the pledge which by statute enacted by this Parliament it solemnly made to the people of New Brunswick.
I	have felt it to he my duty to speak in this way in the presence of the Acting Minister of Railways, because things are going on in New Brunswick to-day under the guiding hand of Mr. Gutelius, Manager of Government Railways, which cause the people of that province to believe that the Government and not the Grand Trunk Pacific is to manage the Transcontinental road in the future, and that this whole idea of the Valley road from St. John to Grand Falls to be operated as part of the Transcontinental is to be abandoned; that the promise of the Government to build the bridges is to be done away with, and that the road, instead of being built from Grand Falls to St. John, to be operated as part of the Transcontinental, is to be built from Centreville, a small village in Carleton county to Westfield, a small village on the Canadian Pacific, and that instead of being a part of the Transcontinental system it is to become merely an adjunct to the Canadian Pacific railway. The matter is one of great importance to New Brunswick and to Canada as a whole. The people of Canada are deeply interested in preventing traffic from going to American ports. They are interested in the operation

of this line as one Transcontinental system by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, which owns the line from Winnipeg to the Pacific ocean. The people look to this Government, with a confidence mingled with a certain amount of despair, to take the matter up, even at this late date, and to see that the grave injustice which is threatening the province of New Brunswick may be averted.


John Dowsley Reid: I think we all agree that the Transcontinental, now that it has been com. pleted through to Moncton, should be operated in the best interests of the people of Canada. I can assure the hon. members that everything will be done to get all the freight possible, both east and west, over this Transcontinental railway from Halifax to Winnipeg. When we took over this road passenger trains were started between Toronto and Winnipeg, and in a short time we expect to have through trains between Halifax and Winnipeg. I do
11 p.m. not think, therefore, that there is much difference of opinion between members on this side and members on the other side on this question. The hon. member complains that we did not operate the road at an earlier date. I have already stated, however, that we had not the equipment to operate from Cochrane to Moncton. The ferry at Quebec was not completed until a later date, but we have been getting it ready, and I think it will not be long before we should be able to run through trains. I do not think that at the next session of Parliament the hon. gentleman will make the complaints that he is making now.	[DOT]


William Pugsley: I do not want the acting minister to misunderstand me. What 1 want is that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company shall operate the line, taking hold of it in sections. Has the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company been requested to operate any of these completed sections between Moncton and Cochrane, pending the completion of the whole line and the entering into of a final lease?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member knows that we take the ground that the 'road is completed.


William Pugsley: The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company take the ground that it is not.


John Dowsley Reid: A good deal of correspondence was brought down, which will be found in Hansard of 1015. According to that eorrespondence the Grand 'Trunk Pacific Railway Company took the ground that the railway was not, perhaps, completed to their satisfaction. At all events, they do, not want to take over the road, as I understand. If there is any other correspondence, I will bring it down.


William Pugsley: If the Transcontinental is completed, why is the minister asking for $1,500,000 for construction of Transcontinental?


John Dowsley Reid: That- is one of the reasons I gave a few minutes ago why the company do not want to take it over. If they take it over there are a lot of expenses in addition to those of original construction.


William Pugsley: This is for construction: Item 107, National Transcontinental Railway, construction, $1,500,000.


John Dowsley Reid: The Intercolonial Tailway was built fifty or sixty years ago, and every year since its construction there have been items in the Estimates for construction on the Intercolonial railway.


William Pugsley: Not on the main line.


John Dowsley Reid: The Grand Trunk, the Canadian Pacific railway, and other railways are expending sums for similar purposes.


William Pugsley: Is this an extension? The acting .minister knows that this is not an extension.


John Dowsley Reid: Original construction, I say. These railways have further construction every year. With the Transcontinental, as with other railways, there will be construction, I suppose, for very many years.


William Pugsley: There will be construction of branches; there will be extensions, improvements and that sort of thing. But the acting minister cannot get away from the fact that this is for original construction of the railway. It is not completed yet, 'and the acting minister knows that it is not.


John Dowsley Reid: There are outstanding accounts as well that have not been settled.


Mr. BUREAU:: I heard the minister
make a statement about operating the Transcontinental from Toronto to Winnipeg. I should like to ask him how the Government intend to operate between Her-vey Junction, or Quebec West, to the end of steel, or Parent. The Quebec and Lake St. John railway, that part of the Canadian Northern Quebec which runs between Que:



[Stage Direction]
bee and La Tuque, is known not to be a first-class road. The rails are light and the road is poor. During the winter a storm came along and the Transcontinental line from Hervey Junction to La Tuque ceased to operate for three weeks, while the Quebec and Lake St. John railway never ceased operation for a day. Last year the minister said that they did not have all the necessary equipment. I know that on that part of the road they have added to the equipment. Last winter the road was operated by McDonald and O'Brien, and operation was never interrupted for a day; it ceased only for a few hours during the worst storms. This year I understand that they had to pick the road from Parent to La Tuque and from Fitzpatrick to Hervey Junction. For three weeks the settlers along lake Brochet and lake Eau Morte were without service. There is another matter that I desire to bring to the attention of the minister in connection with that part of the Transcontinental railway. The St. Maurice lumbermen have formed an association known as the St. Maurice Forest Protective Association, which has for its object the preventing of forest fires. They have built telephone lines and towers; they have fire-rangers, and they do all in their power to protect the forests in that region from fire. I understand that they have been corresponding with the Minister of Railways, and that they have never been able to get any satisfaction, some of their letters remaining unanswered. The correspondence had the object of requesting the Department of Railways to co-operate with the lumbermen in protecting the forests by keeping the right of way of the Transcontinental clean and by taking such action as might be necessary for the protection of the forests. I should like to know if it is the intention of the acting minister to defer action in this matter until the minister returns, or if instructions are to be given with a view to arriving at an understanding between the Government and. the St. Maurice Forest Protective Association in the matter of protecting their limits from fires started by the Transcontinental rail-( way?
I understand from the secretary of the association that in the St. Maurice region last year the greatest cause of loss was fires set by the Transcontinental. I do not think it is right that the Government should not pay its ehaTe to help along this association in its work of protecting the forests. If the railway does not haul tim-

her in that part of its line I do not know what it will haul, as 'it is a mountainous region where there are no other products. I understand a. claim was made that a similar association existed in New Brunswick for things which were done by a railway. If I understand rightly, one corporation owned the railway and the limits, and subsequently the railway changed hands. But the arrangement which had been made by the company at the time they owned both railway and limits are still in force. What is desired is that the Government should pay a share of the expenditure to be incurred and that incurred last year. Through the negligence of their servants fires were occasioned by the Transcontinental between La Tuque and Hervey Junction.
John Dowsley Reid: 
Jacques Bureau: From the minister's statement one would 'believe that the St. Maurice Protective Association was going begging for the $3,500 from the Government. That is not the fact. The fact is that the Transcontinental Railway Company, like other railway companies, under the law is obliged to keep its right of way clear to prevent forest fires. The Transcontinental railway does not do it. It is complained that the Transcontinental railway, through the neglect of its officers, is exposing the forest to be burned. Fires did catch from the engines, owing to the lack of proper precautions, and these fires cost the association from $3,500 to $4,000. They ask the. Government to recoup them the money they have been obliged to expend owing to the negligence of the Government. That is not a question of policy, but a question of fair dealing as 'between man and man. My hon. friend knows that the damage caused by a fire originating on Government railways is limited to $5,000, and he knows that the Transcontinental is not liable for more than this. The general public interest requires more protection. The timbers of this -district are the main -source of its wealth, because the Transcontinental traverses not only one limit, but nearly all the limits on the St. Maurice region. It is not a demand for money. I -am satisfied that 'the lumbermen do not -care
163i
for the money, but they want -to call the attention of the Government to the damage that is being done through the bad state of the right of way on the Transcontinental line west of Hervey Junction, and further west to Parent. They are not asking the Government to chip in. They have made the statement that the local Government was helping, because it is. interested in protecting these forests. They want this Government to observe the law. They want the Transcontinental railway to do the same as any other railway to keep its right of w-ay properly, and if they will not do -so, they want authority from the department to take steps themselves, providing that the department will pay the cost. These are the facts as they have been stated to me, and as I understand them.


John Dowsley Reid: I did not understand that
there was any claim. I thought the representations were with reference to future operations. However, I will take up the matter with the management and see if anything further -can be done. I gave the hon. gentleman the position as I understood it from the one conversation I had with the St. Maurice representatives when they came to Ottawa. Mr. Cochrane was absent, and I took up the matter, and that is the way I left it with them. I told them that I would refer it to the management at Moncton. There is no doubt at all that if the management is not doing its duty in protecting that part of the road as the law *requires, and as it is protected in other parts, I will bring it to the attention of the management and see that whatever is necessary to put the Transcontinental in exactly the same position as other roads, so far as protection is concerned, is done.


Herménégilde Boulay: is a want of engines and the accumulation of freight in the sheds or in loaded cars all along the line is enormous.
The suggestion apparently is that the management oi the Intercolonial is responsible,. while it is a well known fact that those conditions were brought about by the large snowfall and the severe winter and that the want of engines, as the minister has just said, is a result of the transfer of seventy-five locomotives from the Intercolonial to the Grand Trunk Pacific.
The delays in (moving freight are also dire to the transportatiop of war supplies - and soldiers. Mr. Gutelius in that case or the management of the road are wrongly blamed for those delays. The general manager saw to it diligently that nothing toe left undone, to give a good passenger and freight service. In launching criticism of that kind the opposition organs prove unfair, since it is well known that the whole cause of the trouble is the rough weather and the exceptionally hard winter.


Mr. DELISLE:: (Translation). So you are quite satisfied with the way the Intercolonial is administered?
Mr. iBOULAY: (Translation).
We are informed, on good authority, that numerous carloads of ammunition have Been delayed for weeks waiting for engines.
It is said that certain terminals are jammed with loaded cars and scattered freight awaiting transportation.
This is not the first time such conditions are to be found on the Intercolonial, while our liberal friends were in power, I witnessed the like of that. All my life, or nearly so, I was on the Intercolonial railway, and every severe winter spell brought about similar conditions'. When freight accumulated, no complaint was raised be-
44- wn,o wall Vrt/vrarn +Viq+ +V10 msunncrp. hauoo ID Y* UfO [DOT][DOT] VVJLJ. ikilo " 1*	k'.f-, -
ment could do no better. Mr. Gutelius as manager and his subordinates cannot be excelled. A better man for the position could not now be found.
To make confusion greater, accidents have happened, some of them quite serious.
On certain sections of the line, the road is in such very bad repair, that trains have to slow down.
No use harping on the many annoyances the people along the line have to put up with.


Jacques Bureau: I rise to a point of
order. A newspaper publishes an article on the administration of the Intercolonial, and the hon. gentleman is reading from another newspaper in answer to that arti-

cle. Would like to know if that is in order?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. W. H. Bennett):: If the hon. gentleman is simply quoting from a newspaper, and quoting fairly, I see no objection to it.


Jacques Bureau: I want to know if a
member has the right to read from a newspaper and enter into a discussion of what appears in that newspaper, on an item like this.


The CHAIRMAN:: If it is pertinent to the item, I assume he has the right.


Herménégilde Boulay: (Text) certainly. (Translation). I know that is false.
If you take into account the possibility of further accidents, we cannot be said to exaggerate when, we state that the management of this Dominion railway is a public shame.
We do hope that the gentleman of German origin in, charge, who is so highly paid and so warmly supported by the Dominion Government, has no interest in thus paralyzing a road on which is carried a large part of the war supplies manufactured in Canada for the allies.
In that statement the suggestion apparently is thrown out that Mr. Gutelius is of German birth and, as such, would be likely to impede traffic on the Intercolonial.
Well, I must say for Mr. Gutelius with whom I am well acquainted as are the editors of the " Soleil "-that I have no doubt that sucb an idea never entered his head, and that he, as manager, never contemplated! working in anyway athwart the Intercolonial's welfare. 'Even if it be said he is a German toy birth, and even if such were the case, his well-known honesty as a public man would prevent his harbouring any such idea.
It cannot be denied that things are getting worse, everybody is boss and nobody manages.
During the last four years, the endeavour has been to dismiss unfairly and without any cause all the experienced Liberal officials, who could fill their positions in a satisfactory way. Their places were given to a bevy of employees, whose first and, generally whose only, qualification1 was their party allegiance.
The old Liberal employees who have escaped the slaughter, have been clipped of all authority. They are merely tolerated on condition that they bow to the new-oomers.
Well, I want to ask my hon. friends opposite, friends of the Soleil the names of Liberal officials who have Men dismissed from the Intercolonial without cause. The dsmissal of certain Liberal supporters came as a result of scandals revealed at enquiries, which could have landed some of them in jail, if not in the penitentiary.
I

A11 the others were kept in office, and I challenge hon. gentlemen opposite to give the name of a single 'Liberal who has been dismissed unjustly by the present Government.


Jacques Bureau: (Translation). Does the hon. member for l'lslet (Mr. Paquet) concur in that statement?


Mar. PAQUET:: (Translation). I shall
speak later on.
M'. MACDONALD: Will the -hon. gentleman be kind enough to tell the committee whether he approves of the -present management of the Intercolonial .Railway under Mr. Gutelius? .
Mir. BOU1LAY: (Translation). I fail to understand. I shall add further that the officials appointed on the Intercolonial were all needed and that those who were dismissed-they were very few in number -were not replaced by a -bevy of people, but there was man for -man one appointment for every dismissal.
Our friends at Ottawa should call the attention of Parliament to such conditions, as they are detrimental not only to trade and to the carrying of war supplies but a -source of danger to the travelling public using the road. Again we say there is a complete breakdown in the management of the railway and it is high time for the government to step in.
Well, I say that the writer was badly advised. A statement of the kind is detrimental not only to the railway but to the country. It warns travellers away 'from the railway and induces them to choose another road rather than the government line. Sluch a course shows little patriotism and is unworthy a man who has at heart his country's welfare.


Mfr. BO IVIN:: ('Translation). 'The hon. gentleman will allow me to repeat in French the question which was asked in English a moment ago by my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald). Does he approve wholly and fullly of the management of the Intercolonial by Mr. Gutelius?


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation). If you refer to the equipment and business management, yes, I do absolutely.
Mr. 'BOTVIN: (Translation). And what about the appointments?


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation). As to
appointments, I already went much further than my hon. friend. I discussed the
matter in the House and the hon. gentleman has only to refer to Hansard to' find where I stand.


Georges Henri Boivin: (Translation). Would the hon. gentleman tell me whether he approves of the appointment of the new superintendent at Campbellton, Mr. Deveaiste?


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation). I may say in reply to my hon. friend that he has but to take up Hansard for February 28, and he will get there <my views, a mere reiteration after all of what I 'had already given to the papers. But that has not much to do with the business side of the management, it is rather a question -of patronage. If our friends opposite coul-d not muster sufficient pluck to criticise their own government when in power, and -claim the rights to which we have been entitled for many year-s, I for one made it my duty -since I am in the House, to promote my compatriot's interests.


Ernest Lapointe: (Kamouraska) (Translation). You are pleading for Mr. -Gutelius. He is no compatriot of yours.
Mr .BOULiAY: (Translation). The ho,n. gentlemen opposite have much to say against the management of the Grand Trunk Pacific. They claim that the administration of the line is bad. On that point, I have little to say. We did not build the Grand Trunk Pacific; our friends from the other side it was who foisted the white elephant on the country. We have had only a year or two to arrange for its operation. There can be no wonder at the railway not giving complete satisfaction, as might be expected of a road in operation for ten or fifteen years. We little expected that burdensome bequest from our friends.
The hon. member for St. John stated a moment ago that the trains on that line were running at the rate of thirteen to fif-ten miles an hour. If-3r one think even that rate too high, for it hais been -so poorly built, especially the eastern section, that the train hands say that even at that slow rate they are not safe.
Pine and -spruce sleepers were allowed in the construction of the road-bed, and they must be replaced often, -as the road is unsafe, and the modern engines, quite large and heavy, must proceed with great care, as otherwise they might jump the track every here and there.


Jacques Bureau: (Translation). Are there any sleepers from Sayabee on that rotten section of the road?


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation)*. Iif you were better acquainted with geography, you would know that -S'ayabec is not on the Transcontinental. If the hon. gentleman had a better knowledge of the country through which that railway runs, he would know that it can supply more sleepers than the whole line requires and .that there is no need of bringing them from elsewhere.


Jacques Bureau: (Translation). Would the hon. gentleman object to giving the names of the employees who complained of the danger there would be in running trains at more than fifteen miles an hour?


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation). What is the use? I have however reliable reports on that point.
Mr, BUREAU:	(Translation). If the
hon. gentleman would only take a trip over the Transcontinental, he would see that his statements are absolutely untrue.


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation). I would like to know if the hon. member for Three Rivers has ever made the trip himself?


Jacques Bureau: (Translation). Yes, from one end to the other..


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation). When was it?


Jacques Bureau: (Translation). Last summer, not only on a passenger train, but in a hand car.


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation). On what *section did you travel?


Jacques Bureau: (Translation). From Har-.vey Junction to Cochrane.
IMr .BOULAY: (Translation). The hon. member is entirely wide of the mark. I referred to the section between Levis and Moncton while he refers to the section from Levis to Winnipeg: there is all the difference in the world.
Our operation of that road is criticized. As was stated a while ago, had we waited for the Grand Trunk Pacific to operate the line, we should be waiting yet. Such has been the cost of the line and there have been so many scandals in connection therewith the Grand Trunk Pacific would have nothing to do with it.


Jacques Bureau: (Translation). What scandal?


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation). My hon. friend's memory is rather defective if he fails to remember that the engineers Hodgins and Lumsden, both honest men, seeing they could not conscientiously approve of some contracts had to resign.
There was a man here assigned certain duties, and who did things which had to be investigated. We did investigate, not during the tenure of office of our Liberal friends-they always balked at any inquiry such as we asked-but since our advent to power it will be remembered that we held an inquiry over the construction of that railway and that we discovered that thousands and thousands of yards of sand had been paid for as rock excavation. That evidence is in the public records as well as in a Teport of the authorities brought down in this House.
.An hon. MEMBER: (Translation). Noteo.


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation). It is easy to deny it, but the records are there as proof.


Ernest Lapointe: (Translation). Would
my hon. friend nllow me a question?


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation). I do not know whether my hon. friend intends to speak on this subject; I should ask him to kindly allow me to finish; he can then have his say.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order,
the hon. member for Rimouski (M. Boulay) has the floor and, except with his permission, it is not competent for any hon. gentleman to interrupt him.
Mr. BUREAU. He is not talking to the question. He is talking about some investigations that never took place.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The discussion has
taken a very wide range to-night, and the hon. .member for Rimouski should have at least an -equal right with other hon. members to discuss almost any item within the purview of the Railway Department.


Jacques Bureau: Go on.


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation). It is too bad that the hon. member for St. John is not in his seat. '


An hon. MEMBER:: He is here.


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation). I shall have to say St. John in English. I mean hon. Mr. Pugsley, I am sorry he is not in the House. He would get a good opportunity

this evening of exercising the zeal he has been want to display of late in advising the Government to reduce the expenditure.
Thus I see that this item calls for $9(78,-000 for the Maritime Provinces, for a branch line from iSunmy-Brae to Mulgravis. Another item of $111,000 provides for a junction from St. John to Courtenay Bay; another amounting to $150,000 provides a branch line from Dartmouth to Deans.
I have no doubt that the hon. member, if he were in the House, would move to strike out those items, as he comes from the Maritime Provinces and knows the local conditions quite well. He could suggest what paring down ought to be made in the present crisis in the country's interest. I would say a word of Courtenay bay. I visited the spot myself, and I t'hink the previous Government had launched quite a scheme in connection with that work.
A channel a mile long is being dredged out where there is no water at low tide. Likely it was the late minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsiley) who undertook to dig that channel. If you get to Courtenay Bay at low tide, you will find that there is no water and that an artificial channel for ocean steamers is being dredged to a depth of 35 feet. Moreover, a breakwater has to be built at an expenditure of millions and millions as a protection for vessels to prevent their being pushed ashore by the winds. Those contracts entered into at the request of my hon. friend the former Minister of Public Works are not in the country's best interest, but we must of course see them through, since millions have already been expended in the work; millions uselessly wasted, as there is a natural harbour at St. John. The hon. gentleman had enough influence to pass estimates of that magnitude for a mud channel. I hold he should explain his action in that connection before trying to dig out scandals where there is more to be found.


George Perry Graham: I hope I will be allowed to make a suggestion. This big item is going to take a lot of talk. I would suggest that we allow it to stand. If the minister will agree to that, we might take up some items a little out of the order and allow them to be put through.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, the hour is getting late, and there are some hon. gentlemen who would like to speak on this item.


George Perry Graham: This will cover all the construction that is going to take place on capital account?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


George Perry Graham: I would suggest that we might pass items 104, 105, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119, 121 and 122. That would be a good night's work.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, thanks very much.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 11.45 p.m.
Thursday, April 6, 1916.