1916-04-11

PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 88, to incorporate The Manitoba and Saskatchewan Bible Society.-Mr. Schaffner.
__ Bill No. 89, respecting The High River, Saskatchewan and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. W. M. Martin.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day;
Mr. DEVLIN:: I wish to call the attention of the Acting Minister of Militia to the issue of the Star, of London, England, of March 9, 1916, in which is to be found, under the heading ''The Fishmonger General," a picture of a soldier of Canada, with this wording underneath:
Major Hughie Green, who has come from, Canada on a special mission to organize the supply of fish to the Canadian troops.
In this photographic reproduction of Major Hughie Green, the major is holding a glass vase said to contain a trained fish called "Maggie."


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: What is the name of the fish?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Maggie. My object in rising is not so much to give to the House the name of the fish as to inquire from the acting minister if this is in the form of a paid advertisement, and, if so, what is the object of Major Hughie Green having his photograph taken as a Canadian soldier and having it published in the London papers.


Mr. KEMP:: It is hardly necessary for me to explain to my hon. friend that I have never before heard of a fish called Maggie. I do not know anything about the item published in the London newspaper to which my hon. friend refers, but I will make inquiry. I might explain, however, that in England fish is very high in price

owing to the large number of trawlers which have been taken over by the Admiralty, and it was thought desirable to endeavour to introduce the use of Canadian fish for the Canadian troops in England. 'The experiment has been tried, and it seems to be working out quite satisfactorily, and we are able to give the soldiers over there [DOT]fresh Canadian salt-water and inland-water fish in good condition. Major Green, who is an expert on fish, has advised the Department of Militia and Defence in regard to the transporting of fish to the old country and. has given advice in other ways as well.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Can the minister tell me whether the photograph is paid for by the Government or not?


Albert Edward Kemp: I do not think the photograph was paid for by the Government; I am pretty sure that it was not. I do not think the Government knows anything about it.


Mr. PTJGSLEY:: Is Major Green in the employ of this Government or is he operating on his own account?


Albert Edward Kemp: Major Green has been employed by the Department of Militia and Defence for the purpose of trying to work out this experiment in fish, and he has given very favourable reports in regard to the matter.
I have just received the newspaper from my hon. friend. I ought to make an explanation to the House. I spoke under the impression that the name " Maggie was printed in the article which was read by the hon. member for Wright.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: No, I wrote the word
*" Maggie," which is the name of the fish. I assure the minister that that is the name the fish goes by. Perhaps the minister has some other name for the fish, but that is the only one I know.


Albert Edward Kemp: The item printed in the
London Star is headed " The Fishmonger General," and it says:
Major Hughie Green, who has come over from Canada on a special mission to organize the supply of fish to the Canadian troops.
The hon. member will have to explain why " Maggie " was written.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: This is a question of veracity between the minister and me. Does he fail to see in the photograph a glass vase? The officer is holding up a vase. Does not he see a fish in the vase?


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I was correct. The fish's name was Maggie.



INTERCHANGE OF RAILWAY TRAFFIC.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. COPP:: I would like to inquire if
the Acting Minister of Railways has taken any steps to straighten out the tangle that has arisen between the Canadian Government railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway in regard to the handing over by the Canadian Pacific Railway to the Intercolonial Railway of freight destined for points on the Intercolonial, particularly in the Maritime Provinces. A number of reports have recently appeared in the press to the effect that the Canadian Pacific Railway has placed an embargo upon freight received for the Intercolonial, claiming that it has between six and seven hundred cars of loaded freight which the Canadian Gov-eri ment railways are unable to accept. 1 notice from some interviews given by Mr. Neillie and Mr. Guteilius of the Intercolonial Railway that such is not the case; that if there is any congestion of traffic on the Canadian Pacific railway, it is because that railway has not handed over in proper manner to the Intercolonial the freight that is destined for that railway. As a result, business men and manufacturers, in the Maritime Provinces particularly, have been very seriously handicapped, and because of this freight being tied up-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. It is out of order to enter into a debate. The hon. gentleman can put a question to the minister.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not want to trespass
upon the rules at all; I merely wanted to give the information I had and the reason why I was asking the question. The information was given me by some of my constituents, who asked me to draw the attention of the minister to the situation and see if he has the information to give as to why this freight has been held up as it has been during the past week or two, and if he can do anything to remedy the great inconvenience.


Mr. REID:: The matter was brought to
my attention, and I noticed several articles in the newspapers. The hon. member knows, if he has read those articles, as I have no doubt he has, that there is a difference of opinion as to who is at fault. The Intercolonial officials blame the Canadian

Pacific officials and the Canadian Pacific officials blame the Intercolonial officials.
My information from the Intercolonial management is to the effect-and the articles in the newspapers were to the same effect-that it was the fault of the Canadian Pacific Railway-that they did not shunt the cars over to the Intercolonial railway. However, the number of cars delayed at Ste. Rosalie was much less than the hon. gentleman mentioned, five or six hundred-


Arthur Bliss Copp: I gave what the Canadian Pacific claimed.	-


John Dowsley Reid: Our officials claimed less. The Intercolonial moved two hundred cars a day. I took the matter up with the management when I noticed these articles in the newspapers, and I understand that any delay at Ste. Rosalie is being attended to by the management, and that there is no fear of further difficulty.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Has the hon. minister information that a prominent industry at Amherst was forced to close because of the delay?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not heard of any industries along the Intercolonial being closed down.
J. P. DIOMNE vs. THE KING.
On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. GATJVREAU:: In a paper brought down yesterday, I asked for the production of a telegram to the Minister of Justice. The answer given was "No correspondence." May I ask the Minister of Justice if he is only playing on the word? Does he mean to say that he has not received any telegram?


Mr. DOHERTY:: I received no telegram, or letter, or communication of any kind, on the subject referred to. I was not quite sure whether there was any correspondence written, as the return showed neither letter nor telegram. I have received none myself, and the department has received none.



VANCOUVER MUNITION WORKERS IN BRITAIN.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. TURRIFF:: May I ask the Acting
Minister of Militia if he can give me a list of the munition workers who went from Vancouver to the old country to help in the manufacture of munitions there? Payments have been made to the relatives of
these munition workers, and so I presume there is a list in the hon. gentleman's department.


Albert Edward Kemp: I will make inquiry about
the matter to which the hon. gentleman refers.



CIVIL SERVICE MESSENGERS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ETHIER:: I desire to call the attention of the Government, especially of the Secretary of State, to a letter which was published in the Evening Journal of the 17th of February last, making an appeal to the Government on behalf of the messengers. This question may appear to some to be of slight importance, but, as it affects a very important portion of the Civil Service, I should like to read this letter and ask the Government what it intends to do.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: Order. May I ask the
hon. member if the letter is signed?


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: The letter was published, addressed to the minister, and signed " Humanity."


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: I think that to read
such a letter is out of order.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: It is a letter published in the Evening Journal, which I understand is the organ of the Conservative party.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: Order. It is out of order at this stage of the proceedings to read such a letter, especially if it is not signed. I think it would be more proper for the hon. gentleman to bring the question up when the motion is made for the House to go into Committee of Supply:


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I think it is proper to
do it, because-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I will bring the matter up later.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: If the letter were signed, I would permit the hon. gentleman to read it; but, as it is not signed, I think it is out of order to read it.



POWERS OF THE RAILWAY COMMISSION.


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid (Acting Minister of Railways and Canals), Bill No. 87, to amend the Railway Act, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
Mr. GRAHAM:: As I understand from a reading of this Bill, it is an amendment of the Railway Act to provide a method different from that which has heretofore existed for the approval of general routes of proposed railway lines. Under the statute the method heretofore followed hias been this: Upon a 'Company's making application to Parliament for a charter for the construction of a line, the Bill in respect to the matter is referred to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines. The promoters of the scheme are asked to place before the Railway Committee a map giving a general outline of the proposed project. As a matter of fact, it quite often happens that these maps are not very illuminating, and give very little information as to where the road is, going; and the Railway Committee and the House itself have power to make definite landmarks along ine railway and generally to say at what points it shall touch. It has been the practice in the Railway Committee, however, to be not very exact in this respect, and to leave the location of the route generally to the minister. Under the statute as it now stands-and I think it has not been amended-there is submitted to the minister a map of the route, and it is his duty to locate it in a general direction. After he has done this the matter goes before the Board of Railway Comissioners, whose duty is more definitely to locate the line, their powers being limited to a change of the route that has been approved by the minister to the extent of one mile either way. That has caused a good deal of work on the part of the minister, and has been very troublesome at times. But there is this to be said in favour of the minister's having the right to locate the line in a general way: that it reserves to the Government the matter of policy as to the locating of lines within certain distances of each other. For example, if a new portion of the country is to be opened up, there is left to the Government a full discretion through the Minister of Railways as to the policy that shall be adopted in the matter of railway construction in connection with opening up that new piece of territory. However, I am rather inclined to the view that it would not be unwise to give this amendment a trial. Our main lines of railway have been constructed across the continent; a great many of our branch lines have been constructed, and, as the Board of Railway Commissioners 
have power to change the route to the extent of one mile either way, I am not prepared to oppose this Bill, which gives them the further power of determining the whole location of the line. It may prove that the power is a little too extensive to grant to the Board of Railway Commissioners, but I am inclined to think that a board composed as that board always has been composed will be in as good a position, with our railway construction as far advanced as it is now, to do this work as was the minister, and perhaps better. I have read the Bill hurriedly, but it would seem that nothing is said with reference to the old powers heretofore vested in the board. In other words, new powers are conferred upon them by this Bill. If I am not mistaken, the Bill gives the board power to locate the line generally, or transfers to the board the power which was formerly vested in the minister. Subsection 2 of section 157, as amended, says:
Such map shall be prepared upon a scale not smaller than six miles to the inch, or upon such other appropriate scale as the board may determine, and shall be accompanied by an application in duplicate, stating: the Special Act authorizing the construction of such railway, and requesting the board's approval of the general location as shown on the said map.
Is not that about the authority that the minister had before? And, in addition to that, has not the bo-ard, under this or some other section of the Bill, power definitely to state where the line shall run? You are wishing not to take away from the board the power that they did have, but to add such power as the minister had before?


John Dowsley Reid: That is it.


George Perry Graham: It seems to me that you need not have all this machinery to do that. All you have to do is to repeal the provision giving power to the minister, and say that the board shall have power to locate the line-not generally, but actually to locate it. Under the new Act if will be necessary, I think, as a matter of policy and in order to guard against any errors that might occur, that the Railway Cbm-mittee shall hereafter feel it their duty to pay more attention than hitherto to the location of lines. Not unfrequently the Railway Committee passes upon an application for a charter in a manner which leaves little or no information as to where the line is to go. It is true that greater care has been taken in recent years on account of the multiplicity of railway lines, but it will be necessary for the committee

hereafter to be even more definite than they have been, 'because they will have to remember that as to matter of policy there is no minister to intervene between them and the Board of Railway Commissioners. The Bill will go direct from the Senate after it becomes law to the Board of Railway Commissioners, and from their location to the line there will be no appeal. It is one less safeguard in regard to where the road is to go. I am not saying that the safeguard is necessary under modern conditions; but I think it would be necessary for the committee, and for the House hereafter, if the minister is to be deprived of the intervening power which he has had hitherto, to give more attention to details as to' where these lines are going. Their power heretofore extended only for two miles, and the minister had all the other power in his hands. Under the Act, as the minister intends to have it worked out, the Board of Railway Commissioners will have full power to say where these lines shall go. I suggest that he look into the wording of these clauses very carefully; because I am inclined to think that this amendment will duplicate the Railway Act in some respects and give powers that are unnecessary.
(Mr. REID: The hon. member has stated the position correctly insofar as the present law is concerned, that is, that in regard to Bills passed by the House, the plans must be approved by the minister and the Board of Railway Commissioners. The powers heretofore held by the Board of Railway Commissioners are not in any way changed. They have these powers, but, as suggested iby the hon. member, this simply adds to their powers, and leaves entirely within their juris diction the decision as to the location of the railway. As stated the, other evening, these clauses were in the Bill which was presented to the Senate about two years ago, but which was not proceeded with on account of the war. I have had Sir Henry Drayton, the Chairman of the Railway Commission, and Mr. Gisborne, the law clerk of the House of Commons, go over this Bill thoroughly, and they said that there would be no conflict between the Railway Act and this Bill if it became law.


George Perry Graham: But is all this neoessary:


John Dowsley Reid: I was going to say that both Sir Henry Drayton and Mr. Gisborne considered that it was necessary to have these clauses in this Bill in order to make it
workable in connection with the present Railway Act. Therefore I do not think that we should alter them. I agree with the hon. member for South Renfrew, from the little experience I have had, in the absence of the Minister of Railways and Canals, that it would be well to give this proposed act a trial. I think all the members of the House will agree that, since the Board of Railway Commissioners was appointed, they have done excellent work. There has been very little, if any, criticism of their work from the beginning, and their whole desire will be to do what is in the interest of the people in the localities through which the railways may pass, and have the lines properly located. On the whole, I regard this as a move in the right direction, and one that should have a trial.


Mr. NESBITT:: I am in accord with the proposed amendment so far as I have read it; but I would draw the attention of the minister to clause 3, commencing at the word " but" in the third line:
But if the hoard deems that the construction of a railway upon the proposed location or upon any portion thereof is not in the public interest it shall refuse approval of the whole of such portion.
The word " shall " there seems to me to be a little hard. Besides, that part overrules the Board of Railway Commissioners or Parliament itself; it says that they " shall." When Parliament has approved of a railway charter, the Board is given authority by that word to overrule Parliament.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman knows
that when Parliament passes a railway Bill, the plans must first be approved by the minister and by the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The minister is supposed to sit in the Railway Committee, of which he is generally a member, and I have never known of a case where the minister disapproved of a Bill going through the Railway Committee. I have been for years opposed to the duplication of lines, and this amendment is largely with reference to that. I would like, also, to draw the attention of the minister to these words in clause 7: " company, municipality, or person." What is meant by " company"?


John Dowsley Reid: The Railway Act defines
" company."


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That would refer to a railway company, but apparently this does not refer to a railway company.


John Dowsley Reid: The Railway Act says:
Railway company includes every such company and any person having authority to construct or operate a railway.
This is an amendment to the Railway Act.


Mr. W. E. MACLEAN:: Without making any comment on the particular question raised by the introduction of this new legislation, I wish to say that in my judgment the legislation is of the right kind. It is aimed at the unnecessary duplication of railways in this country, which is more or less the cause of the present condition of some of the railways in -Canada. It is high time that the control and* regulation of these railways should be in the hands of some responsible body, thoroughly cognizant of the -situation, who will hereafter -prevent the unnecessary duplication of lines, by reason of which there has been not only a great waste of capital for the loss of which the country has now to stand^ more or less, but there is ahead of us an unnecessary duplication of service. There are railroad trains being run alongside one another and in competition that trill, if maintained, entail a great waste of public money, and prevent any improvement in the railroads of this country. The paramount question before the people of Canada in connection with railways is how to give a Better service so as to bring about 'better rates. The only way to d'o that is to consolidate the railway system, and if we cannot get rid of the unnecessary duplication of roads, we can at least get rid of the unnecessary duplication of service which is now being carried out. This legislation is in the right direction. I am quite willing to trust the administration of it to the Railway Commission.
I only Tegret that the Bill which the Government had in hand for the revision of the Railway Act has not been presented even if we are at war, I would like to have seen that Bill taken up a year ago by this House. Last session I appealed to the House to take some of the main clauses of the Bill and put them through. In my own riding, and in other parte of Ontario, there is great need for another clause in the Railway Act which will provide that in the event of the construction of bridges hereafter, if the railway bridge is at a place where the public have use for a bridge, the Board may have power to order a joint structure and distribute the cost between the municipality and the railway. The city of Toronto to-

day has two or three problems of that kind with regard to the construction of expensive bridges required both by the public and by railway companiese. I hope that the Government will see its way clear, even if we have a war on, to deal with this new Bill. Let me give another instance in which there is provision made in this Bill for the public advantage, but which is still in suspension. I refer to the provision compelling railway companies to give a suburban service in the large cities. To-day they give a suburban service out o.f Montreal but we cannot get it in Toronto. We have tried to get it, but for some reason- I do not know what-we have not succeeded. We have appealed to the Railway Commission year after year and asked them to compel the railway companies to give such a service but so far we have not been able to secure the issue of such an order. There is a provision in this new Bill which would deal with that matter but unfortunately the Bill is not brought forward. The war is given as a reason but I do not think it is a sufficient reason and I hope the Acting Minister of Railways and Canals *will see his way to take up this matter without loss of time. I would like to see him do so this year, but certainly if not this year, I hope this revision of the Railway Act will be taken up at the forthcoming session and that many new clauses will be put on the statute book. In the meantime, I am perfectly certain that this Bill will do something in the way of curing or preventing unnecessary duplication of service. Unnecessary duplication has caused a great deal of trouble, it has not improved the railways, it has caused a great deal of irritation and the necessity of dealing with the problem, and of getting rid of it, will be before us sooner or later.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: I am in hearty sympathy with the amendment that is now before the committee. I am satisfied that the Bill will do a great deal to reduce duplication of railways in Canada. If we had had this amendment to the Railway Act years ago it would have saved the country millions of dollars. Not only will it prevent the duplication of railways, but it will prevent the duplication of terminals which we have at many places in Canada and in connection with which a large amount of money has been expended uselessly and unwisely. In addition, it will assist materially in the placing of our railway finances on a better footing than



II, 1916

[Stage Direction]
they* are at the present time. I am satisfied that railway bond holders and those who are interested in the guarantees that are disposed of toy our railways will be pleased to have this measure embodied in the Railway Act.
Mr. PARDEE:: If this Act is going into
force, might I ask the hon. acting Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid) if it would not be better to have a company desiring incorporation apply directly to the Secretary of State in the ordinary way and then submit its plans to the Board of Railway Commissioners?


William Findlay Maclean: That would be a good law; I would not object to that. ,


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: This comes to the same
thing if you have perfect confidence in the Railway Commission. Then a company could get a charter in the ordinary way from the Secretary of State, submit its plans and have them passed afterwards.
Mr. REID I would not like to take up such a large question as that to-day. I think the suggestion is one 'that should be well considered. But the Ra'iway Act is to be amended. The Bill is all ready to bring before the House at some future time. We have not taken it up on account of war conditions. When the Bill comes forward 1 would suggest to my hon. friend (Mr. Pardee) that he take up that question. This amendment merely makes the present Railway Act a little more workable or a little more satisfactory to the House and the country and therefore I would ask the hon. member to allow the other matter 'fo stand until the Railway Act Amendment Bill is introduced.


John Gillanders Turriff: What will be the function of Parliament in connection with railway charters? After the Railway Committee and the House have spent a lot of time over a Bill to incorporate a railway company, we are giving power to the Board of Railway Commissioners-and I do think it well to do it-to override everything that may be done by the Railway Committee or toy the House. This is an amendment that I am glad to support because I think it is a move in the right direction, but to carry it out to its logical conclusion, we certainly ought to allow the railway companies to go to the Secretary of State, instead of coming to Parliament, because Parliament, in so far as I can understand :it, will have nothing to do in connection
with the matter. The Bill gives power to the Railway Commissioners to override the action of Parliament.


William Pugsley: There is every argument in favour of making the change suggested by the two hon. gentlemen who have just spoken. This is the law in a number of the states of the United States, if not in all. I know that the railway companies there apply to the Secretary of State, plans are approved of by a board of railway commissioners and on being approved the company get their charter from the Secretary of State and they can immediately go to work without waiting for the session of the legislature.


William Findlay Maclean: They often have to show cause.


William Pugsley: Yes. The great objection I see to this Bill is that it provides for the approval of the location and the plans by the Board of Railway Commissioners after the charter has been obtained. I think it ought to be that the company should not come to Parliament until after the plans have been approved. Any company desiring to obtain a charter should be required to do what this Bill provides for, that is apply to the Board of Railway Commissioners to have their location and plans approved. That being done, the company would then apply to Parliament and there would be no difficulty about getting the charter, provided Parliament thought it would be proper to grant a charter. But, if this Bill passes, the company will apply for a charter, when the Bill has its second reading it will go to the Railway Committee, there it will be fought out at great length and it will take a great deal of the time of the members of this House. After the Bill has gone through all the processes necessary to its being passed into law, gone to the Senate, there passed and received the Royal Assent, the Board of Railway Commissioners has power to render the whole proceedings nugatory either by annulling the whole charter or any portion of it. It seems to me that it would be far better -and there would be no difficulty in it- to have the company submit its plans and proposed charter to the Board of Railway Commissioners and secure its approval before coming to Parliament.


John Dowsley Reid: We should have to consider the suggestion of my hon. friend very carefully indeed before making such a drastic change in our present procedure, which has

been in existence for so many years. As the hon. member knows, a Railway Bill not only has to pass the House of Commons and the Senate, but its plans and charter must be approved by the Minister of Railways and by the Board of Railway Commissioners before construction can commence. The proposed amendment makes very little change. The Board of Railway Commissioners have to go into the matter very thoroughly, and decide whether the location and the construction would be in the public interest. We all have great confidence in the Board of Railway Commissioners, and I would ask the House to give this amendment a trial. The Railway Act will have to be revised in a session or two, and we could then consider the suggestion of my hon. friend from St. John, that it might be better to take away from Parliament altogether the granting of railway charters, and have the companies, after getting their plans approved by the Board of Railway Commissioners, apply to the Secretary of State for a charter under the Companies Act. The revision of the Railway Act has been delayed owing to circumstances over which we have had no control, and until it comes up, as it must do within the next sessio.n or two, I would ask that this amendment ibe given a trial. We shall then be in a better position to decide between it and the suggestion of my hon. friend from St. John.


George Perry Graham: While approving generally of the plan to have the Board of Railway Commissioners' approval of the lines, I hesitate to go as far as subsection 3 of section 157, which reads:
The hoard may approve such map and location, or any portion thereof, or may make or require such changes and alterations therein as it deems expedient; but if the hoard deems that the construction of a railway upon the proposed location or upon any portion thereof is not in the public interest it shall refuse approval of the whole or of such portion; and in any case where the board deems it in the public interest it may, as to any portion of the proposed railway, make any order, or require the taking of any proceedings, provided for by subsection seven and eight of this section.
It is taking a long step to make the Board of Railway Commissioners supreme over Parliament; it is>
tantamount to sayipg that the Railway Committee and this House will put through a Bill of which they have no knowledge. The legislation is dangerous to that extent, and affords an argument to the hon. member for St. John when he says that the final word as to the granting of a

charter ought to be said by Parliament. Under the present procedure, before a charter is granted, a railway Bill comes before the Railway Committee, and we must assume that the Minister of Railways in that committee, and the chairman and members of it, have some knowledge of what they are discussing. The Bill then goes through the Committee of the Whole House, clause by clause, is given its third reading, and then goes through the same stages in 4 p.m. the Senate. We are now proposing that the Board of Railway Commissioners shall have power to nullify every bit of that legislation. A charter given to a railway company is not a permit, but an Act of Parliament, which is placed on the statute book; and this amendment is simply saying to the Board of Railway Commissioners:	" We are vesting
power in you to override the statute we have passed."


William Findlay Maclean: In the public interest.


George Perry Graham: Though it may be in the public interest to leave details to a board of that character, it is not in the public interest to allow the board to decide what shall be our policy with regard to the construction of a line of railway, and that is what is wrong with this clause. It gives the board more power than the minister ever had, and the minister is a member of the Government, and of the Railway Committee, which is guided by him to a large extent, more particularly oh matters of policy. The minister's powers have been limited to the location of the line, but this clause goes further and says that the board may refuse to allow the road to be built at all if it does not approve of the whole or of any portion. In other words, it is giving them power to say that Parliament did not know what it was talking about when it' granted charters. If these charters were perpetual, and Parliament had no power of revising them, there might be some reason for this clause; but under the Railway Act charters last only two years, at the end of which time, if construction has not begun, the company has to come to Parliament for an extension. It is a serious thing to empower a board to over-ride an Act of Parliament which has been deliberately passed by both Houses, and has undergone the careful scrutiny of a body such as the Railway Committee is. My view is that details as to the construction of a railway should be left to the Board of Railway Commissioners,

but the policy should be left where it is to-day-in the hands of Parliament.


Mr. BLAIN:: The Acting Minister of Railways should be complimented for the introduction of this Bill, which I think is legislation along the right line. I agree with the hon. member fof South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) that it is not well to delegate all the powers of Parliament to the Board of Railway Commissioners. But we have had a good many years' experience of that board. They have had delegated to them powers that hitherto were held only by the Parliament of Canada, and I do not think there has been any complaint either in the House or in the country against the abuse of those powers. I think, therefore, we can safely trust the Board of Railway Commissioners.


George Perry Graham: Better than we can trust ourselves?	.


Richard Blain: There is a great deal in what my hon. friend says. I am one of those who believe that the people's representatives in Parliament should have a thorough knowledge of what railways are being constructed in Canada, and have considerable say as to how and where they should be con. structed.
I think the powers that have been delegated to the Board of Railway Commissioners are powers that, prior to the delegating of them to the board, caused a great deal of contention both in this House and in the Railway Committee. While it may be said that a good deal of time is lost in the Railway Committee, I think, on the whole, it has done good service to the people of Canada. Take, for instance, this Bi1! that has been introduced. Had it not been for the difference of opinion in the Railway Committee during this session, this Bill would not have been forthcoming at all. Certain members of the committee held one view and certain other members differed from them; the matter was threshed out in the committee for some time, and the result was the introduction of this Bill. I think we should use this House for the introduction of railway charters, the Railway Committee for determining certain points, and the Board of Railway Commissioners for threshing out certain other points, and thus, by working in close co-operation, we would get the best possible legislation in regard to railway matters. I feel sure that this is a better method of working than to act separately and to give any of the governing bodies too much power. This is
legislation that should be passed. It was pretty thoroughly threshed out two years ago in the joint committee of the Senate and of this House, and had the war not broken out the general revision of the Railway Act would likely have been passed at the last session of Parliament.
As regards the revision of the Railway Act of Canada, we can afford to be a little careful and to wait. I have no doubt that, when the war is over many clauses that were thought to be the best possible clauses to be introduced in the revision of the Railway Act will be reconsidered by the committee and by this House, because of the results of the war. Therefore, as the Railway Act is a very wide one, and -Seeing that we have waited so long, I think we can afford to wait a little longer, keeping in view the condition of things when the war is over.
I am in favour of this legislation, and I wish to offer my congratulations to the Acting Minister of Railways on the introduction of this Bill, which I think Will be in the public interest.


George Perry Graham: We are not leaving the Railway Act alone until the war is over.


Richard Blain: We are, with the exception of this Bill.


George Perry Graham: We are dealing with one of the most vital matters in the Railway Act. Will this clause not have this effect in addition to what I have said? The powers that the Railway Committee have and that the minister has are taken away and given largely to the Board of Railway Commissioners. Therefore such a clause will be conducive to loose, slipshod action by the Railway Committee, because they will say: " Oh, we will give these people a charter; we will make good fellows of ourselves; the Board of Railway Commissioners will not let them build the railway." Suppose some member wants to please a friend. The Railway Committee will say: "All right, we will please him; we will give him a charter; the Board, of Railway Commissioners will stop the construction." Such a measure will be conducive-I cannot see how it will be otherwise-to carelessness on the part of the Railway Committee, because they will have no final say in railway legislation after this Bill is passed. A member may get a charter passed to build a railway through his constituency, and the Board of Railway Commissioners may decline to let the railway be built.


William Findlay Maclean: How can he compel them under the present law to approve that railway?


George Perry Graham: Parliament has the matter in its own hands; it is now putting it out of its own. hands. This is largely a question of whether Parliament will allow the Board of Eailway Commissioners to decide matters of policy. A body of that kind is better constituted to decide details than even a minister is.


Richard Blain: Was not the Board of Eailway Commissioners appointed for that very purpose?


George Perry Graham: It was not appointed to frame policies; it was appointed( to carry out the statutes passed by Parliament. Every session or two the board has been given wider powers as it has found them necessary, 'but the power to frame policies was never handed over to the board. The board could make recommendations, but they had to be embodied in a Bill which had to be passed by this House before they could be acted upon. The Board of Eailway Commissioners has no more power to go beyond the present scope of its powers than a judge sitting on the bench has power to give a judgment inconsistent with the statutes. You are going a long way in the direction of passing a statute that will allow the Board of Eailway Commissioners to override the powers of Parliament, and I think you are going too far in that particular clause. Parliament is trusting the Board of Eailway Commissioners further than Parliament has ever trusted a minister or a Government. I adhere to my original suggestion that this Bill ought to give the Board of Eailway Commissioners power to carry out in detail the policy that this House enacts in general. That is all I understood from the acting minister that he was doing in this Bill, namely, transferring to the Board of Eailway Commissioners the powers heretofore exercised by the minister; but he is, under this section, transferring more than that.


Sir EOBEET BOEDEN:: The section follows precisely the form which was submitted to Parliament in the Consolidated Eailway Bill of two years ago. My hon. friend, I think, is conjuring up some difficulties that are not likely to occur. As a matter of fact, the governing authorities of any country, if they acted to the extreme measure of their powers and in defiance of convention and public opinion, would ren-

der the government of the country absolutely unworkable. A great many illustrations could be given of that. As a matter of fact, the Eailway Act itself, as quoted by my hon. friend, would afford an illustration of it. The Minister of Bailways and Canals, by arbitrarily refusing approval, might defeat the intention of Parliament as expressed in any Act.


George Perry Graham: We would get at him in Parliament in that case.


Frederick William Borden: The Board of
Eailway Commissioners can do the same thing, because they must approve also; and, if they arbitrarily refuse approval, then, as a matter of fact, the project embodied in a private Act of Parliament for the construction of a railway could not be carried out. But we do not find that such bodies act in that arbitrary way, and the Board of Eailway Commissioners will be governed by conditions, and by public opinion in the exercise of the powers which are conferred upon it by this Bill, just as the minister and the Board of Eailway Commissioners have been governed by conditions, by public necessity, in exercising the powers which would still remain to them if this Bill were not passed. After all, it does not seem to me that the portion of the Bill to which my hon. friend objects really deals with more than what one might call a detail. The provision is this:
If the board deems that the construction of a railway upon the proposed location or upon any portion thereof is not in the public Interest it shall refuse approval of the whole or of such portion.
That necessarily would be their power, by arbitrary refusal of approval, to accomplish that very thing under present conditions. The provision goes on:
And in any case where the board deems It in the public interest it may, as to any portion of the proposed railway, make any order, or require the taking of any proceedings, provided for by subsection seven and eight of this section.
That is, they may insist upon the granting of running powers fipon some other railway located substantially in the same place, which will be able to perform not only the service that it has already undertaken, but the additional service which would be performed by the new railway if it were constructed. The purpose of the Bill is to avoid the duplication of railway lines and the construction of unnecessary lines, so far as that is consistent with affording a reasonable and necessary service to the public.


William Findlay Maclean: The reason for this measure is to be found in subsection 7, which says:
Where the proposed location of any new railway is close to or in the neighbourhood of an existing railway, and the board is of opinion that it is undesirable in the public interest to have the two separate rights of way in such vicinity, the board may, when it deems proper, upon the application of any company, municipality or person interested, or of its own motion, order that the company constructing such new railway shall take the proceedings provided for in section one hundred and seventy-six to such extent as the board deems necessary in order to avoid having such separate rights of way.
The experience of the country under the existing law is, that in narrow . sections there are too many railways, and the farms are unduly out up. Power is given to the Railway Commissioners by this Bill to compel joint use of existing lines. And, certainly, that is a good cure for unnecessary duplication, and prevents the unnecessary cutting up of the country. Of these matters, a parliamentary committee is not able to judge so well as the Board of Railway Commissioners, who can personally visit the spot or send their engineers to learn the exact circumstances and report. In this, as in other matters of progressive legislation, we are passing from the old order to the new, and in the change there is necessarily more or less of overriding, but the general tendency is right. I am convinced that it is time that the control of railway legislation should ,be largely given to a body of the nature of a court, like the Railway Commission, and, to that extent, taken from Parliament. From the experience I have had, and the information I have gained, I am absolutely convinced that the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) is right, that the incorporation of a new railway company should come from the Secretary of 'State and the Board of Railway Commissioners. Of course, if there be a great national railway scheme, which it is desired to put through, Parliament is still free to pass legislation, taking that particular railway proposition out of the hands of the commission and ordering its construction as Parliament may see fit. We are not taking away the powers of Parliament by this Bill, but there is a devolution of power in this case, which, however, can always be recalled.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: So far as I am personally concerned I have no objection to subsection
7; I think it is quite wise legislation. But I would object to the Railway Board, or any other body appointed under authority of this Parliament overruling Parliament. Parliament should be supreme. We are supposed to be the representatives of the people, whether we actually fulfil our duties or not*. If we do not take our duties with regard to railways seriously, if members do not attend the Railway Committee and take an interest in the Bills that come before that committee, that is not the fault of the system, but of the individuals who are members of the Railway Committee. My right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) said that this was giving no more power to the Railway Board than is now held by the Minister of Railways'. But the position is very different, in my judgment. The Minister of Railways invariably attends the Railway Committee, and, as I said in my former remarks, I have never known that committee to overrule the wishes of the , Minister of Railways.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: My hon. friend, perhaps, did not understand me. I was not speaking of what the minister was likely to do, or what the Board of Railway Commissioners was likely to do, but I was pointing out that if apprehension were felt in case the extreme measure of the power was exercised, that might be equally apprehended under the present law.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is quite possible, but it is very unlikely that the Minister of Railways would change what he had already accepted in the Railway Committee, whereas the Railway Comissioners are not there and do not know the views of the Railway Committee except as those views may be reported to them. I notice that the word " may " is used except in one case, in subsection 3, line 6, where it is enacted that the Board " shall refuse." Why do we use the word "shall" instead of the word " may "?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think it makes any difference.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I think it makes a gTeat difference. We propose to enact that if they dc not approve of the location of a railway, they "shall" order that it must not be built. I would much rather have the word "may" because it gives them the right to judge. I quite agree with my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) that we should leave to the Railway Board

instead of to the minister questions of detail; that is within their province, and I think this provision will woTk smoothly as has every provision giving power to the Railway Commission. But I do not think *we should take away from the representatives of the people the main right to say whether a railway shall or shall not he built. I am not referring to the instance that has arisen this session; I do not think we should make our laws in view of single instances, but should be moved by general considerations. This is the only case I know of in which there was practically a deadlock, to a large extent, on the Railway Committee, and I leave that out of consideration. I still think that that and every other railway Bill should be left to the representatives of the people for final decision. Taking this Bill generally, I strongly approve of it, especially that part which gives authority to prevent the duplication of lines. I agree with the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) in that, except that I do not think we should give up powers that we now possess, but should retain superior rights to every commission appointed toy this Parliament. I also object to the use of the word "shall," to which I have referred.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I am not able to understand the position taken (by the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), which, indeed, is the same as that taken by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), namely, they approve the Bill in the main, but .still they feel that only the details should be left to the jurisr diction of the Railway Commission, If the Bill does not pass at all; if the Bill is rejected by this House, the details are still left with the Railway Commission. If the Bill passes, not only the details but the general location of the line then comes under the Railway Commission. That is the effect of the Bill, and that is the whole effect. If we are in favour of the general location of the line coming under the Railway Commission and being removed from the minister, then we must pass this Bill. If we are in favour only of the details coming under the Railway Commission, we have that already without the Bill.


George Perry Graham: Is there not a good deal more power given to the board under this proposed amendment than the minister had under the statute as it stood before? If not, a great deal more language is used in trans-

ferring the power than was used to grant it under the old Act.


Arthur Meighen: In my judgment, no more power is given; it is more specifically stated, that is all. If the old Act were worded in section 3 exactly as this Act is worded, no objection could be taken to the old Act then any more than can be taken to it now. The question we have to decide is this: should the general location of the line be subject to the Railway Board, or should it not?- If we decide that it should, we must give the Railway Board the right to refuse the whole general location. If we are only going to give them the right to refuse a part of it, we cannot give them the power to control the general location. If they must approve some, even though they disapprove the rest, then they have not the power at all; the Bill is worthless.


George Perry Graham: That is not the idea. To my mind that is not what the Bill means. It is meant to mean that, but it means far more.


Arthur Meighen: I should like to get the excess; I cannot see it. What I am driving .at is this: unless the Railway BoaTd is to have the right to reject the whole general location as called for by subsection 1, it has no useful jurisdiction in regard to that general location.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Of what use, then, will be the Railway Committee in connection with that?


Arthur Meighen: That is another question entirely; I will come to that before I sit down. As to that I may say that I have more doubt than I have as to the point that I am arguing now. What I am arguing now is this: unless we vest in the Railway Commission a right of full rejection we cannot vest in them jurisdiction over a general route. It is true that the Act says that if that general route as laid down on the plan called for by subsection 1 is deemed not in the public interest by the commission, they must reject it. For myself, I see no material difference whether the word "may" or the word "shall" is uised. It undoubtedly would be the duty of the commission to reject it if they felt it to be not in the public interest. But they must be vested with that power or we strip the Bill, we emasculate the Bill and fail fundamentally to do What the Bill sets out to do. Under the present circumstances the minister, if he wishes arbitrarily to exercise his power, may, by rejecting the

approval, negative that general location. All that is said to the Railway Board is:
" ,If you. feel that that general location is not in the public interest we give you the right and we make it your duty to , negative that general location. " The hon. member for South Renfrew raised a point as to the overriding of Parliament. Of course, nolbody can override Parliament; no body can get powers except such as we give them. We are no more enabling the Railway Commission to override Parliament by this legislation than we enabled them in the original Bill to override Parliament. In each case we give the Railway Commission certain powers which previously were exercised by Parliament. If in the exercise of those powers they override what otherwise Parliament would have done, then in the present case they also override. But it is not an overriding; it is an exercise of functions given by Parliament. All that we have to decide is whether or not it is well to extend what they have power to do.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Would the Solicitor General kindly explain the difference between exercising a function and overriding Parliament, and simply overriding Parliament?


Arthur Meighen: There is no difference.
I was setting out to say that there is no difference. But whenever you constitute a board and vest that board with powers that Parliament exercised before, you are doing just what the hon. member is complaining that we are doing by this Bill.


Mr. BURNHAM:: What would happen
if Parliament and the board disagreed on the policy pursued?


Arthur Meighen: There are two recourses, if it should be felt by any parties interested that the decision of the board was wrong. First of all, I understand that [DOT] there is a general appeal which it is not the policy of this Government, nor was the policy of the last, to exercise generally.


William Findlay Maclean: But it is still in the Act.


Arthur Meighen: It is still in the Act.
Furthermore, Parliament could pass specific legislation overriding the board in that instance. Or we could pass general legislation removing from tnein the power that we now vest in them. There can tbe no final overriding of .Parliament.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: We could pass legislation, of course, but that is a lot of bother.


Arthur Meighen: It is asked, what will be the function of. the Railway Committee after this Bill is passed. It appears that there is considerable residue for the Railway Committee.


George Perry Graham: Mostly residue.


Arthur Meighen: But a very considerable residue. If there is any other board more competent than the Railway Committee, I for one would be prepared to pass the residue also to that board. It is all a question of which is the more competent.	I think all	will agree
that when it comes to a question of deciding on the location of a railway and the conditions under which such location shall be approved; when it comes to deciding whether or not public money could be saved by avoiding duplication, or whether or not public money could be saved in the matter of right of way, the Railway Board is the proper board to exercise the decision, and it cannot exercise that decision unless you vest in it a power of rejection as well as a power of correction.


George Perry Graham: I agree with a good deal that the Solicitor General says, but his argument rather goes round my point. It looks at it in the front, then goes round and views it in the rear and gets by it in that way. There is no question as to the matter of duplication. As railway lines become more numerous there is no doubt in the world that to give the Board of Railway Commissioners the power, putting it plainly, to make two railways run over the same tracks for a certain distance, is quite proper; it is a work of detail. But we are giving them power to say that the other railway shall not be built at all. Although we pass a charter providing that it may be built, we delegate to this board the power to say it cannot be built. That is what I object to.


John Hampden Burnham: Did we not give the
charter with the proviso that if the board said no, the line should not be -built?


George Perry Graham: That is what the Railway Committee is trying to keep itself busy at-but that will not be doing anything. It might as well pass out of existence if everything it does can be nullified next morning by the Board of Railway -Commissioners. To my mind, as representatives of the people, we are shirking responsibility. We are supposed to be working under a form of responsible government, by which every member is responsible to his constituents for



any vote that he gives in the Railway Committee or anywhere else. We-both Government and members-are throwing over that responsibility to a number of gentlemen, able though they may be, who are paid to do certain work. As to carrying out our wishes, our paid servants are better able to do it than we are so far as details are concerned; but in the matter of deciding policy we cannot escape our responsibility by handing it over to certain gentlemen, able though they may be. This Parliament is running away from its responsibility, and so is the Government-they shivered over an Act that was before them a few days ago -running away from its responsibility under the guise of handing over the details to men who are better able to carry them out than we are. So long as we retain the right in this Parliament to grant to railway companies charters to build, and to say where these roads shall be built, we ought not to hand over to any paid body the power to nullify that Act of Parliament. We ought to have the courage to define our own policy, and leave it to the Board of Railway Commissioners to carry out the details of that policy.	*


Mr. MORPHY:: I have no intention and equally no desire to say much about this measure, 'because I think that it is, on the whole, a pretty good Bill from the general point of view. But I have been very much impressed by the argument advanced by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), and also by the argument of the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt, in regard to subsection 3. I see the danger which the hon. member for South Renfrew has pointed out in regard to the delegation of power. It is all very well to say that we as a Parliament do not delegate, but we do, and it seems to me that this goes further than anything in any Railway Act heretofore. The question of the use of the words "may" and "shall" has been dealt with by the right hon. the Prime Minister, who has pointed out that "shall" means "may." I have very much doubt whether, where you find in the same section the words "shall" and "may" used, they will be interpreted as meaning the same thing.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Indeed they will not.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The point is worth considering. If the Prime Minister's view is right, I would suggest that the word "shall" in subsection 3 be changed to "may." I

am speaking without any reference to shivers or shakes.


William Findlay Maclean: You have not got , the ague.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Certainly not; I think this measure is in the public interest at large. Every bona fide operation which would come under the purview of the Railway Commission would have to stand upon its merits, and would be decided by an impartial board. I am casting no reflection upon any board; but, supposing the board were capable of giving an unfair decision, the delegation of parliamentary .power would become a very serious matter. It is also serious from the point of view of the knowledge of localities possessed by members of this House, who are interested in the working out of Bills in the Railway Committee. One can readily see how a man living in a certain locality through which it is intended to construct a railway will know a great deal more about it than the members of a board who probably have *never seen it. 'Section 56 of the Railway Act gives the right of appeal to the Governor in Council against any decision. It says:
The Governor in Council may, in his discretion, either upon petition of any party, person or company, within one month after the making of the order, decision, rule or regulation, or within such further time as the hoard under special circumstances may allow, or of his own motion, at any time, and without any petition or application, vary or rescind any order, decision, rule or regulation of the board, whether such order or decision is made inter partes or otherwise, and whether such regulation is general or limited in its scope and application; and . any order which the Governor in Council may make with respect thereto shall be binding upon, the board and upon all parties.
So that, while we delegate, there is a way of having rescinded any unfair order and of reconsidering any policy, or any order that involves or affects a policy, in the shape of introducing new matter. Under these circumstances, I think the measure can very well go through, but I would suggest again that the word "shall" should be changed to "may" in subsection 3.


William Findlay Maclean: Just another word in answer to the hon. member for South Renfrew and the hon. member for South Oxford. The Railway Act was introduced in this House by the right hon. gentleman who now leads the Opposition, and I think that, on the whole, it was the most creditable piece of railway legislation we have

had in this country. The late Government from time to time amended the Act and improved it, making it more and more progressive. To my mind this Bill only extends the usefulness of that Act, dealing with problems and difficulties that have arisen under it. If it does that, and that only, while the power of Parliament is still retained, I do not think that those who originally introduced the Railway Act should object to the widening of its powers even if they be of a rather drastic character. I am convinced that we shall have either to increase the powers of the Board of Railway Commissioners or . have the State take over the railways, in order to deal with the problems that lie before us.


George Perry Graham: I may point out that
while section 56 is in the statute, the fact is, as the Solicitor General said, that the Governor in Council does not hear and does not want to hear very many appeals.


William Findlay Maclean: He has heard
them on occasion.


George Perry Graham: Very seldom.


William Findlay Maclean: So much the better.


George Perry Graham: So far as supplying a
remedy is concerned, section 56 might as well not be there.


Mr. McCRANEY:: In this Bill we are
proposing to delegate certain powers of this Parliament to the Railway Commission, and when Parliament delegates its powers it does not usually recall them. Many years ago, the powers of Parliament with regard to election trials were delegated to the courts of the land, which still retain them. If Parliament, having delegated certain powers, were to hamper the exercise of them, and interfere with the discretion which it had given to the Railway Commission, it would very soon lose the Railway Commission, or the public would lose respect for the findings of the Railway Commission. Therefore I think we may say that this is committing ourselves to a line of policy which will be .permanent. We are talking about banding over to the Railway Commission the right to decide what is in the public interest, and we are doing that because we have lost confidence in ourselves. We have lost confidence in the Railway Committee, and I think the reason for that is two-fold. It is because we have-sought advice from the lobbyists of the railway companies rather than from the
173i
i :M-
Minister of Railways. I think that the solution of the whole question is to keep the lobbyist out of this House. When we get the lobbyist out of this House, and the minister takes hold of this matter, there will be no need for legislation of this kind at all, and Parliament will continue to exercise its functions with the advice of the Minister of Railways representing the Government policy. Every man who has been a member of this House for years must have been disgusted at times by the way in which members of Parliament are lbbbied and entertained to Lucullian feasts and button-holed. It is not in accordance with the dignity of Parliament. I do not think that anybody has been corrupted by that sort of thing; I do not think it could corrupt anybody; but it makes a man uncomfortable. It is because we have been trying to please those fellows who meet us in the lobby that we do some things that we would rather not do, and that we would hand over to the Railway Commission because we think the lobbyists could not get at them. I suggest that the Minister of Railways has every means at his disposal for getting information upon any question of railway policy that may come before him; certainly he has means of getting information as good as the Railway Commission possess.
I do not want to see the railway policy of Parliament directed on a party basis; but I believe that the members of the House will follow the direction of the minister when he informs himself and when he comes down to the committee with well thought out views. At any rate, speaking for myself, I would a great deal rather .follow the advice of the minister than the suggestions of the railway promoter. I simply offer this suggestion to the minister, that instead of letting the committee drift, as it usually does, as it has done under both Governments-I am not speaking of the present minister or of the acting minister, but I am speaking of something that has been true ever since I have been a member of this House-if he would determine what he wants, if he would give the Railway Committee the information he has, if he would give it his conclusions, we could go on and exercise our functions as a railway committee and as a Parliament.


Mr. NICKLE:: I have listened with a
great deal of interest to the discussion that has taken place this afternoon in regard

to the Bill and it seems to me that this is just another step forward in the evolution of railway legislation in the Dominion of Canada. If any person will go back and study the history of railway charters in this country he cannot but be struck by the fact that in the early days exclusive railway charters were granted to certain favoured persons in the hope that huge profits would be made and great fortunes developed. But, in the course of time, that policy was found to be so iniquitous that an entirely different line of argument and an entirely different policy were adopted. Parliament adopted the principle, so to speak, of free trade in charters. A charter was granted to anybody except it was iabundantly clear that the parallelling of a route was of such a character that the development and construction of two railways would simply mean the destruction of both, in which case only one charter would be granted.
I have been a member of the Railway Committee since I entered this House and you may call it lack of ability, or you may use the words of the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) and call it lack of courage; but I have never been able to understand how any committee of gentlemen could come to any sane conclusion in regard to railway charters as to whether or not they should be granted. A group of promoters appears before the committee. Upon the wall of the committee room will be hung an attractive blue print, probably drawn to a scale of a hundred miles to an inch, upon which a number of red or yellow lines will appear, and a pointer be used to indicate the direction in which the railway should go. Little or no information is given to the committee as to the density of population to be served, the railways that will be interfered with, the character of the country, the natural resources to be developed by the construction of the proposed railway or anything of the kind. All we are told is that somebody wants a railway built along that line, that it would in the opinion of the promoters be an advantageous place in which to construct a railway, and the charter is granted. In nine cases out of ten we vote for it because we know nothing against it or for fear that if we voted against it we might be stopping something that might be worth while.
My hon. friend from Saskatoon (Mr. Mc-Craney) says that the legislation contem-

plated is all wrong and that the whole thing should be handed over, practically speaking, to the Miinister of Railways and Canals, that the minister should look into the situation, and if he comes to the conclusion that it is wise and proper that the charter should be granted, the Railway Committee should bow to his judgment and we should all fall into line-a habit that we are too apt to get into in the House-and vote as the minister suggests. This is a delegation of a much more dangerous type than the delegation proposed by the Bill, because df there is one thing more than another that should be avoided, it is that we should have political or partisan considerations entering into the deliberations of the Railway Committee.
Mr. MeCRANEY: I do not propose for a minute that our power should be delegated to the minister in regard to railways or in any other respect. We accept the advice of ministers of the Crown on many things, but we do not delegate our powers when we follow their advice.


William Folger Nickle: Quite true, but if we are to accept the advice of the minister and do not exercise our own judgment, we might as well not go to the committee at all. From the peculiarly advantageous position that he occupies, it is suggested we are to come to the conclusion that what he says goes, and if that is so we might as well save our time, go elsewhere and devote our energies to something more worth while. Then, again, you might have partisan or political considerations. I do not think you could have a stronger weapon, or one more powerful in its political effect, than the determination of where a railway shall or shall not go. As a private member of this House, I would be strongly opposed to adopting the suggestion of my hon. friend from Saskatoon. It seems to me that it would be bound to redound to the disadvantage of all parties, but if you leave the matter to the Railway Commission you have an entirely different situation. That is a Board that has been and should be beyond political influences. It is a judicial body, in the main it has given satisfaction to the country by its administration, it has experts who have tables showing the earnings of the various railways, it is in a position to get information that no committee can get and I for one would like to see the experiment tried of leaving to that body the determination of the question as to whether or not a parapril ii, me
ticular railway should he constructed. Across the line they have gone farther than this Bill. I am not prepared to say that they have adopted this policy in regard to steam railways at large .but I know that in regard to electric, suburban railways they have gone to the length of saying that promoters must show to an appointed tribunal that the line in all likelihood will be a financial success or they will not permit such an electric railway to be developed.


William Findlay Maclean: Or a state railway in New York state.


William Folger Nickle: In other words, they
realize that to get an efficient railway policy you must not have more railways than the traffic will bear, and I think we have just about come to that conclusion in this country. We are facing certain railway problems in Canada that we never would have had to face if wisdom had been shown in our railway policies. I am so disappointed with the results that I readily acquiesce in the policy suggested by my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Railways and I think that this House would be wise in allowing the experiment to be tried.
There is one thing perfectly plain: If the experiment is not a success, and if it becomes necessary to appeal from the Railway Commission to the Governor General in Council, we have in the last resort, what we have in all parliamentary legislation, a weapon that we can use, because just so soon as the Railway Commission became arbitrary and unreasonable, appeals would necessarily be taken to the Governor General in Council and if they were not astute to recognize the needs of the country, this House would soon rise and demand that a change of Government take place.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I have to say a word in reference to what my hon. friend from Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney) said about lobbyists. I have a crow to pick with these lobbyists, because none of them has even approached me or given me a cigar since I have been here.


George Eulas Foster: They know you are hopeless.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I am afraid so. I know some people have the idea that we are lobbied here, and I resent it. I have never seen anything in the nature of lobbying, I have never been asked to vote for a Bill in committee since I have sat in this
House, either outside of the committee or in it, and I have always voted in accordance with my own judgment. I again state that I resent the circulation of the rumour in the country that we here, the .people's representatives, are lobbied by anybody. As far as I am concerned, I give my vote in the committee without party prejudice, in accordance wth my judgment, and purely and simply on the merits of the case.


John Hampden Burnham: What will be the duty of the Railway Committee if this Bill passes, .Mr. Chairman?


John Dowsley Reid: I want to put in a subsection which was overlooked. Subsection 3 of section 159 of the Railway Act reads as follows:
In granting any such sanction the .board shall be bound by the general location as approached by the minister: provided that the board may, unless the minister otherwise specifically directs, sanction a deviation of not more than one mile from any one point on the said general location so approved.
We propose to amend that as follows:
Subsection 3 of clause 159 is amended by striking out the words " by the minister " in the second line thereof, and the words " unless the minister otherwise specifically directs," in the third and fourth lines thereof. ,	1
That leaves it entirely to the Board.


George Perry Graham: Read the section as
amended.
Mr. RiEID : It will read :
In granting any such sanction the board shall be bound by the general location as approved: provided that the board may sanction a deviation of not more than one mile from any one point on the said general location so approved.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That confines them to one mile, doesn't it?


John Dowsley Reid: Within one mile of the general location.


George Perry Graham: Who will make that general location?


Arthur Meighen: The effect of the Bill is to give the approval of the general location to the Board. After a plan showing the general location has been filed and approved, the railway company proceeds under sections 158 and 159. It would not be well to leave it to the operation of those sections alone, which I think. must have been in the mind of the hon. member for South Renfrew, because

to do so would be to compel the company to prepare a plan of the whole road, showing in detail the right of way and every man's property through which it passed. There is no need for the company to do that until the general location has been approved. If they were compelled to do that in the first place it is quite conceivable, and indeed highly probable, that a very great deal of work would be wasted; consequently the plan is adopted of first submitting to the Board a general 5 p.m. location plan. When that has .been approved, the company comes under the operation of sections 158 and 159, and submits a detailed plan and profile giving all the particulars that are necessary. After that has been filed, the Board has the power it previously had of deviating the road by one mile either way.


George Perry Graham: The Board will have that power? .


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


George Perry Graham: It will have two powers: power to make a general location, and power to make a definite location. I think this amendment has been prepared rather hurriedly, and will have to be patched up when we are revising the Railway Act at another session. What the Solicitor General says is very true, and meets very largely the suggestion of the hon. member for St. John, that the company should submit its detailed plans to the Board before the Bill comes before Parliament. It means no little expense to prepare detailed plans, and a company would probably not go to this expense if it did not know that it was going to get a charter from Parliament, or through the Secretary of State, as I understand the Government is providing. I see no objection to this amendment.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What about the word "shall?"


John Dowsley Reid: I think we had better leave that in.
Section, amended as proposed, agreed to.
Bill as amended reported, and amendments concurred in.



PROHIBITION OR RESTRICTION OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.


[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 66, in aid of Provincial Legislation ProtMr. Meighen.]
hibiting or Restricting the Sale or Use of Intoxicating Liquors-Hon. Mr. C. I. Doherty (Minister of Justice)-Mr. Blain in the Chair.
Charles Joseph Doherty: When the committee
rose, it had under consideration an amendment that was originally suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), and which I moved in his absence, proposing to insert as clause 3 a provision making it necessary for labels to be affixed to packages sent into provinces where there is a prohibition law, and dealing also with the subject of shipments to fictitious persons or persons other than the actual consignee.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Would the minister tell us just what has been done with regard to this Bill?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The first section, with
some amendment, has been passed, and there has been introduced into the Bill as section 2, a provision moved by the hon. member for Vancouver. We have now before us an amendment proposing the introduction of a new section 3, the effect of which I have just endeavoured to explain. It is to require that liquor sent by public conveyance into a province where there is prohibition shall be labelled and its oon-teents indicated, and that it shall be an offence knowingly to send, carry, or receive packages not properly labelled. It further makes it an offence to send liquor into a province where there is a prohibitory law, addressed either to a fictitious consignee, or to any person other than the one for whom it is actually intended. All these suggestions are made witfi a view to thwarting, as far as possible, endeavours to introduce liquor secretly into a province in evasion of the first section of the Bill or iri evasion of any provincial law.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: I wish to suggest
to the minister the advisability of adding these words to paragraph a of the proposed section 3:
The name and address of the consignor shall be placed on each package.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not recollect that that suggestion had been made.


James Joseph Hughes: I am making it
now. I think it will carry out the intention that the minister has in view to make it difficult to introduce liquor into a prohibited area surreptitiously or illegally.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I presume that the
draftsman of these amendments assumed that the package would bear some address.


James Joseph Hughes: I want the address of the consignor on it.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Does the minister intend *to insert this new section? Where some unfortunate individual carries a box which is marked " butter " or " cheese " and in which some fellow has put whisky, is the minister going to fine him $200? How is the party to know that there is whisky in the box?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no fine unless he does it knowingly. 1


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Does the minister think that the Intercolonial railway is a common carrier under this section?


Charles Joseph Doherty: At the last sitting of
the committee we inserted in subsection c words to make it cover the employees of the Intercolonial railway, so that it now reads:
Being a common carrier or the servant or agent of a common carrier, or of any Government railway, whether Dominion or provincial, knowingly receives-


John Howard Sinclair: We are given to understand that subsection c in the amended section does not apply to the Intercolonial railway.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As it reads in the
printed amendment, it does not; but 1 suggested, when the matter was brought up, that we should introduce in that subsection c the words I have just mentioned. That will make it apply to all of the employees of the Intercolonial railway just as we made section 1 apply to them.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister is suggesting that those words be included in subsection c.


Charles Joseph Doherty: They were included at
the last sitting of the committee in the first section. I proposed that they should also be included in subsection c, and I understand from the Chairman that the amendment was adopted.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: The clause that was initialled reads:
And any person who, as clerk, servant or agent, officer or employee of any other person or of any Government railway, whether Dominion or provincial-


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think you are reading the first section of the Bill. We have passed
the first section and a new second section. What is now before the committee is the motion that the Bill be now amended by inserting section 3.
Mr. j. J. HUGHES: We have not passed any part of that section?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, the section is now under consideration. It was a misapprehension to say that we had passed subsection c.


John Howard Sinclair: I am not sure whether I am dense or not, but it seems to me that the section which we are now putting in the Bill is conflicting in some sense with the first section that we have passed. The first section provides that "any person who, by himself, his clerk, servant or agent, shall send liquor into a prohibited area, shall be liable to a fine." Now we say, " every one who sends or ships." We put the fine, in the first case, at $200, and in this we have a different fine. It strikes mo that the two refer to the same thing, and that a man could be prosecuted under either section.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The first section makes it an offence to send liquor into a province for the purpose of its being dealt with in violation of the law of that province. It is essential to the offence that there should be not merely a sending of the liquor but a knowledge that when it goes in it is to be . used in violation of the law-. The present proposal makes it an offence to send in liquor, irrespective of the use to which it is to be put, without labelling it. This will prevent people getting liquor surreptitiously, either for lawful or for unlawful use. The purpose of this is to make it difficult for people who may be seeking to violate the law to cloak over the fact that they are receiving liquor.


John Howard Sinclair: The first section provides a penalty for the sending of liquor into the province, and this provides a penalty for sending liquor by public conveyance into the province. That is about the difference, as it seems to me.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. member will read the whole first section, I think he will see the difference.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister draws a distinction, but will the courts draw the same distinction? I am willing to submit to the view of the minister, but I think there is ground here for a certain amount of confusion. My objection is that you use the same word "send."


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is deliberately intended to provide by this section that if a man sends liquor into a prohibitionist province, without putting a label on it, that act shall be an offence. If the hon." gentleman will read the first section, he will see that the essential element of the offence there created is that a man should know or intend that the intoxicating liquor he sends in shall be thereafter dealt with in violation of the law of the province. In that case, even though he were to cover the package with a thousand labels calling attention to the fact that the package contained liquor, he would still be guilty of an offence. But this other section makes it an offence, irrespective of the use to which the liquor is to be put, to send liquor into a prohibition province without labelling it as liquor. It seems to me that the distinction is perfectly clear. ,


James Joseph Hughes: Would the minister consider the suggestion I made, to provide that the name and address of the consignor should appear on the package?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would state just what purpose is to be served by such an amendment. .


James Joseph Hughes: So that you could more
easily trace the person who sends it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. gentleman would put his proposition in the shape of an amendment, 'I would have ono objection to make the provision. Or, I might try to do it myself. If I understand his suggestion aright, T would propose:
That the proposed amendment be amended by Striking- out, in the third line of subsection ' a, the word " or " and substituting the words " and the name of the consignor, , thereof, or

."


James Joseph Hughes: And address.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman is particular. I beg, then, to move:
That the proposed amendment he amended by striking out, in the third line of subsection a, the word " or " and substituting the words " and the name and address of the consignor, or."	[DOT]


George Ewan McCraney: It would be better to amend the next section, would it not, so as to penalize fictitious naming, too?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Would not the suggestion be met if in this present amendment we require the name and address of the actual consignor? Then, if he gives any other name, he will be liable under this section, and we shall save confusion.


James Joseph Hughes: I have another suggestion.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Let us have them all.


James Joseph Hughes: The section provides
that " the package shall be plainly labelled." Would not the minister think that it should be " indelibly " as well as " plainly " labelled?


Some hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


James Joseph Hughes: A little bit of paper might be put on which could be easily rubbed off.


George Eulas Foster: If it was rubbed off, he would be liable.


George Ewan McCraney: You do not need the word " plainly "; " labelled " is enough.


James Joseph Hughes: It is only to have it there so that it can be seen by any person who wishes to examine it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This provision will
apply not only to dealers, but also to any persons who have packages to send. If the suggestion of my hon. friend were carried out, the position would be this: if I should happen to have occasion to send a package that might contain liquor to my hon. friend or to any one else, unless I had some method of indelibly labelling my particular package


James Joseph Hughes: It is an easy matter for a dealer; a printing iron would burn the name into the package.


Charles Joseph Doherty: 
[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr.   M ACDONALD@: I should like to make an inquiry of the minister as to the operation of this legislation in a province where there is legislation along this line which is not province-wide. In my province the , Scott Act is in operation in some counties, and there is also-in operation in some parts of the province a measure which is not called a prohibitory measure-it is called the Liquor Act-but which contemplates licensing under certain conditions which are so onerous that they are practically pro-

hibitive. Would the provisions of my hon. friend's measure be operative in a province where there is not in existence a provincewide act; where there is no measure declaratory of the prohibition principle, though the measures in operation may be prohibitory in effect?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This Act would not
operate as regards transportation from one placS in the province into another place in the province. If a man sends liquor into a province which is only partially under prohibition, knowing that it is going to be taken into the prohibitory places or dealt with in the prohibitory places, I think he would come under the provisions of this Act. It is intended that he should, and I think the wording brings him under it. I have in contemplation, so far as transportation within the provinces is concerned, one or two small amendments to the Canada Temperance Act, which I will put in a separate Bill so that it may form part of the Canada Temperance Act. The purpose is to deal with transportation from places under the Canada Temperance Act into other parts of the provinces that may be under provincial law. The Canada Temperance Act already safeguards those portions of provinces that are under the Canada Temperance Act, but I propose extending that provision so as to make it, following the principle of this Bill, protect other portions of a province from the sending of liquor from those parts under the Canada Temperance Act to be used in violation of a provincial law.


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: When the liquor
comes in, in order to make the bringing in an offence under this Act, the knowledge to be possessed by the consignee is that the liquor is being imported for the purpose of being sold in contravention of the Act. Where you have no provincial legislation prohibiting the use of liquor as a beverage, it is open to the person who desires to do so to import liquor for his own use; this Act would not apply in such a case?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is proposed to protect the existing law, but not to make prohibitions against things which the province itself tolerates.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I desire to draw the minister's attention to a peculiar situation that has arisen in some counties in Ontario. The county of Perth has passed the Scott Act or Canada Temperance Act, which will come into force on the 1st of May next.
The Provincial Government are about putting through an Act which will come into force on the 16th of September. There will !be two prohibitory Acts, therefore, affecting the same county, and providing different pains and penalties for the same offence. I have been requested to ask the minister to consider legislation either repealing the Scott Act or postponing the operation of it in such a county until such time as the provincial legislation becomes effective.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As regards the two systems of legislation coming into effect in the same county, as I understand it, the fact that the Canada Temperance Act is in force in the county will exclude the applicability of any provincial law. Under the decisions of the Privy Council, holding that there was power in the Dominion to deal with the subject from its point of view and in the provinces to deal with it from their point of view, it. is recognized that where the Dominion Parliament exercises its power of legislation with regard to the subject, and where a law enacted by the Dominion Parliament is in force in any particular province, that law ousts the power of a Provincial Legislature and therefore excludes the application of provincial law. Applying that to the particular case mentioned, as I understand it, the proposed Ontario prohibition law will not be effective in these counties in Ontario in wdiich the Canada Temperance Act is in force, so that there will be no question of both laws being in force within the same territory. As to the suggestion that we should defer the application of the Canada Temperance Act in the particular county mentioned, I should be glad to give it consideration. But I would point out that the people to whom the matter was submitted to vote upon voted that the Canada Temperance Act should go into foroe on the first of May next. Acting upon that vote, as the Act provides, the Governor in Council issued a proclamation accordingly. At first glance, it seems to me that it would hardly be the proper thing, in face of that vote of the people of the county to have the Act come into force on the 1st of May next, for this Parliament to intervene and say that it should not come into force until a later period. There would be much force in the suggestion if the county were at some period to find itself under both laws, but, inasmuch as the Canada Temperance Act will remain in force in the county for the next three years,

if I remember rightly, I am not disposed to think, at all events without further consideration, that we should interfere to prevent the vote of the people taken under that Act from producing the effect provided for by that Act. I may say, however, as I said a few moments ago, that one or two little amendments will be made in another Bill relating to the Canada Temperance Act, and when we come to deal with that Bill, I will be glad to give consideration to what the hon. gentleman suggests.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: In this particular county you have created a peculiar anomaly. You have local option in .certain townships, the Scott Act for the whole county, provincial prohibition, and a Dominion Act in aid. What are the poor people to do with all these laws which have different provisions and different penalties? Are you going to burden them with five laws where one would do? It is said that the Ontario law will allow the sale of beer containing a certain percentage of intoxicant, so that you will have the anomaly of the province of Ontario being able, to sell beer-


George Eulas Foster: Except in a county under the Canada Temperance Act.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: 
Charles Joseph Doherty: I have said that I shall be glad to give it consideration.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-place of prosecution:


John Howard Sinclair: In my view this clause may lead to trouble. The minister is, of
course, aware that all kinds of devices will be resorted to evade the provisions of this Bill; that has been the experience in the past in regard to legislation of this nature. The provision here is that the prosecution for the offence may be brought and carried on-
-in the city, town or other place from which any intoxicating liquor is sent, shipped, taken or carried as aforesaid, or in the city, town or other place to or into which such intoxicating liquor is so sent, shipped, taken, brought, carried or imported.
It would be very easy to evade that section by shipping the liquor into some place where there was no court or magistrate. It might be sent to some point where there would not be any possibility of complying with this provision. I think it would be better to redraft that section. I think the insertion of the words "in the province" would cover the case. As the section stands just now, it does not, in my opinion, cover it. I have looked at the Inland Revenue Act, and I find the following language used there in regard to the place of prosecution:
Every offence against this Act shall be deemed to have been committed, and every cause or complaint under this Act, shall be deemed to have arisen either in the place in which it actually was committed or arose, or in any place in which the person charged or complained against happens to be.
That covers everything.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I doubt very much
whether, in any of our provinces, you will find a place which has no court having jurisdiction in that place, and if there be a court which has jurisdiction in that place, a prosecution may be brought before it. The word "place " was used-I bee it is used in the Inland Revenue Act-because it was thought to be general term that would apply to a city, town, village, parish or municipality. I notice that the only difference between the provision of this Bill and that in the Inland Revenue Act, is that, apparently, under the Inland Revenue Act a man can be prosecuted in one of two places, either at the place where the offence was actually committed, or at the place where the man himself is at the time of the prosecution. If that would meet the wishes of my horn, friend I would have no objection to add a third place. We have provided that a prosecution may be taken in the place from which the liquor is sent or in the place to which it is sent. I have no objection to adding-I think it might improve the section the words "or in the place at which the party accused is."
[Hr. Doherty.!

These are the words used in the Inland Revenue Act. If you used the words " in the province " you would leave it open to the people who want to prosecute to select any place within the province to which the accused sent the liquor. Some of our provinces are very large. If liquor were shipped to a point, say, on the Gaspe coast * where there was prohibition, the party wanting to prosecute would be entitled to take the man to any district in the province of Quebec which he might select. It seems to me that that would be a hardship and an unnecessary hardship. We provide that the prosecution may be brought in the place from which the man sent the liquor or in the place where the liquor is sent to I would be quite prepared to add " or in the place in which the party accused is," or " the party accused resides," or suitable words to provide that I may prosecute a man where I find him. I think that ought to meet every requirement. .


John Howard Sinclair: Does the minister say there is a choice under this section of prosecuting in either place? For- example, if a man sends liquor from Montreal to Prince Edward Island, have you the choice of prosecuting the offender either in Prince Edward Island or Montreal?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: As far as employees of the Intercolonial railway are concerned, there is ' a special provision that an employee who is liable under summary conviction for an offence shall be tried in the county or judicial district where the cause of action arises. Will not the minister require to consider that fact if he is going to make the right to prosecute applicable to both provinces? There is a definite provision in the Government Railways Act that a railway employee shall be tried for any offence in the judicial district where the offence happens.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think that provision will still stand where it is, but we are making a special provision providing some other place where he may likewise he tried if he commits a violation of this particular Act. We allow the general law to stand as it is, and we make a special provision that a man may, under this Act, be prosecuted in some other place. We are to that extent adding to the general provisions of the law. In effect, this gives, in addition to the place where the offence was committed, the option of trying a man at the place to which the
goods were sent. The words of the Intercolonial Railway Act are, in effect, that employees of the Intercolonial are to be tried in the jurisdiction in which the offence occurred.


John Howard Sinclair: Yes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This Act says you may try a man within the jurisdiction in which the offence occurred, at the place whence the goods wire sent, carried or brought, or you may try him in the place to which the goods were sent. We are giving this option to the prosecutor and thereby improving his position. It was mainly in view of the fact that we are dealing with the transmission of goods from one province into another, and the province most interested in the enforcement of this law is the province into which the goods are sent. The offence itself on the part of the sender of the goods is actually committed outside of the province into which the goods are sent and under the general rule the prosecution could not be in the province into which the goods are sent. To facilitate the enforcement of this law we have given the additional option to the party desiring to prosecute in order that he would not necessarily be called upon to go hunting his man, in so far as laying his prosecution is concerned, back to his own home but that he might be entitled to lay his charge at the court at the place to which the goods were sent. He remains free to go back to the place where the offence was committed if he thinks it more in his interests. In regard to an employee of the Intercolonial, he would be entitled to prosecute him at the place where he had committed the offence, or, in so far as this section may be applicable to the employee, to prosecute him at the place to which the goods have been brought. I am prepared to add, to give a further option " or at the place at which the accused resides."


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: Could the writ of a stipendiary magistrate in one province run so as to be effectively enforced in another province? For instance, in the case of a prosecution in my own province against a sender in Montreal, does the minister think that a summons having been served upon the defendant and his trial had, there is adequate means by which the penalty can be enforced? It involves a tremendous expense. Supposing a person in Halifax imported some liquor from a man in Montreal; a conviction is had, a warrant of dis-

tress has to be served or issued and returned before collection can take place, or before a sentence can be enforced by imprisonment. Who is the officer who can enforce the writ? Would it not necessarily be an officer in the province of (Nova Scotia who would have to get the warrant endorsed?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: That is a very expensive proceeding.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Therefore, the prosecutor might find it to be of greater advantage to go 'back and prosecute the man in the place where he has violated the Act. A man has to be prosecuted somewhere. If any other place can be suggested where it might be done more beneficially we might add that place too, but in every case you have to prosecute the man somewhere, and this being legislation intended to protect a province from violation of the law outside the province, there is no other way that I have been able to conceive than by providing for this prosecution in the province or outside of the province.


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: You are doing the best you can, but the best is not very good.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The best that we are doing in regard to this prosecution is the best that has been found possible in regard to the prosecution of any offence against a Dominion law. The Dominion happens to be big, people may- violate Dominion laws anywhere in the Dominion, and if they do it, as a general rule, you have to go and run aftelr them to the place where they did it, not merely for your final execution but even for your prosecution. This best of ours is the best that Parliament has found it possible to do in the general administration of the criminal law, plus the advantage, in cases where it may be. advantageous to prosecutors, of selecting for the prosecution the place where the goods were brought to instead of the place where the offence was committed.


William Findlay Maclean: Could you try a man at both places?
Mr.-DOHERTY: No; as I explained yesterday, a man cannot toe put upon his trial twice for the same offence. I leave it to my bon. friend from Pietou (Mr. Macdonald) to say if these inconveniences are not the inconveniences that attach to the prosecution of any criminal offence.
You cannot cook your hare until you catch him, and you cannot convict your

criminal until you find him. The Dominion is an immense territory; you have to go somewhere after the fellow that you accuse, and it is impossible to devise legislation by which the accused man can be brought to the door of everybody that would like to prosecute him; nor can you keep him there so that the officers of the law will not have to be sent after him if he is convicted. In the enforcement of the penalties of this legislation, there will be the same inconveniences to which the enforcement of the general law is subject in this territory, tout if hon. gentlemen who regret these inconveniences can devise any method that will make it easier to carry out the law in that respect, I shall be very glad to accept it.


George Ewan McCraney: Both the shipper and the receiver can be prosecuted?


Charles Joseph Doherty: You may prosecute both.


George Ewan McCraney: I think under those circumstances it is desirable to have the trial at the place of receipt. I think the amendment moved by the minister is the only thing.


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: Where the consignee lives at a great distance from the shipper, it will be practically impossible for the provincial authorities to enforce the law. No local authority would undertake the great expense involved .in carrying on a case a long way from home, when there was the risk of the defendant escaping conviction through .some technicality or through a substantial defence of the case. They would be put to an absurd expense in having the writs issued and executed, and bringing the offender from a long distance. This Bill is overburdened with its own weight, and is not going to bring about any results at all, unless the minister goes onb step further and provides that the federal authorities will enforce the law. The Bill will accomplish nothing if it is left to the municipal or provincial authorities to enforce it. As so many amendments have been made to the Bill, I think it should be reprinted before we go out of committee.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I fully intended to have that done so that every one could see how it looks with its amendments. I will have it reprinted before the third reading, at all .events, or we can keep the Bill in committee, if desired.


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: The understanding is, then, that the Bill will be reprinted before it leaves the committee.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. gentleman desires, I shall be very glad to do that. I 'beg to move that section 3 be amended by adding the following words, "or the place in which the accused resides."
Section, amended as proposed, agreed to.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the House took recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order:
Further consideration in Committee of the Whole of the following two Bills :
Bill No. S, An Act respecting the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Railway Company (as amended).-Mr. Morphy.
Bill No. 24, An Act respecting the Toronto, Niagara and Western Railway Company (as amended).-Mr. Morphy.
Mr. ROGERS'. Stand.
George Perry Graham: What is the policy of the Government in regard to these Bills?


Mr. ROGERS:: So far as I understand, the policy of the Government is that they are to go through.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that the Bill that has gone through to-day will be satisfactory to all interests concerned, and I do not think that the objections that have been raised will be raised again in connection with these Bills.


George Perry Graham: If the amendment to the Railway Act that has been put through today is to apply to these Bills you had better have it become law before these Bills are passed, because it is not retroactive.


John Dowsley Reid: Even if these Bills were put through, if the other one is sanctioned first it will be prior to these. We will take every precaution to see that it is assented to first.


George Perry Graham: My point is that the Bill amending the Railway Act has to go to the Senate and to pass that body before it becomes law. If you put these Bills through to-night they may become law before the other one does.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. Minister of Public Works said " stand " with reference to thoke Bills. We are not trying to rush them through.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: What agreement has
been reached on these private Bills?


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: Order. If the hon. gentleman will wait a few minutes, I think it will be .more in order to put the question when the motion is made to go into Committee of Supply.
Order stands.



CIVIL (SERVICE MESSENGERS.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion for Committee of Supply:
Mr. J. A. 0. ETHIER (Two Mountains): Mr. Speaker, in accordance with your ruling, before the House goes into Committee of Supply, I wish to call the attention of the Government to a question Which I consider of public interest, concerning complaints and grievances coming from a very worthy portion of the community, namely, the Civil Service messengers employed in the different departments of the Government. I wish to read a letter addressed to the editor of the Evening Journal and signed " Humanity," in regard to those grievances. The letter is headed, " Pictures Poverty of Government Messenger; Appeal to the Ministers," and says:
Editor Journal.-.Since a few years I have repeatedly read in the columns of the various English and French newspapers of this city, the complaints of the civil service messengers relating to their sufferings, owing to the insufficiency of their salary; but up to this day I had thought those complaints to be somewhat exaggerated, so much did I refuse to admit-and even to imagine that a Government could disregard a certain class of its servants so far as to treat them in such an injust and shameful manner.
One of those poor mesengers with whom I was conversing a few days ago made the relation of his miseries, pointing out the fact, that since 1910, the Government, as much under the Liberal Administration as under the Conservative, had been entreated by all possible means, either by deputations, by members in Parliament or through all the newspapers of this cib', to have pity on their sad condition and give them some relief. But they never paid any attention to their just solicitations.
Here is however, Mr. Editor, the situation, (related by himself) of that poor, wretched man and consequently that of all his colleagues, receiving the same salary as he:
" My salary is $500 a year, and as I had the misfbntune of having been ill in the course of the year, X have received much less than that to live with, during twelve months.
" I have been wearing the clothes with which I am clothed for three years and I have no better ones, and but for the close care of my wife, who is sewing and patching constantly you would see me in tatters. Tet those clothes bought on credit three years ago, are not all paid for.
" As long as I could get credit, the distress was less cruel, but now, the creditors seeing no
[Stage Direction]
indication of any rise in my salary, refuse to advance to me any more, and even despair to ever recover what I already owe them. As a consequence, I am forced to beg from my friends, my relatives and my neighbours to make up the deficit in the pressing needs of my household.
" I have my old octogenarian parents, to whose existence I am bound to contribute; I am deprived of the possibility to accomplish that sacred duty, and the poor old ones are suffering thereby.
" We are often prevented from going to mass on Sunday, owing to the lack of the required fee.
" I have to walk an average of fifteen miles every day to attend to my work and I cannot once dispose of five cents to take a car to allay my fatigue.
" I cannot, as every citizen is called upon, and Is bound to do, contribute to the various relief funds and to other charitable organizations, being myself a beggar; I cannot, in short, fulfil my obligations towards my religion, my family and the community-I am an outcast.
" In addition to my duties as messenger, I am compelled to work assiduously as a clerk, but I am not paid one cent for that extra work.
" My wife is sick and in constant suffering, since several months, and I can't provide any medical assistance to alleviate her painful condition.
" Oftentimes in cases of sickness in my family, the doctor whom I could call without having any ready cash for him, prescribed some medicines that I could not get for want of money, and I still have in my possession several prescriptions not filled, to testify to this assertion."
I then asked this man what would be the monthly cost for the strict necessaries of his family and here is the synopsis he prepared, and which I found very modest and without exaggeration:
Rent			 . .		00
Fuel			50
Groceries					00
Meat and fish		. . . . 10	00
Bread			75
Milk					96
Lighting		.. .'r 0	50
Church			50
Payment on furniture . .	... 5	00Sundries	. . . . 2	00$54	21Monthly salary	. . .. 41	66Deficit	. . . . $12	55
Now, this messenger has no children going to school, what can be the situation of the one, who, with such a salary, has three or four of an age to attend school?
Again, we must not forget the clothing, the shoes, the hats, the doctor and the medicines in case of sickness, and which are not mentioned in the above statement. Alas! If death should happen to strike at such a door, in what distressing condition would that family be situated ?	'
In what sad circumstances would this poor wretch leave his wife and children if he happened to die; his salary being insufficient to enable him to live, he is far less in a position to pay insurance premiums on his life, or contributions to any benefit societies.

And that is, Mr. Editor, the deed of a Government whose mission is to protect its subjects, a Government, having established a department to look after the welfare of the working classes in protecting them against the ambition and the injustice of the employers and contractors, and who itself turns a deaf ear to the lamentation and the pressing solicitations of its own functionaries, here in our Capital, in denying them, what they have so legitimately the right to claim: their living and nothing else.
What efficient performance of his duties can we expect from a half starved and half clad servant deprived of all indispensable comforts of living? Here I will protest most vigorously, not only in favour of the messenger, but in the name of the whole community, because the country cannot be getting the efficiency in the public service as it would get from well paid men, free of all moral and physical care.
This state of affairs is inconceivable, it is barbarous, and moreover it is a disgrace for the country, and especially when we consider that certain classes of the same service are so liberally paid and live so sumptuously.
Now come,, honourable ministers and members, stop for a moment and reflect, look from the midst of your abundance into that chilly and denuded home of your servant who is giv-mg all his time and all his intellectual and physical energy to the country, and if you have a soul and a conscience susceptible of compassion and equity, you will be eager to do justice and at the same time perform an act of humanity by granting to that neglected portion of civil employees a sufficient stipend to enable them to live and thus bring in the midst of those families, relief and happiness, peace and cheer, and you will be praised by all.
Thanking you, Mr. Editor,
I remain, with respect,
Humanity.
Evening Journal, Feb. IT, 1916.
I am informed that the Civil Service messengers who are employed permanently in the different departments receive a salary of $500 a year.
John Dowsley Reid: Under the law we cannot pay any more.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I only present the case
of the messengers as it is before the Government in the hope that the Government may look into their grievances and see if they cannot be remedied.


Mr. BRADBURY:: 
Robert Rogers: I have listened with attention to the remarks of the hon. member for Two Mountains. Under present circumstances, in view of existing conditions, I do not think that the messengers have very much to complain of. It is true that the law under which our messengers are engaged has been on the statute book for some time, and it provides that they shall be paid, in beginning, at the rate of $500 per annum. As my hon. friend well knows, no civil servant is taken on over the age of 36 years. Then, if an individual is not satisfied with the salary of $500 a year, of course he does not need to accept it. There are lots of applications for these various positions, and if individuals are so anxious for an increase of salary, they have an opportunity in various ways of securing that increase. To-day they can go, if they wish to do so, upon the farms in Western Canada, where they will get $40 a month and their board.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: They can enlist.


Robert Rogers: If they do not like working on Western farms they can enlist and become soldiers of the King, and as such they will get even more than that. So, in view of present conditions, I do not think my hon. friend has much to support his statement. But when normal conditions return no doubt there will be some force in the argument of my hon. friend. I quite agree that any individual worthy, of employment in the Civil Service should, be entitled to receive more than $500 a year, but at the present time I could not promise my hon. friend that any change can be made. He has made a statement which I do not think is correct-that the salaries of judges have been increased in certain provinces. In no case has an increase taken place.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I understood that a Bill was presented by the Minister of Justice, in which provision was made for an increase of salaries for the judges in the province of Saskatchewan.


Robert Rogers: The hon. gentleman is in error. The salaries of judges in the province of Saskatchewan were fixed to correspond with those of judges in sister provinces of western Canada, but there have been no increases in the salaries of judges. I do not see that I can hold out any hope to my hon. friend of increasing salaries, at all events during the continuation of the war. After that, when we have had a happy restoration of the peace which we hope will come in the near future, this will be a matter for consideration, and the Civil Service will receive all the consideration they are entitled to. But at present I cannot hold out any hope of a change.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
Hailways, chargeable to capital-Intercolonial railway, $5,161,173.
' Mr. GRAHAM:	There is one item,
" branch line-Sunnybrae to Mulgrave, $978,000." Apparently $22,000 has been spent. What is the condition of that line?
John Dowsley Reid: The length of this line is 93 IS miles. The object of the proposed railway is, first, to give transportation facilities to the central portion of Guysborough county, and to open up and develop this portion of the country; and, second, to construct a


John Howard Sinclair: When does the minister intend to build this railway?


John Dowsley Reid: Just as soon as financial conditions will admit of it, it is the intention of the Government to build this line.
Mr, SINCLAIR: I understood the minister to say that a certain amount had 'been spent out of last year's vote of 81,000,000. Will he say how it was spent?


John Dowsley Reid: I said that 822,000 had been spent during the past year in surveys and plans. These have been completed.


John Howard Sinclair: I have before me a return placed on the table some time ago in response to an order moved for by myself for a statement of the grosis expenditure for surveys in qonneetion with this branch railway since October, 1911, and the figure given is 840,132.70. Did any part of that come out of the Estimate of last year?


John Dowsley Reid: The $22,000 that was voted
last year was, I understand, part of the amount the hon. member has just stated.


John Howard Sinclair: The $22,000 was part of this $40,000 for surveys?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: At the time the change of Government took place a contract had been let for the construction of this railway. A million dollars had been voted prior to the change of Government; tenders had been called for, the contract executed, and $50,000 deposited by the contractor. The new Government saw fit to discontinue the construction of the railway. In the county of Halifax there was a similar branch; a similar amount was voted and a similar contract made. In that county the contract was allowed to stand, and the Government constructed the road. They cancelled the contract in the county of Guys-

borough. But there is one peculiar phase of the story. The year following the cancellation of the contract I inquired of the minister at that time when he intended to go on with the construction^ this road. He informed me that he would require to have a survey before he could do so. I pointed out to him that a careful survey had been made by the late Government and by the Government of Nova Scotia, that the plans and information were in his possession, and that it would not be necessary for him to expend any money in making a survey. He still insisted that it would be. necessary to have a survey made in order that he might find out from engineers in whom he had confidence whether or not the old survey was sufficient. In the following year I brought the matter up again, and the minister informed me on that occasion that after examining the plans filed in his office and consulting his engineers he had found that the information was so full and exact that if would not be necessary to make a survey until the time came to construct the road. That was the second year. In. the third and fourth years of the period during which this Government have had power they have continued to make surveys of that line; upon this work they have spent the large sum of $40,000, and they have not done any construction. According to the minister's own statement to me, this survey was unnecessary. I would like the acting minister to say why they went on with the survey and spent this 'large sum of money after the minister had stated to the House that it would be unnecessary to make any further survey of that line until the Government was prepared to go on with its construction.
IV^r. REID: There were a number of contracts that the Minister of Railways and Canals did stop until he got thoroughly acquainted with the situation and until he should decide whether to proceed with them or not. My hon. friend mentions the branch line in Halifax county; I suppose he refers to the Dartmouth and Deans branch. That the Minister of Railways and Canals decided to go ahead with, and it is about completed.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister say
why the department decided to go ahead with the Dartmouth branch and dispense with the Guysborough branch?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member surely
would not expect me to answer that. The Minister of Railways and Canals himself is

the only one who could answer that question.


George Perry Graham: That will be decided in council.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think so. The minister has, however, decided that the line mentioned in the Estimates is one that should be built; hehascontinuedthe amount in the Estimates, and has been proceeding with work in connection with it. Plans were made, as the hon. member states, and the contract was about to be awarded at the time the hon. minister took charge. Indeed, it may have been signed, for all I know. The contract was cancelled, and since that time the officials of the department, acting, I suppose, on the minister's advice, have been making further surveys, perhaps with a view to seeing if they could make any better line of location than that which had been laid out by those who made the original plans. The expenditure of the amount that the hon. member has stated, if it should turn out that a slight variation in the original plans would be desirable, might effect a great saving in the building of the road. However, it is quite plain to all of us that, though the railway has not yet been started, the amount is in the Estimates, and it is the intention to proceed with this work just as soon as financial conditions will permit.


William Pugsley: Is it the intention to spend this amount this year?


John Dowsley Reid: No, unless the war stops. If the hon. member could tell me that the war is going to stop this year, there are quite a number of these items that we would likely start with.


William Pugsley: How will that make a difference?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member knows that we are spending a million dollars, or nearly so, every day on the war. If the war stops that expenditure of a million a day stops also.


William Pugsley: But you are borrowing money for the war.


John Dowsley Reid: I admit that; but with the closing of the war the expenditure on war will cease, and then we shall be able or should be able to take up other expenditures in connection with items such as this that should be gone on with.


William Pugsley: The minister knows perfectly well that, although the war may be over in a year or two years or three years,
for a very considerable period of time after its conclusion there will be the utmost necessity of husbanding the resources of Canada for the purpose of paying interest upon the war expenditure, paying pensions, and making provision for returned soldiers and wounded and disabled soldiers. A number of years will pass before we can expect normal times to return. But this is what I want to say to the minister: If he does not intend to expend this amount this year, why put it in the Estimates? I think the minister, before we proceed any further with his Estimates, ought to give us a statement of what amount of this very large appropriation of $19,815,000 in the Department of Railways and Canals, chargeable to capital, it is intended to expend during the current year. I urge this upon the minister more especially for this reason: we have a statement from the Minister of Finance that in the Estimates of $189,000,000 there is included an amount of $29,000,000 which will not be required to be expended in the public service during the current year. In connection with the Post Office Department, the Interior Department, the Department of the Secretary of State, the Department of Mines, inquiries have been made, and the statement has been given to the committee that they intend to expend practically all the money which is contained in the Estimates. I would like to know how that $29,000,000 is arrived at. We come down at last to the two great spending departments, the Department of Railways and Canals and the Department of Public Works. Unless there can be a saving of $8,000,000 or $10,000,000 in each of these departments, it is manifest that the Minister of Finance, not intentionally, but unwittingly, I am bound to assume, misled this House and the people of this country. I think it is due to the Minister of Finance that the Acting Minister of Railways and Canals, having charge of this great spending department, should tell us frankly what amount of money in .these Estimates he thinks it will not be necessary to spend during the current year.


John Dowsley Reid: I have confidence in Canada, and I feel sure that after the war is over, and in spite of the expenditures that have been made, Canada will be able to continue, not only to pay off the war debt, but to proceed with the construction of public works that are necessary. Canada is a great country, and I do not think that we shall go broke because of the war. I believe that the people have confidence in



the country's resources and that they will expe'ct the Government to continue, if necessary, to borrow money in order to proceed with these great vorks. So far as this item is concerned-and I understand that it is with reference to it that my hon. friend asks for information-


William Pugsley: I am asking about all the Estimates.


John Dowsley Reid: If the war ends, as we all hope it will, at an early date, we will not have to borrow .$250,000,000. Perhaps the loan that we have made may carry us through the war, and if so, I think we should then proceed with the construction of the public works that we have undertaken. If the Minister of Finance can supply us with the money to go on, I would say that we should proceed with them as rapidly as possible. I cannot tell the hon. member how much of this amount we will spend, for the reason that, if the war should end within two or three months, and the Minister of Finance should be able to furnish the money, we would proceed to build whatever portion could be constructed with the money at our disposal. I do not think that the hon. member wants to strike the item out of the Estimates so that we would not be in a position to proceed to build a portion of a railway, which not only this Government desires to see built, but which 'he Government of which my hon. friend was a member intended should be proceeded with. We have included the amount in the Estimates in the hope that at an early date the war will be finished and that we may be able to proceed with the construction of the railway.


William Pugsley: Did my hon. friend give the Minister of Finance any information as to what amounts would not be required, in all probability, during the current year?


John Dowsley Reid: I submitted the Estimates to the Minister of Finance and told him that, if he could furnish the money, we wanted to go on with the works, but that if he could not furnish the money we would not proceed.


William Pugsley: With what items would you not proceed?


John Dowsley Reid: I will explain each item as we go along. So far as the item under consideration is concerned, if the Minister of Finance can furnish the money we will proceed with the work and spend the whole amount if necessary.
[Mr J D. Reid.]


William Pugsley: Does my hon. friend
know that the Minister of Finance told us that there are $29,000,000 in these Estimates which would not be required? Can the Acting Minister of Railways not see that unless that amount can be very largely saved from the two great spending departments, the Department of Railways and Canals and the Department of Public Works, the Minister of Finance has misled this House and the people of this country? What amount does the Acting Minister of Railways anticipate will be saved out of these Estimates, if the war should continue during the current year?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member knows that every session during which he has sat in this House a large portion of the Estimates submitted was not spent. There has not been a session, during the twenty-five years I have been here, in which the total amount of Estimates, as presented, was spent. In regard to the item under consideration, the hon. member will see .that we are asking for a revote of over $2,000,000 that were not spent last year, and the same thing applies to every item. The amounts placed in the Estimates are amounts which, it is estimated, will be spent, but unforeseen circumstances arise, and often it is not found necessary to spend the whole amount, or even a part of it. The Minister of Finance was perfectly justified in estimating that a certain amount of the Estimates, say $29,000,000, would not be spent, because never since Confederation has the total amount of Estimates been spent. The only answer I can give to my hon. friend is that the Minister of Finance based his Estimate on what had happened in previous years.


William Pugsley: Then the Minister of
Finance merely guessed it?


John Dowsley Reid: I said that he estimated it.


William Pugsley: Did the Minister of
Finance consult the acting Minister of Railways and Canals and go through these Estimates with him to ascertain what would likely be spent or what would not?


John Dowsley Reid: I think I answered that. The Minister of Finance asked me what amounts in these Estimates should be spent. My answer was that' we would spend them all if he could furnish the money. It all depends on whether the Minister of Finance can furnish the money.


William Pugsley: The Minister of Finance is taking very effective measures to raise

money by taxing the people of this country up to the hilt. Do I understand the Acting Minister of Railways and Canals to say that he informed the Minister of Finance that he really required all this money during the current year if it could be raised? Did he put it right up to the Minister of Finance to raise the money?


John Dowsley Reid: No. As I said a few moments ago, while the war is on, so far as the Department of Railways and Canals is concerned, we do not wish to embarrass the Minister of Finance by asking him to raise one dollar more than is necessary. We will hold all the works we can hold, and here is one that has not been started. I would not ask the Minister of Finance to raise money to enable us to proceed with this work while the war is on.


William Pugsley: That is getting a little nearer to what the Minister of Finance stated. This is one item, but it forms a small part of the $29,000,000 referred to by the Minister of Finance. Will the acting Minister of Railways and Canals tell us what amounts in his Estimates will be saved if the war continues during this year. I see no reasonable probability oi the war ending this year. We have heard statements in this House that when the war broke out some hon. members thought it would not last for six weeks. The hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) said that when he left for the front everybody thought it would be over within six weeks.
I must confess that I am not one of those who dreamed of anything of the kind. Of course, I read, as everybody else read, the interview thaA the hon. the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes) gave on his return from one of his many trips to the Old Country in which he stated that England, France and Russia need not worry because Canada could put the finishing touches on Germany without the assistance of these other countries. That might be a very good indication of this Government's view as to the rapidity with which the war could be brought to an end.


Mr. CROTHERS:: Some thought there
would not be any war at all.


William Pugsley: Even after the war
broke out. There must have been many in this country who thought there would be no war at all because we cannot find the slightest evidence of preparation being made for the war. Even gentlemen very high in the counsels of this Government 174J	.
were not aware that we could manufacture shells at the Arsenal at Quebec when the war broke out. Evidently they did not make any inquiry as to the feasibility of manufacturing munitions of war. I am-glad that the Acting Minister of Railways and Canals has gone that far, but without specifying any particular items, surely the acting minister has made up his mind as to what amounts in these Estimates can be saved provided the war should last during the coming year? It would enable us to find out what warrant the Minister of Finance had for making the statement that $29,000,000 or thereabouts of the various Estimates need not be expended.


John Dowsley Reid: I have not made any such
estimate as the hon. member suggests, but as we go along with each item I shall be very glad to explain it and give my opinion in regard to it. This is a new item; there has not been any work done under it as yet. As far as we are concerned I may say to the hon. gentleman that when the war broke out I was one of those who was under the impression that about six months would put an end to it.


William Pugsley: What did the minister
base that estimate on?


John Dowsley Reid: On newspaper items. There were many newspapers which took that view and I was of the same opinion. But I have changed my mind in regard to that matter like other hon. gentlemen and I am now of the opinion that the war may last some little time. We can only hope that the time may not be as long as many of us fear it may be. But I trust that the war will cease and that we will be able to proceed with this work.


William Pugsley: Of course the minister has made one statement which shows his hopefulness. He says that this country is not going to go broke and will be able to borrow money to go on with public works. Let me tell him that the members on this side of the House, and the people of the country generally, are not so much afraid that the country will go broke, to use his expression, because of the war, as because of the frightful extravagance of this Government. That is what causes great anxiety in the public mind in so far as the financial ability of the country to go on with these public works is concerned.


Mr. STEELE:: This is indeed a very large item, and it appears to me that, following up the policy that has been professed by

hon. gentlemen opposite, it is an item which might possibly be reduced without [DOT]any disadvantage to the country. I must confess that the remarks of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) to-night have appealed to me with increasing force. The speech -which he made seems to be increasing in effectiveness each time he utters it in the House, and to-night, in discussing this large item of $978,000, I am prepared to confess that it does appeal to me as an item which might at least be reduced by $900,000 which would be almost %gth of the amount in the Estimates which the Minister of Finance says is not likely to be spent. I simply rise to suggest to the hon. member for St. John that if he will move to strike out this item, either wholly or in part, I shall be very much inclined to support him.


William Pugsley: I will test my hon. friend in that. I would move that the eornmittee do not further consider the Estimates, but that you, - Mr. Chairman, leave the Chair and report to Mr. Speaker that the committee do not deem it desirable to further consider these Estimates until a reduction in the Estimates of the Department of Railways and Canals has been made by the amount of $1,000,000.


The CHAIRMAN:: I must point out to the hon. membeT that his motion is absolutely and entirely out of order. There is no such motion recognized in the procedure of any Parliament that I have ever heard of. The hon. gentleman can move that I leave the Chair, or that the item be reduced by a certain sum. Either of these courses is open to the hon. gentleman, but outside of that I do not know of any course that is open to him.


William Pugsley: Any motion which relates to the business that the committee has in hand is always in order. This committee may instruct you to make any report to the Speaker it chooses. My motion is that you be instructed to make a certain report to Mr. Speaker. You cannot, i't seems to me, declare the motion out of order, and, if you do, I will appeal from your decision under the rules of the House.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I still adhere to my decision.


William Pugsley: Then I appeal from your decision.


John Dowsley Reid: Does not the hon. member think that it is a loss of time to take this

vote? I think the hon. member should see his way clear to letting us get along with the Estimates. I am not objecting at all to the vote, but it seems to me a waste of time to take it.


William Pugsley: One cannot recognize
without a protest a ruling to the effect that this committee has not entire control of its own proceedings.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member has appealed from the ruling of the Chair, and it remains for me to report the circumstances to the Speaker of the House and for the- House to deal with it. Failing that, there is no discussion to be had on the matter at all.


William Pugsley: I appeal from your decision, Mr. Chairman.
The Speaker having resumed the Chair, the Chairman of the Committee reported as follows:
The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) having moved that the committee rise, and the Chairman be directed to report to Mr. Speaker that it is not deemed desirable further to consider the Estimates of the Department of Railways and Canals until a reduction has been made in such Estimates by the sum of $1,000,000, I ruled this motion out of order. Against my ruling, the hon. member for St. John appeals to the House.
Ruling confirmed.
The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.


John Howard Sinclair: I understood the minister to say that he would build this branch line this year if the Minister of Finance could furnish the money.


John Dowsley Reid: I said that while the war was on I would not ask the Minister of Finance for any'money for this railway, but that if the war ceased at any time during the present year, and the Minister of Finance could furnish us the money, we would proceed with it.


John Howard Sinclair: It would not be polite, and perhaps not parliamentary, to question the sincerity of my hon. friend, but I should like to remind him that when this Government came into power there was no scarcity of money to build this railway. If I remember rightly, there was about a $30,000,000 surplus at the time this contract was handed over to the present Administration; so it could not have been lack of money that prevented the

[DOT]construction of this branch line
9 p.m. in 1911 and the following years.
The Government at one time decided to strike out this item, and it disappeared from the Estimates for one or two years, but when an election was expected a year or so ago the item reappeared, and I cannot help feeling that its reappearance was a diplomatic move on the part of my hon. friend. Whether he really intends to build the road or not is a question, but judging from the conduct of the administration so far, they are not sincere in their professions about the construction of this line, and I cannot help thinking that the item was put back in the Estimates again, not in order that the road might be built, but for the purpose of influencing votes in that locality. My hon. friend need not think the people interested in this branch line will be convinced by his statement that it is want of money that has prevented its construction. I quite understand that money is not very plentiful at the present time, and I sympathize with the Minister of Finance so far as that is concerned. We have discussed this item several times, and I do not want to take up the time of the House in going over an old story again, but has the line been located?


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that the location has been made, and that the plans and profiles are ready.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the line touch Mul-grave?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: What other points on the tidal waters does it touch besides Mul-grave?


Mr.   R@: I have not the information before me, but the line runs from Sunny-brae to Mulgrave.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister has his
officers here. He should be able to give me that information.


John Dowsley Reid: I would have to have the
plan or profile to show that, and I have not that here. There will be some other items in the Estimates to be discussed later, and I will give my hon. friend the information he requires before they are passed.


John Howard Sinclair: I shall be obliged to
the minister if he will bring his plans and profiles with him, because I wish to obtain
certain information in regard to the exact location of the road.


John Dowsley Reid: I will do that.


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: In answer to an
Order of the House, the minister brought down a return which I have under my hand showing the proposed location of this road.
I am rather surprised to find my hon. friend attempting to delude the people of this country by advancing the idea that, because this item is in the Estimates, if the war is finished between now and next year, he will go on and build this railway. He knows very well that he cannot do anything of the kind; he knows that the financial obligations of the country at the present moment will not permit him to do it; and I fail to see why, knowing that the House knows that to be the case, he undertakes to tell us that. The evidence that the hon. gentleman- will not do anything has been pointed out by the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair). When the Government came into power in 1911 they found that not merely was this road provided for in the Estimates, but all the preliminaries had been arranged, tenders had been called for, and the contract was ready to be signed. My hon. friend and his friends at once proceeded to cut the amount out of the Estimates, and the matter was dropped. It is only now, with rumours of elections, that the minister proceeds to bring this item out of obscurity again and place it in the Estimates. The hon. minister should be frank about the matter, because he knows, as well as he knows anything, that if this war should come to an end in the coming summer, it will be absolutely impossible, in view of the financial obligations of the country, for the Government to undertake the construction of this road. Perhaps the hon. minister is not altogether to blame for deceiving the people as to the building of this road, because last summer, when we were having the doctrine of economy preached everywhere, the hon. gentleman who holds the position of Minister of Railways had troops of surveyors going through the country endeavouring to survey an entirely new line altogether, and one absolutely unnecessary and of no value except for political purposes in the county of Pictou. The people of that county have to-day in operation a branch line from the main line of the Intercolonial between Truro running to'Sunnybrae; but surveyors from my hon. friend's department travelled

through the country for the purpose of duplicating that line with a railway to cost $2,500,000 from Sunnybrae to Kempt Town. If that railway were constructed, the result would be to divert the whole of the trade from the business portion of the county of Pictou, to turn the people of Guysborough away from their natural industries in that county, and to deprive them of the railway connection for which they have long sought. I want to ask my hon. friend, if he has any intention in regard to this matter, if they go so far as to involve the construction of an additional line of railway from Sunnybrae to Mulgrave, and this other line which was proposed by his surveyors, running from Sunpybrae to Kempt Town.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member states that this Government is bringing this item down just before an election. Of course, hon. gentlemen opposite would not do such a thing; but in this very instance, when the election was on in 1911, they advertised this railway and signed the contract.


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: You cancelled the
contract.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. But the item was
brought down just before the election was on in Guysborough, for the sole purpose of influencing the people in that constituency.


John Howard Sinclair: I wish to correct my hon. ' friend. He will remember that the election preceding that of 1911 took place in 1908; that that meant that only three years of the existing Parliament had expired; that this item was placed in the Estimates at the opening of the session of 1911, early in the session, prior to the reciprocity agreement having been returned from Washington; that the survey had been made with a great deal of care and trouble, and that preparations had been made to construct the road. No person at the time that the item was placed in the Estimates thought that there would not be two years more of the existing Parliament. The reciprocity question had not arisen at the time. Therefore my hon. friend is mistaken in saying that the placing of the item in the Estimates had anything at. all to do with a prospective election. Matters, however, went along a little faster than we expected, and the result wias that during that session the House was dissolved and went to the country. That is the reason why the matter had the' appearance of being an election proceeding; but, as a matter of fact, it was not, and if the

reciprocity question had not come on for decision, the railroad would have been constructed and completed probably before the next election would have been held.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman states that the item appeared only in the Estimates of 1911.


John Howard Sinclair: I siay that, but the Estimates were made up prior to any one expecting an election to occur.


John Dowsley Reid: I differ from the hon. member, for this reason. The item was not in the Main Estimates of 1911; but when an election was supposed to be coming on it was brought down in the Supplementary Estimates on the last day of the session, and, that being the case, in my opinion, it was put in there with a view to carrying the hon. member's constituency.


John Howard Sinclair: My hon. friend is mistaken in that.


John Dowsley Reid: I am giving my understanding. If I am wrong, the hon. member will no douibt bring the matter to my attention again. Even if the item was in the Main Estimates, surely no Government would seriously make a survey for 100 miles of railway before they had any money to spend for surveys or plant until the item bad been passed by Parliament; and when a Government, within a day or two after the dissolution of Parliament, have plans and specifications for a railway made, and have tenders called for and in just before the election, no minister would be justified in awarding a contract. In this case the Minister of Railways, on assuming office, finding that the vote for this line had been passed by Parliament during the session that had closed two or three months prior to his coming into power, cancelled the contract and had a new survey made of the whole situation. Instead of coming down just before the election, he put this item in the Estimates two or three years ago. The only people in Canada who had any idea of an election at that time, so far as I know, were hon. gentlemen opposite. Surely the hon. gentleman did not expect' that we were going to have an election after we had been in power only two years. The facts show that a vote for this line was put in the Estimates in the dying days of the Parliament before the election of 1911, and that within two or three months thereafter tenders were called and contracts awarded. I would not

have mentioned this had not the hon. member for Pictou said that we put this item in the Estimates on account of an election coming on. Hon. gentlemen talk about putting an item in the Estimates just before an election, but I do not think there ever was another case quite equal to this.


John Howard Sinclair: My hon. friend is mistaken, as he will find out when he consults the records. On the question of surveys, also, my hon. friend is misinformed. A careful survey was made by the Government of Nova Scotia two years prior to the vote, and the plans and profiles were handed over to the Federal Government, as I understand it. There was no necessity for making another survey. The hon. gentleman must remember that the Musquodoboit road was in exactly the same position. The Government was able to construct that road upon the surveys made .at that time, and there was nothing wrong about them

the road was actually built on those surveys and is running to-day. The hon. gentleman says that this item was placed in the Estimates in 1911 after the late Government had decided to go to the country. But he will remember that no election was decided upon until July, and it must have been very early in the session, when that item was first put in the Estimates.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: Even admitting what
the hon. member for Guysborough says, that provision was made for this vote in the winter of 1911, the hon. gentleman will have some difficulty in persuading the people of Nova Scotia that it was not the desire to affect an election that prompted the vote. It is true that it was not generally known that a Dominion election would be held until some two months before polling took place. But there was a provincial election coming on. The Premier of Nova Scotia is a very cautious man and usually "takes the count " before appealing to the people. In 1911, his term of office expired in July, and the election had to come on in the month of June. It was with a view to that election that a great deal of this discussion about the Guysborough road took place. I do not think that my hon. friend from Guysborough will deny that it was a very live issue in the provincial campaign in June. So, even if the recollection of the hon. member is correct and this vote appeared first in the main Estimates instead of in the Supplementary Estimates, its purpose is very evident, particularly to those who knew the history of this movement. As a matter of fact, before every provincial election in Nova Scotia for the last fifteen or twenty years, there has been a very lively agitation for railway construction in this particular vicinity. In the election of 1906, about two weeks before polling day the contractors actually did begin work on the proposed railway. They turned out, I think, with three men and four wheelbarrows to construct the road. I am much pained that hon. gentlemen opposite should raise a protest against this item, particularly my hon. friemd from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) who represents a county very closely concerned. The good people of Pictou and Guysborough have been fooled and fooled and fooled for many years, in regard to this much-needed road. If there is one part of Nova Scotia that needs railway facilities more than another, it is this part; and I think that the holders of Nova Scotia seats particularly have very little to do to place even a straw in the way of the Minister of Railways carrying out this work. I was pained beyond measure that a gentleman who ought to have concern for the whole klaritime Provinces, the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), should deliberately delay this item and move that $1,000,000 be struck off the Estimates of the Minister of Railways and Canals. I can understand that hon. gentlemen opposite may have a desire for economy, may be anxious to curtain expenditures; but did it ever occur to them, I wonder, that a very practical way of economizing at this juncture would be minimizing speech-making? Do hon. gentlemen opposite realize that every day this Parliament is kept in session means added expense to the people of this country? We all enjoy hearing the member for St. John speak; we cannot but admire his flowing periods. But the people of this country are beginning to realize that this is a costly luxury. For every minute that the hon. gentleman speaks, the cost to the country is about $6. In the course of a session that is a considerable amount of money. Let him economize in this way. hut let the people of Guysborough have their railway. I know that the people of Guysborough and Pictou are patriotic; they do not expect to have a railway built while the war is on. They know that every dollar should be appropriated for the all-important task of beating the enemy. But they have the right to expect, and they do expect, that, as soon as the war is over, and our


William Pugsley: There is an item here,
$111,000, for a spur line to Courtenay bay. That was voted first in 1912-13, I think. Last year $112,000 was voted, $1,000 was expended, and now the minister is asking for $111,000. What was done under the vote granted in 1912-13?


John Dowsley Reid: Nothing has been spent of
the amount voted last year. The amount voted in 1913-14 was $135,000; the amount expended $1,257.35. In 1914-15 the amount voted was $134,000, and the amount expended $2,671.41. The amount voted in 1915-16 was $112,000, and the estimated expenditure during that year $1,000. So we have a revote of $111,000. The construction of the diversion to the Courtenay Bay branch will permit the abandonment of 0.68 miles of the present line, which contains many objectionable street crossings in the city of St. John. The proposed line will be free of all grade crossings and will give the Intercolonial Bailway control of the water front at this point. The amount asked to be revoted will cover the purchase of right of way and all expenses in connection therewith and include preparation of plans. The amount shown does not cover any construction work. The Courtenay bay work, of course, comes under the Public Works Department, and any discussion in connection with it should take place on the Estimates of that department. I have been in St. John only once, and I was around Courtenay bay; I remember the objectionable crossings at that point. The expenditure of this amount will

depend a great deal, I suppose, on how the work proceeds at Courtenay bay.


William Pugsley: When was the contract first voted for this work?


John Dowsley Reid: In 1913-14, $135,000.


William Pugsley: It was voted in 1913-14 and in 1914-15; it is now voted again. Practically nothing has been spent, I understand, except a few thousand dollars?


John Dowsley Reid: Very little.


William Pugsley: Why was the work not proceeded with in 1914?


John Dowsley Reid: I really am not in a position to give the hon. member that information. I take it for granted that the Courtenay bay work had not advanced sufficiently.


William Pugsley: That would not explain it.


John Dowsley Reid: I will get the hon. member
that information


William Pugsley: Many items have been
in the Estimates since one or two years before the war broke out and nothing has been done, so that it is no answer to say that these items must remain in the Estimates until the war is over. I make the same remark with regard to the spur at Courtenay bay as I do with regard to the branch line from Sunnybrae to Mulgrave. That amount was in the Estimates of 1911; the Government struck the amount out of the Estimates and then had it in in 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914. During these three years before the war broke out nothing whatever was done towards the building of that branch line. Therefore it will have very little effect with the people who are interested in this line for the hon. member for Annapolis to rise in his place and claim that we are in some way doing injury to the people of that section of Nova Scotia because we criticise the action of the Government in this respect. If any criticism has been made to-night it is of the delay on the part of the Government in proceeding with this necessary work. My motion that the committee rise', and that the Chairman report the views of the committee that $1,000,000 should 'be struck out of the Estimates was .aimed not at any particular item, 'but at all the Estimates of the Department of Eailways and Canals. If that motion had carried it would have meant the reduction of the minister's Estimates by at least $1,000,000. I think there could

well be a reduction of $3,000,000 or $4,000,000, perhaps a little more, without any injury to the public service.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member will see that the first vote was in the session of 1913-14, and that it was in 1914 that the war broke out, and there were rumours of war probably a month before that.


William Pugsley: The year 1913-14 ended on the 31st of March; therefore there would have been ample time to build that road previous to the outbreak of war. The approach to Courtenay bay, at the western side of the peninsula, where the sugar refinery is, and where a large number of wharves are located, is exceedingly dangerous. As the Minister _of Marine and Fisheries knows, the crossings at Haymar-ket square and City road are very dangerous. I am very sorry, indeed, that there has been so much delay in the construction of that sipur; I have never been able to understand why the delay has taken place. I hope the minister will be good enough to look up the papers and get me the information.


John Dowsley Reid: I realize that that is a very dangerous spot. I came round there myself one time, from that large piece of property that the Government owns, part of which is now the sugar refinery. The track runs around Courtenay bay right across the streets and near the houses; it is a very dangerous place and should be moved. I assure the hon. member that I will take that up with the management again and see why the delay has occurred -for the amount is not very large. I should ascertain the facts and be able to give them to the hon. member at another sitting.


William Pugsley: In that connection, I may say that there is no gate at the crossing of City Road, which is crossed by the present spur; there is no guard there, and, unless some precautions are taken, a dreadful accident will sooner or later occur. The new spur line would do away with the very great danger which exists now.


John Dowsley Reid: I am glad the horn member has mentioned that. I will draw attention to the matter.


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: What i6 the estimated length of the line from Sunnybrae to Mulgrave?


John Dowsley Reid: 93 miles. For the information of the hon. member for Guysborough,
I may say that I have here the item from the supplementary Estimates for the year ending March 31, 1912, as follows:
Towards the construction of a railway from a point on the Intercolonial railway at or near New Glasgow, in the county of Pictou, (or from Sunnybrae in the said county, in event of the branch line of railway to that place being acquired, as it may be under this appropriation) to the town of Guysborough, and from the said v line of railway at Cross Roads, Country Harbour, to the deep water of the said harbour, ?1,000,000.


John Howard Sinclair: When were those Estimates laid before the House?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not that information. The hon. gentleman would have to go to Hansard for it.	.


John Howard Sinclair: It is stated in this book that the date was March 31. _


John Dowsley Reid: No, those were the Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1912. The supplementary Estimates for the fiscal yeaT 1911-12 were laid before the House a day or two before the House prorogued. Therefore I say that that amount was submitted to Parliament in July, 1911, a day or two before prorogation.


John Howard Sinclair: My hon. friend is not
sure of that. There is no evidence of that in the book that he has submitted to me. I would like to know for certain, because I do not think that is true. They were not the final Supplementary Estimates; there were later Supplementary Estimates.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member knows that the Supplementary Estimates for the fiscal year are always brought down a few days before the House prorogues. The only difference between the hon. member and myself is that I say that the amount was in the Supplementary Estimates, ,and not in the main Estimates. It is a question whether they were brought down in July or a little earlier.


John Howard Sinclair: There need be no question about it; we can get at the truth.


John Dowsley Reid: Certainly, we can turn up
Hansard and see the date on which the Supplementary Estimates were submitted.


John Howard Sinclair: I will look it up and
inform my hon. friend.


John Dowsley Reid: I say that- they were not in the main Estimates, but in the Supplementary Estimates.


John Howard Sinclair: My recollection is that the particular Supplementary Estimates re-


John Dowsley Reid: When Supplementary Estimates are brought down, say for the fiscal year 1911-12, the heading reads:	" Supplementary Estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1912." But if he looks at those Supplementary Estimates he will see that they were headed, " Further Supplementary Estimates for the year 1911-12," which only proves my point that these Estimates were brought down after the House met in June, 1911. However, we will get the matter settled.


John Howard Sinclair: If my hon. friend will refer to the Estimates he has in mind he will find that further supplementary Estimates were brought down-a second supplementary Estimate and a third supplementary Estimate.


John Dowsley Reid: It does not make much difference.


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: It does not make much difference, but when the minister was trying to put over this little job he thought it would ibe interesting to make a digression and talk about what happened in 1911. He was only half right in regard to that, and it is just as well to know the facts. In the Estimates of 1911 two votes were submitted, one providing for the construction of a railway from Dartmouth to Musquodoboit, and the other providing for the construction of a line from Sunnybrae to Muligrave, in the county of Guys'borough, together with the proposition to take over the line of railway from Eureka to Sunnybrae. What took place? My hon. friend, the Acting Minister of Railways and Canals, is an old parliamentarian and a

very astute one, and he knows that he was quibbling. Long before the election of 1911 the Government of the day advertised for tenders in regard to these railways. Tenders were received and contracts for the line of railway from Musquodoboit to Dartmouth were awarded, as were also tenders for a portion of the line from Sunnybrae to Mulgrave, and the line from Sunnybrae to Eureka was taken over by the Government and became part of the Intercolonial. That was in the summer of 1911 and before the election, and there was no possible reason why it should have been taken over-and nobody knows that better than the acting minister himself-unless it was to form part of this extension. If it was not taken over for that purpose it was of no value. The present Government came into office in the autumn of 1911, and what did it do? In the constituency represented by the right hon. the Prime Minister it proceeded to build the line of railway upon an Estimate brought down. It does not make any difference whether it was in the first or second supplementary Estimates. This Government proceeded to build the railway, the contract for which had been let by their predecessors, and the railway is now constructed. That is what was done	in	one case. In the
other case, the case under discussion, they cancelled the contract which had been let by the previous Government, and actually tried to stop the taking o,ver of the line from Eureka to Sunnybrae. I made that statement in this House when the Minister of Railways was present, and he was unable to deny it. From that time to this all that my hon. friend and the Minister of Railways and Canals have done has been to send surveyors cavorting around the country and spending money among party heelers. They have not yet arrived at any conclusion. The survey upon which the contract was let for the road from Musquodoboit to Dartmouth was made by the Provincial Government and adopted by this Government, and the surveys for the line from Sunnybrae to Mulgrave were made in the same way, and tenders were called for on the basis of those surveys. My hon. friend knows that because one county was represented by the Prime Minister and the other by my hon. friend from Guysborough, the one got the railway and the other did not. Last year when the country was said to be calling in thunder tones for an election, my hon. friend put in the Estimates a vote for a

million dollars ill connection with this railway. The Government, knew very well when they put that vote in the Estimates that the condition of the finances of the country would not permit of the construction of the railway, and they know that to-day. It does strike me as peculiar that an hon. gentleman who has been so long in Parliament as my hon. friend, should have the audacity to come before this House and think that he can foil the people with the ridiculous pretence that this railway would be built this year if the war stopped. He knows that it is not so, and when he makes that statement to the House he knows it is not true. That is the situation with regard to the matter -and these are the facts. They cannot be questioned. Everybody know? that the Government is not going to build this line this y6ar, and the minister knows it. We have here an item for $978,000. What has become of the $22,000, the difference between that amount and the $1,000,000 which was voted last year? That is a question which I hope the acting minister will answer.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: My hon. friend will not succeed in getting this item carried by 'remarks of that kind; he will probably find that he will only prolong- the discussion. It is just as well that we should understand where we are in regard to this matter. Last year, while the Minister of Finance was talking economy, and all this hypocrisy was being paraded before the people of this country, my hon. friend and the Minister of Railways and Canals kept chasing up and down that part of the country corps of Surveyors fed by party heelers, and money was being spent gratuitously to help out the party. According to the return which I have here, this railway was to be 93 miles long, and it was to cost $51,200 per mile. The total cost was to be $4,653,060. Does any one believe that this Government is going to embark this year on an expenditure of $4,653,000, even if the war should stop next month? But they were not content with that hypocrisy. This return contains the report made to the engineer of construction in regard to another railway. I have already stated that the original proposal in regard to this matter involved the taking over of a line of railway from Eureka to Sunnybrae which is part of the Intercolonial railway. The
result is that traffic is now being carried on to Sunnybrae.


John Dowsley Reid: Is the line from Eureka to Sunnybrae about nine miles long?


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: Yes, it is part of the Intercolonial which is being operated. The hon. gentleman, notwithstanding his pretence of economy, proposes to continue the farce of keeping a band of surveyors travelling around the country to survey this line of railway that would parallel the line from Sunnybrae to Eureka. So we have a report dated November 15, 1915, on a projected line from Sunnybrae to Glengarry, which is as follows:
Projected location 0*6 per cent compensated grade-Sunnybrae to Glengarry.
Under this date are returned to you plan, profile and estimate. This is part of the Sunny-brae-Kempt Town proposed line. It connects at Sunnybrae with the 1915 location Mulgrave-Sunnybrae. The present returns include the adopted portions of several alternative routes which have been reported on, the latest revised projection and through chainage and mileage from Sunnybrae to Glengarry. At the latter place iit connects with the Glengarry-Kempt-Town projected location, separate returns for which are being made.
This- line is intended to carry the through traffic of the Mulgrave-Sunnybrae line which would otherwise have to be carried over the Sunnybrae subdivision to Perrona Junction, and thence over Mulgrave subdivision at increased distance, and requiring extensive grade revisions, as has been noted in reconnaisance reports. The country traversed is served indirectly by present lines, and any increase in local traffic offering would he due to increased facility in reaching the railroad.
That report is signed by L. H. Robinson, assistant engineer, and it is addressed to the enginer of construction, Moncton, N.B. The effect of this proposal which the department are making is that, through a new country from Sunnybrae to Glengarry, they propose to build a line of railway duplicating the existing line, a nice proposal to make when we have a debt of $800,000,000 or $900,000,000. The cost of this proposal, in addition to the $4,000,000 that I have already outlined, according to this estimate is $2,053,925. My hon. friend's proposal in regard to this matter involves a cost of something like $6,000,000. He has the nerve to ask this House and the country to suppose that he and his Government are going to be in a position to embark upon a $6,000,000 expenditure even if the war stops this year, more particularly in regard to this proposition costing $2,000,000 from Sunnybrae to Glengarry because my hon. friend is there going to

build an entirely unnecessary and unjustifiable piece of road. In the report the suggestion is made to build a tunnel through the mountains which will cost a large sum of money. This is an absolutely unnecessary and unjustifiable undertaking, the result of which would be that instead of the constituency of my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) 'being kept in ' touch with the industrial centres of eastern Nova Scotia, the minister is going to spend $2,000,000 to take the business away. He would deprive these industrial towns of the business which would naturally centre there on account of the construction of this new line. He would deprive New Glasgow' and Stellarton of their railway facilities and workshops and the advantages which they enjoy as railway centres. He would impose an expense upon the country which would be entirely unnecessary and unjustifiable and he would destroy existing conditions and discriminate against the industrial centres in eastern Nova Scotia. I want to know if my hon. friend intends to include as part of this Sunnyibrae line the extension from Sunnybrae to Glengarry. Is that part of the scheme which is to be initiated as a result of this vote? Does my hon. friend intend to carry out as part of his scheme of railway construction this totally unnecessary line of railway and to take away the traffic from these industrial centres as a natural consequence of this vote? Does he intend the Sunny-brae-Kempt Town line to be part of the' Sunnybrae-Mulgrave line?


John Dowsley Reid: There are several points that the hon. gentleman raised that I will touen upon as I go along. In the first place, the hon. member, I think from the way he made the statement, would lead the committee to believe that the Minister of Railways took over the Eureka branch-


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: No, the late Government did that.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, I was going to say that. The hon. member knows that the nine miles was taken over between nomination and election in 1911.


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: Not at all.


John Dowsley Reid: That is the information I have.


George Perry Graham: They were working at it for months and months.


John Dowsley Reid: Finally it was taken over.


George Perry Graham: They started searching the title in July.


John Dowsley Reid: But the title was completed at that time, and that portion of the railway was taken over by the late Government. There has been quite a lot said about plans. The local Government made the plans, and tenders were called. The local Government handed over the plans to the Dominion Government, and, of course, the Dominion Government having had the plans, we had to contract on the plans that weTe made by the local Government. The plans in connection with this railway were not handed over to the Dominion Government until 1912. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals took these plans from the local Government in that year. Therefore, if tenders were called on these plans, they were not then really the property of the Dominion Government.


John Howard Sinclair: How does my hon.
friend explain the Musquodoboit railway and the fact that the plans were prepared prior to the date of the vote? Were they* not prepared when this vote was brought down?


John Dowsley Reid: I am talking about the Sunnybrae road.


John Howard Sinclair: But these two roads went together, they were voted together, contracted for together, and they were expected to be built together. My .hon. friend found the Musquodoboit railway in such a forward condition that 'he was able to take it over without making any new plan. Why not the Sunnybrae line?


John Dowsley Reid: The Musquodoboit railway plans were taken over from the local Government and the work was proceeded with, but it had to be gone over again after the plans were taken over by the department.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the point about these plans?


John Dowsley Reid: Some Ron. members stated that the Dominion Government had the plans ready before the contract was awarded and prior to the present Government coming into power.


John Howard Sinclair: I stated that the local Government had made a very thorough survey a couple of years before this vote was taken.


John Dowsley Reid: My point is that those plans were not in the possession of the Dominion Government.


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: How were the tenders called for?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know. The minister had to send his officials and take over the plans in 1912.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister is misinformed. I saw the plans in the Railway office with my .own eyes, prior to the time this Estimate was brought down; very complete plans they were, too, showing the location of the Sunnybrae line all the way from Sunnybrae to Guysborough. There were some little difficulties at the west end that had not been settled, but the plans were there, and tenders had been asked for.


John Dowsley Reid: The plans may have been
there, but full details were not in the Railway Department.


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: Just as good plans
for the Sunnybrae road as for the Dartmouth road.


John Dowsley Reid: I am surry to see my hon.
friend from Pictou opposing this vote. Apparently he does not want us to build this road.


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: The minister and I
are both old parliamentarians and he need not begin that kind of tactics with me. I do not want that kind of thing, and my hon. friend might as well drop it right away. I am directly charging the minister with an attempt to deceive the House and the country by putting a vote in these Estimates when he knows he is not going to use a single dollar of it on construction this year.	*


John Dowsley Reid: I thought the hon. member was opposing the vote altogether. I cannot make any stronger statement than I have made with regard to the action of the department in this matter.


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: You know that what I am saying is correct.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If the minister will allow me to speak on a matter which, perhaps, it would have been better to bring up on a Levis item, I should like to draw his attention to certain damages that were caused at Levis some years ago, by the sparks from an engine of the Intercolonial. In order to refresh the memory of the'deputy
minister, whom I see sitting beside my hon friend, I will read the following questions which were asked on the 8th of June, 1915, by the hon. member for Levis, Mr. Bour-assa:
1.	Is there before the Government a report on the destruction of Mr. T. Paradis' sawmill and lumber yard at LSvis, P.Q. ?-A. Yes.
2.	Did the Government appoint a commissioner to report on that fire?-A. Yes.
3.	Who was the commissioner, and what did he report?-A. L. A. Audette. That the fire which destroyed the mill of Telesphore Paradis, at L,dvis, in the province of Quebec, on the 19th day of July, 1906, was, in his opinion, caused by sparks from a locomotive of the Intercolonial railway.
4.	What is the reason the Government does
not act upon the commissioner's report?-A. No amount for damages by said loss has been agreed upon.	.
5.	How much does the Department of Railways and Canals value Mr. Paradis' alleged damages at?-A. The department does not deem it advisable to state the estimate of the valuation of the loss while the matter remains in the present condition.
6 What is the reason Mr. Paradis' claim has not yet been settled?-A. Answered by No. 4.
Let me state briefly the facts of the case. First of all, I hold no brief from Mr. Paradis. He is an old political friend of the party at present in power, a well known gentleman of the Quebec district, who has been engaged in lumbering operations for the last fifty years. He is a highly respected lumberman of the old French-Canadian type. One evening on the 11th of July, 1906, a fire caused by the sparks from an engine of, I ibelieve, the Maritime express completely destroyed not only his mills and machinery, but also a wharf which he owned at Levis. Some time afterwards the old gentleman instituted proceedings in the Exchequer Court of Canada, and while his case was before the court a judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Chamberlain vs. the King, reported in the Supreme Court Reports, Volume 42, p. 350. In that case it was decided that to succeed the claimant's property had to be situated on the " Public Work "-on the right of way of the Intercolonial railway- a somewhat anomalous conclusion, which brought the following remarks from one of the judges:
With the policy of Parliament we have nothing to do. Our duty is simply to construe the language of the Act, and if that construction does not fully carry out the intention of Parliament, and if a wider and broader jurisdiction is desired to be given, the Act can easily be amended.
Now, this decision, which was given on appeal on October 20, 1909, actually put

Paradis out of court, but the Act in question was amended on April 8, 1910, by 9 Edward VII, Chapter 19, giving the Exchequer Court wider jurisdiction. If the poor old gentleman-he was a well-to-do business man until the fire, but that left him in rather poor oircum-
10	p.m. stances-had instituted proceedings under the Act as amended, he would have succeeded in his claim, but the new Act, unlike the taxation measures of the Minister of Finance, had no retroactive feature, and Mr. Paradis had to abandon his action as being out of court. He had only a moral claim against the department, and he was .left to the tender mercies of the old Government and of the present Government. I remember having seen him on several occasions in Ottawa, and it was rather a pitiable sight to see the venerable old gentleman absolutely ruined by that fire, and deprived, by one of those glorious uncertainties of the law, of all recourse against his majesty. I may say, however, that the present Government, on being remonstrated with and appealed to, decided at last to appoint a commissioner to investigate the causes of the fire, because at first it had been denied that the fire had been caused by the sparks from one of the locomotives of the Intercolonial railway. I have here the Order in Council appointing the commission, but I do not think it necessary to read it.


John Dowsley Reid: No, I remember the case quite well.	-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Justice Audette- and no better judge could be selected- was appointed as commissioner; he investigated the case, and, after having visited the place and having heard many witnesses, he made to the department a long report, in which he properly weighed the credibility of all the witnesses, and came to the conclusion that unquestionably the fire was caused by sparks emitted by a locomotive passing at about one o'clock in the morning, and that that fire had destroyed the buildings and property belonging to the claimant. Of course, the commissioner was not empowered to assess the. value of the buildings, nor to do anything but fix the responsibility for the fire, and the conclusion is that the responsibility rests with the Government. I make a strong appeal to the spirit of fair play of the hon. minister. As the judge of the Exchequer Court, the commissioner in this case, states very plainly in his report, if Mr. Paradis had instituted the proceedings after the judg-
[Mr. Lemleuxl
ment rendered by the Supreme Court, and after the Exchequer Court Act had been amended by the Parliament of Canada, he would certainly have succeeded, but he was the victim of the deficiencies of the law, and the judges on the bench criticised the law as it had been framed. Now that the Government is aware that Mr. Paradis was morally right in claiming from the Government the damages which he claimed, cannot the Government come to terms with him? As I have stated, the old gentleman is not a political friend of mine, but he is a friend of all those who come into contact with him. He is a gentleman of the old type, one of those who are to-day altogether too rare. I met him not very long ago and I said: " Are you still after [DOT]your claim?" " Well," he said, "I have lost nearly all hope, but certainly it seems to me that the 'Government ought to settle it." You have the Act which has been amended; you have the report of the commissioner, stating that the responsibility rests with the Government, that the fire was caused by sparks emitted by' one of tho locomotives of the Intercolonial raliway. Now the Government has only to say one more word or to proceed one step further, and it will satisfy this old gentleman, who is about to leave the world. In fact, I think Mr. Paradis is about seventy-five or seventy-seven years of age.


Mr. TURGEON:: He is seventy-eight.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Paradis had a splendid business; he was a member of the Board of Trade of Quebec; he has been reeve of the county of Lievis; he has on several occasions been asked to run as a candidate for this House, but he preferred to stay in business and did not enter the political arena. Let my hon friend look into the record, and, if die finds the facts as I have stated them to be correct, let him come to terms with Mir. Paradis. I am told, although I am not sure, that the old gentleman was offered an amount, but it was infinitesimal. I am quite sure that if any fair or reasonable offer is made to Mr. Paradis, his family will induce him to accept it. I leave the case with my hon. friend. I wanted to relate the facts just to refresh his memory and in order to give him an opportunity to do a good turn to a citizen who has a rightful claim against the Crown.


Mr. PAQUET:: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I am with one of the hon. member

for Rouville (Mi-. Lemieux) in liis expressions of sympathy relative to Mr. Paradis, who has suffered .severely through a fire started by a spark from a locomotive on the Intercolonial. I think I know how the fire started, anl I would be 'highly gratified if the hon. Minister of Railways could see his way to helping that gentleman. I trust' the minister will find some effective means of compensating that poor man for the losses incurred.
Mr. TURGEON-I am very well pleased that the hon. member for Rouville has drawn the attention of the House to that old claim of Mr. Paradis of Levis. He has stated the claim better than I can state it myself, especially so far as the law is concerned. I know the particulars of the case as far as any layman can know them. I know also the extent of the loss that this man has suffered, and I am aware that the department two or three years ago made him a small offer which he could not accept. I have seen the report of Mr. Justice Au-dette, the commissioner appointed to state whether or not the department was responsible for Mr. Paradis' loss by fire. Judge Audette, after taking full evidence, more than had been given before the Court of Exchequer, stated that there was not the least doubt that the department was responsible for setting the fire, as the fire originated through a defective system on the Intercolonial. I think the department acknowledged its responsibility by making an offer to Mr. Paradis, but it was too small according to that gentleman's estimate. So, he is asking the department to appoint a commissioner to assess the damage caused by the fire. When I was informed that the matter had been referred to Judge Audette, I was under the impression that he was empowered to estimate the loss, but, as the hon. member for Rouville has stated, Judge Audette was not allowed to do .more than to.state the cause of the loss. But, as it is clear that the department is responsible for causing the fire, I think a commissioner should be appointed, as requested, to assess the loss. I think it would be easy to come to an understanding, and I am confident that no member of the House would find fault with the decision of such a'commission.


John Dowsley Reid: I know a little about this claim, but, of course, not so much as the hon. minister himself. The case, as I understand it, stands in this way: a fire took place which destroyed Mr. Paradis'
property, and he laid a claim against the Government. The Minister of Railways of that time, the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), as is usual in such cases, referred the matter to the Exchequer Court. The decision of the court was, as the hon. member for Rouville has stated and Mr. Paradis lost his case.	.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The court held that it could not try the case.


John Dowsley Reid: At all. events, the decision of the court was that it had not full jurisdiction to proceed with the case. When we came into power, Mr. Paradis urged the present minister, Mr. Cochrane, to deal with the matter.	As to Mr. Paradis himself, I have met the old gentleman several times, and I agree with every word that the hon. member for Rouville has said. No finer old gentleman have I ever met than Mr. Paradis. I sympathize with him very much in his loss, and feel that he is deserving of consideration, even though it was decided that he could not recover under the law, as it stood at that time. Not being able to have the case disposed of through the courts, the Minister of Railways and Canals appointed Judge Audette to ascertain whether the fire originated in the way alleged or not. The report of Judge Audette has been read. The Minister of Railways and Canals, I think hon. members will agree, sympathized deeply with Mr. Paradis in his loss; otherwise, he would not have gone even as far as he did. He never realized that the claim of Mr. Paradis might make up such an amount as it did. If I remember correctly -and I have only my memory to trust to in this matter-Judge Audette decided, after hearing evidence, that the fire was started by a locomotive. Mr. Paradis asked the minister to pay him the amount of the loss, and the Minister of Railways, being anxious to come to some terms that would help Mr. Paradis in his great loss, offered him, I think, $10,000. Afterwards he offered him $13,000. I was acting for the Minister of Railways when he was in England, and I remember very well that appeal was made to* me to deal with the case. I was informed by the officials of the department that the Minister of Railways and Canals was making what seemed a reasonable offer, taking all the circumstances into consideration. If I remember well, Mr. Paradis claimed $56,000. Of course, I was only acting minister, but I was anxious to get the case settled, and so I made an offer

of $15,000-that is, I advanced the offeT $2,000, and, I was willing, and still am willing, to carry out that offer. I felt that for one in my position as acting minister, that was dealing very fairly with Mr. Paradis, after what had taken place up to that time. But Mr. Paradis would not accept tlxat amount, and so I had to ask him to wait until the minister himself returned. I cannot say what has taken place since that time. I was exceedingly anxious to get the matter closed up, and even if the minister had been here at the time, and I know that the Minister of Railways felt very well disposed towards Mr. Paradis. But the difference between Mr. Paradis and the department is so great, and, as it will be necessary, I presume, to ask Parliament to vote whatever sum is decided upon, I thought that the offer of $2,000 more than the minister had offered was a reasonable advance to be made by one in my position.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What has occurred
since?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think I ever spoke to the Minister of Railways and Canals about the matter. But I would have carried out the order I have made, and am ready to carry it out to-day. I am sure that the Minister of Railways and Canals will be glad to carry out anything I say in the matter. I could not tell the hon. member whether Mr. Paradis saw the minister after that date; at any rate, that is the way the matter stands. I was certainly only too anxious to help Mr. Paradis out. I think the hon. member will agree that the fact that he was offered $15,000 shows that the minister had a kindly feeling in the matter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I shall certainly bring
the attention of Mr. Paradis, when I see him, to the very kind remarks made by the acting minister.


John Dowsley Reid: I only mention that because I was under the impression that the hon. member did not know that any substantial offer had been made.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I was informed that a very small amount had been offered. I do not know the circumstances of this case well enough to say that Mr. Paradis was not justified in demanding a larger amount than that which was offered, but from the little that I know about the matter the offer made by the minister seems to be very fair, and I shall certainly call the attention of Mr. Paradis to that.


John Dowsley Reid: I want the hon. member to
say also to Mr. Paradis that I feel very sorry for him. I agree with every word the hon. member has said with regard to Mr. Paradis; he is one of the finest old gentlemen that I have ever met, and my heart was with him to do all I could. But, in a matter like this-he was out of court, as it were-I thought the offer made was fair.


Onésiphore Turgeon: The kind words of the
acting minister have convinced me that he should at once appoint a commissioner to make a valuation of the damage caused by the fire. As to the amount of $15,000, I have heard it mentioned before. I mentioned the matter to the Minister of Railways and Canals two years ago, and at that time he told me that he had offered Mr. Paradis about $12,000. The minister said also that he would be willing to add a few thousand dollars to that in order to effect a settlement. I happen to be related to Mr. Paradis; I am a cousin bf his. As the hon. member for Rouville says, he is a very good Conservative, and I have not been able during the last twenty years to convert him to the Liberal party, not even since his recent lose, which he attributes to the Conservative Government. I happened to visit Mr. Paradis a month or two before the fire, and I have since felt impressed that if anything that I saw there was destroyed by fire, $15,000 would certainly not cover half or, perhaps, one-quarter of the loss. I am inclined to believe that the $50,000 or $60,000 that Mr. Paradis claims is very near the amount of his loss. Of course, my knowledge is superficial. I do suggest that the acting minister should appoint a commissioner to ascertain the damage done by the fire. I do not believe that Mr. Paradis will accept $15,000 to-day any more than he did two years ago or a month or two ago when he was here last. However, I am thankful to the member for Rouville and to the Acting Minister of Railways for what they have said. I hope that the acting minister will put into concrete form the sentiments that he has expressed on behalf of Mr. Paradis.


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: A short time ago I moved for a return in regard to a proposed new bridge across the harbour of Pictou. The 'bridge which has been there for a long time is getting old and requires to be renewed. There has been under consideration for some time the construction of a new bridge crossing the harbour lower

down and completing what is known as the short line by giving close connection with New Glasgow and eastern Nova Scotia. I find in this return that another suggestion has been made in regard to the matter. The following is a memorandum dated December 2, 1915, from Mr. Brown, chief engineer,, to Mr. Gutelius:
The present Pictou harbour bridge between Loch Broom and Brown's Point on the line from Stellarton to Piotou and Oxford Junction (known as the short line) is about 4,000 feet long and consists of a through steel span and a draw span on pile foundations, the balance of the structure being pile bridge. The majority of piles in this structure are over 60 feet long, which length is necessary on account of the great depth of the mud at this point.
Extensive repairs have tbeen put on this structure in the past two or three years in order to maintain it until the question of grade revision east of Moncton was settled. The bridge is now in such a condition that it requires entire renewal. -
From the data which has been gathered it appears that this bridge will never become a part of the future low grade line, and owing to the high cost of construction of a new permanent bridge, which will run anywhere from $400,000 to $1,000,000 and to the high maintenance cost of such a large structure, it is recommended that a diversion of the line between Stellarton and Pictou be made around the western side of Pictou harbour. From a reconnaissance report which I now have it is estimated that this diversion can be made for approximately $400,000 on grades not exceeding those on the present short line. This diversion will increase the length by about five miles between Pictou and Stellarton, but will not materially affect the distance- between Stellarton or Pictou and Oxford Junction,
I also find in the return a formal recommendation signed by Mr. McGowan for an appropriation of $400,000 to cover the cost of construction of a diversion of the line between Stellarton, N.S., and Pictou, N.S., around the western side of Pictou harbour, so as to eliminate the reconstruction of Pictou harbour bridge. The recommendation says that survey is now being made, and gives the following as the necessity for the proposed work:
The existing bridge across Pictou harbour requires complete renewal. The cost of replacing same with a permanent bridge may run to $1,000,000, which will be greatly in excess of the cost of the diversion r.commended.
I hope that the acting minister will not proceed to spend any money in constructing a diversion of line such as is recommended here. A short time ago I referred to what was called the Sunnybrae and Kemptown line. I cannot conceive of that line being considered at all, unless for the purpose of diverting the through traffic between Sydney and Moncton down to Truro
instead of utilizing what has always been known as the short line, which was built by Sir Charles Tupper when he was Minister of Railways for the avowed purpose of establishing a line of railway which would give the shortest possible communication on the Intercolonial with Sydney and other eastern points. The bridge which at present crosses the harbour is old, but I think it can be repaired. The Liberal Government had in view the construction of this bridge across the harbour; I understand also that it was the view of the present minister that it should be proceeded with. I want to ask the acting minister not to proceed with the diversion; if he did, it would prevent the building of the bridge. I quite recognize the financial situation, but in my judgment the construction of that bridge would be an immense advantage to railway operation in eastern Nova Scotia-and the bridge and the bridge only should be built. The diversion would be a great blow to Pictou and eastern Nova Scotia, while the bridge would be the culmination of the short line connection between Oxford Junction and New Glasgow, and would enable the Railway Department to operate by the shortest* and most satisfactory route from Sydney to Moncton. It would appear as if an appropriation might be included in the Supplementary Estimates, but I think I voice the opinion of the people in my constituency when I suggest to the minister that no steps be taken to change the existing conditions until the world rights itself again, and the matter can be dealt with in a proper way. Any hasty or ill-considered action would penalize the people interested for all time to come, and would prevent the consummation of what has long been the aspiration of the people in that vicinity, the building of that bridge, and the consummation of a line of railway which would connect Sydney and New Glasgow and the coal and iron districts of Nova Scotia by the shortest route possible, not only with Moncton, but with all points west. 'Speaking in the interests of the people affected, and in the interests of the railway and of the country, I would therefore ask the minister to retain existing conditions until we are in a position to enable us to proceed with the work in a proper way and construct the 'bridge.


John Dowsley Reid: This is a very important matter, and one that requires a very great deal of eare before arriving at a final decision. In discussing it with Mr. Gutelius some



time ago, I understood that he had surveyors down there during the past year looking over the situation with the view of having it before him in the event of the minister deciding to go on with the work. But there is nothing in this Estimate for that work, and it is not the intention of th$ department to go on with any work of a permanent character during the present year, so far as changing the route ot building a new bridge is concerned. We may repair the old bridge, or do some work of that kind, but there is nothing in the Estimates'-


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: And there will not be?


John Dowsley Reid: And there will not be this year.


John Howard Sinclair: Reverting to the Guys-borough road, I am able to give the minister the correct date when the Estimate was submitted in 1911. The minister threw out an insinuation, which I do not think he intended ill ctt tlio Icite Government put $1,000,000 in the Estimates for this railway for political purposes. I questioned that statement, and pointed out to him that the matter was dealt with* before there was any idea of an election in 1911.. On looking up the Votes and Proceedings I find that the Estimate was submitted to the House on the 17th of May, 1911, and that on the 19th of May, two days later, $416,000 of the amount was voted.


Avard Longley Davidson: When that estimate
was submitted, was there not a provincial campaign in progress?


John Howard Sinclair: It had nothing whatever to do with ,a Provincial campaign. Everybody remembers that this was nearly three months before the dissolution of Parliament, whereas my hon. friend, the acting minister, stated that it was. only a few days before the dissolution, and just on the eve of the election that this vote was placed in the Estimates. I feel sure that, with his usual frankness, my hon. friend will admit that he was mistaken with regard to that matter. I also wish to express the view that if the acting minister desires to be economical during the war, he should refrain from spending large sums of money on useless surveys. I submit that the minister is open to criticism for spending from year to year, and especially during the war, large sums of money in going over old surveys of that route and making practically no improvement. There can be no good

reason for these large expenditures. I have a return showing that $40,132.70 have been spent during the past two years in surveying the Guysborough route. Over $10,000 of that amount was spent last year while the war was on, and I have a list of fifty men collected from various parts, from Montreal to Sydney, who were engaged on the survey. There were axemen and rodmen all the way from Campbellton, N.B., and from points further distant, working on that route. We have very good axemen in the county of Guysborough. It is a lumber country, and they would be glad to, get employment. But the department even imported the cook from Parrsboro, and the cookee was brought from abroad to cook for the men, who went tramping over my county spoiling the crops of the farmers, and doing no good to anybody. That is the way the minister spent part of the million dollars last year. I hope he will not repeat the performance, and go on surveying this road from year to year, but that he will start to build it. The acting
Vi o n iaaI AncmrnvQrl + V>
n nnaclinn nnl
amuotci tiuo liuij Ulio vv V.i	miv vjuoomuix j-' >-**-
by my hon. friend from Pietou as to whether he intended to have the road from Kemptown to Sunnybrae built. That road is to cost over $2,000,000, according to the estimate, and it would be interesting to know if any portion of the money we are voting now is to be expended on that branch.


John Dowsley Reid: I must apologise to my hon. friend from Pietou; I overlooked his question. There is nothing in the Estimates for that railway. This estimate is only for the line between Sunnybrae and Mulgrave. The construction of the other line referred to remains for future consideration by the Minister of Railways. The fact that it is not in these Estimates indicates that there is no intention to proceed with it in the meantime.
I am glad that the hon. member for Guysborough has got the date of the Estimate in 1911. I did not wish to do him any injustice, and, if the Estimate was submitted before the House adjourned in May, that is quite satisfactory. With reference to the matter of surveys and the importation of men into his constituency, my hon. friend knows that on the Government railway system we have Mr. Brown, the chief engiiieer, who keeps a staff of men who are used to surveying. These men go all over the Government railway system. They might be in his county ior a few weeks or months, and then they might be drafted to another part of the system. You cannot

change these men every day; it is necessary to have a staff who are used to the work, and it could hardly be expected that we should take men from the various constituencies and place them on the general surveying staff. It is sometimes charged against the Government that when a department employs a number of men in a particular constituency on a survey, or in connection with other work, they are employed* because they support the Government.


George Perry Graham: I guess that is true.


John Dowsley Reid: In this case the hon. member for Guysborough has shown that the Minister of Railways does not do that.


George Perry Graham: There are not many Tories in Guysborough.


Eugène Paquet: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, on the 9th of March last, the hon., the acting Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Reid) made a. general survey of the situation. He expressed his regret at having to inform the committee of the ilness of the Minister of Railways, who at present is unable to attend to the business of his department. I, for one, and I am sure, all my fellow members earnestly wish to see Hon. Mr. Cochrane recover promptly.
I am glad to hear that the Intercolonial is perfectly equipped to handle , all the freight that offers. The Government has been energetic in its endeavours to improve the Intercolonial to as near .perfection as possible, with the result that our national railway is now getting its full share of the export and import trade.
We are urging our farmers to increased production. They answer the call cheerfully and patriotically for the sake of the country's prosperity.
So as to improve our trading facilities and bring into closer contact constimer and producer, the Government has been attempting to bqild up and complete the country's railway system. Since 1912, the Government wisely have asked Parliament to provide large amounts towards securing to Quebec city such improvements as will make of it a national harbour. The city is the trading centre of Eastern Quebec. When it is thriving, there is prosperity in the district. That explains why we follow with close interest the works carried on in Quebec harbour, as they are bound to secure for us the development of our railways, our agriculture and our industries.
Across from my constituency is found the historic region of Charlevoix. In the
175*
interest of agriculture and trade Charlevoix should be connected to Quebec city by some railway. If the Quebec-Saguenay road were pushed to completion, it would be of great advantage to colonization, trade, industry and possibly winter navigation. The building of that road and the establishment of harbour facilities in the northeast section of the St. Lawrence would enable the country's import trade and the . exportation of Canadian wheat to be carried on almost, all the year round. Canada as a whole would share in the benefits derived from that great work. We ought to bend our best endeavours to the end of preventing our grain from ultimately reaching the elevators in American ports.
Of course we are handicapped by the absolute necessity for retrenchment in public expenditure, but nevertheless the building of a double road between Levis and Chaudiere, the Quebec bridge, the. workshops at St. Malo, the Levis dry dock, the new facilities provided by the Harbour Commission, the new grain elevator with a capacity of a million bushels, the car ferry, the building of terminals at Champlain market and of the Union station, will largely help to meet the requirements of the Transcontinental and put the city well on the way to pre-eminence.
The Minister of Railways claims that through trains will soon be running frofn Halifax to Winnipeg. I earnestly hope that he will be able to organize properly the line west of Quebec city; it is the best means of carrying out a colonizing scheme that will bring wealth to the country along the Transcontinental.
In November, 1914, the Government began to operate the Transcontinental between Levis and Moncton. Our people duly appreciate this great departure. The line runs from Levis to Mbnk, a divisional point in the county of L'Islet. On the 5th of April last, it was stated that the trains on the Transcontinental made only 13 to 15 miles an hour. The statement is incorrect. The distance between Levis and Monk is 112 miles and the train runs at the rate of 25 miles an hour. I do not think there has been a .single serious accident on that section of the line. For a few weeks the service was somewhat defective, but the severe snowstorms we had blocked the traffic on the best equipped roads.
I know that the Postmaster General has under consideration the mail service between Levis and Monk. I wish to urge updn the hon. the Minister of Railways the necessity of putting postal cars on the line

so as to give the district a better mail service.
Now I may be allowed a few remarks on the question of the use of the French language on the Intercolonial and Transcontinental. On the 28th of February last, 1 intended to speak in favour of the resolution of the hon. member for Kimouski (Mr. Boulay) regarding the use of French on the Intercolonial and in the Civil Service. After stating that I supported the resolution, I moved the adjournment of [DOT] the debate because the storm had prevented the Minister of Railways from reaching Ottawa. For that act of courtesy, I was taken severely to task. A parliamentary correspondent who criticised me in his paper, published at Fraserville, was at his seat in the House when I moved the adjournment of the debate. Why did he not speak against the motion? Why did he state in his paper that' the resolution of the hon. member for Rimouski was perhaps untimely? Why did not the French-Canadian members,
i	[DOT] _	11- .	nn/vimnl' +V*o+ fVio
who were in me aauuoc, iciiucnt debate go on?
On March 9 and 31, while the estimates of the Intercolonial and Transcontinental were under discussion, our opponents had a grand opportunity to stand up for the rights of our language and our people. They sat still. During Sir Wilfrid Laurier's administration, the same system was followed, and the House never heard any protest from them.
Last fall, the " Progres du Golfe " had. a stirring article on the absence of French in the management of the Intercolonial. The author complained, and rightly so, that the French people were unfairly, discriminated against on that road. Between Mont-Joli and Campbellton the section is 105 miles long, 92 miles of which are in Quebec. The residents all along the section are French-speaking; yet the higher officials do' not speak our language. Mr. Price was superintendent of the Moncton-Mont-Joli division, where the great majority of the people are French-speaking. After his death, the hon. member for Rimouski made strenuous endeavours to have a 'French-speaking superintendent appointed. I also asked the minister to give the late Mr. Price's position to one of our race. In so doing, I was simply asking that there be righted a wrong which we have been suffering since the Intercolonial was built.
In the superintendent's office at Camp-belton, there are 55 employees, of whom 50 are English-speaking Canadians and five are French-speaking. At Moncton, 26 of

the higher officials are of English nationality, and there is only one French-Canadian. In a French-Canadian town, where the Intercolonial has a large staff, the application of an educated young man was turned down because he had not a perfect knowledge of English shorthand.
The French people of Quebec and the m Maritime Provinces have paid rates for the building, maintenance and improvements of the Intercolonial. They contribute considerably to the earnings of the road, and aTe entitled to a fair representation among the higher officials of that national railway.
In November, 1914, the management of the Transcontinental appointed as assistant superintendent at Monk, a division in the county of L'Islet, an official who could not speak a word of French. After vigorous protests, we secured the appointment of a French-speaking assistant superintendent. After the demise of Mr. Dion, the management appointed a man who was familiar with both official languages.
Lately, changes have been made in the management of the Transcontinental, and the assistant superintendent of our section is located at Edmundsten. That official cannot speak our language, although every day he has to deal with French-speaking employees and French-speaking people. I must register a most vigorous protest against that appointment. At the same time, I ask the Minister of Railways to heed the French-speaking people's request for a higher official of their own; let the minister put his name to a reform which after all is but an act of justice.
Mr. Gorrie, the superintendent of the Transcontinental at Quebec, could not speak a word of French; he has been replaced by a French-Canadian who speaks the two official languages of the country. In this appointment, the Minister of Railways has done his duty, and I feel most thankful to him. I congratulate him on having thus dealt fairly by Quebec city and our race.
On the 28th of February last, the hon. member for Rimouski, at the close of his address in this House, exclaimed:	" If
justice is to be denied us, let us be told frankly; the province of Quebec is then prepared to secede from the rest of Confederation." My hon. friend wishes to come to the rescue of the Ontario minoriy. He wishes to uphold the rights of our compatriots in all the provinces of Confederation. How could he defend the minority if the province of Quebec should secede from the Dominion?
The French-Canadians are loyal British
, APRIL 11, 1916
subjects. They do not dream of annexation to the United States, nor are they scheming for political independence. We hope to have justice by placing our grievances at the foot of the Throne. To-morrow, as at the most trying epochs of our national history, we shall find allies and friends in both Britain and Canada. There -will be found in the Dominion men of the calibre of Messrs. Cameron and Pope' willing and able to help in our struggle for our most sacred rights.
To-day, as in the past, the French-Cana-dians are doing their duty towards Canada and the empire.
My words are not instigated by any ill-feeling when I .ask the hon. the Minister of Railways to do justice by the province of Quebec and by the French race which inhabits that great province as well as many important centres in the several Canadian provinces. I appeal for justice for the sake of our past, and our traditions, and as a necessary means to the harmony and progress of the Canadian people.


Mr. LOGGIE:: We have listened for about three hours to matters concerning the construction of railways, and now for a few minutes I wish to speak about the destruction of railways. Some thirty years ago a railway was constructed between Chatham and Fredericton. In order that members of the committee may follow me, let me briefly give the history of the line in question. The Intercolonial trunk line was opened in 1875, and soon after-
11	p.m. wards a branch line was built from Chatham to tap the main line at Chatham Junction. A few years later a project was brought forward for the construction of a line from Chatham Junction to Fredericton.
A charter was granted by the provincial Government for the construction of this line. There was some difference of opinion as to where it should tap the main line. The Hon. Peter Mitchell, then the respected member for my county in the House of Commons, strongly urged upon the Government that the line should tap the main line on the north side of the southwest branch of the Miramichi river at Derby Junction. The charterers, however, who got the right to construct the railway, instead of building it to tap the main line on the north side of the river, decided to construct it to tap tihe main line at Chatham Junction and thus* connect with the railway that ran into Chatham. That proposition was opposed by the Hon. Peter
Mitchell, who was able to induce the Dominion Government to build a short line from Derby Junction, some twelve miles up the river on the north side to what is known as Indiantown, and this was operated by the Railway Department for a number of years and known as the Indiantown branch of the Intercolonial, the train leaving Newcastle every evening and returning .to Newcastle the following morning. About the same time the line was completed from Fredericton to Chatham Junction, and then it was amalgamated with the line from Chatham Junction into Chatham, and eventually was known as the Canada Eastern railway owned by 'the Alexander Gibson Manufacturing Company. The road was later on extended on to Loggieville and a loop or diversion was made by Nelson.
About twelve years ago the Dominion Government purchased this line from the Alexander Gibson Manufacturing Company for in round figures about three-quarters of a million dollars, and undertook the operation of the line between Fredericton and Loggieville on the south side of the Miramichi river. The Government had all along operated a short line on the north side of the river. After the Government purchased this road from the Alexander Gibson Manufacturing Company, they put in working order a missing link of some five miles between Blackville and Indiantown. and so they operated the road from Newcastle to Blackville instead of to Indiantown. The committee will understand that the road operated into Chatham runs down	on the	south	side of the
river.	What I assert is that . residents on the south side of the river had. rights and privileges that no person could lightly take away from them. Their farms were taken and segregated. They received, it may be true, a small pittance for the right of way through their farms. This may have been paid or it may not, because, if the owner did not in a very short time accept the offer, his. claim went out of date, and I am not sure * whether they all received the pittance for the right of way or not. At any rate, their farms were segregated; the road was constructed and was operated for some thirty years, and the Government then came to the conclusion that they would not operate a portion of the line, that is to say, the line between Blackville and Chatham Junction, namely, sixteen miles. Instead of operating their line on the south side of the river, they

decided to run all their trains down the north side of the river and to take up the rails on the south side of the river, thus leaving the roadbed without rails and the residents without . the railway privileges that they had enjoyed, nay, more, that they had paid for, because the local government which granted the charter for this road subsidized it and the money of these residents went into the construction of that piece of railway. If a railway corporation owned the railway on each side of the river, the one being 'only 16 miles long and other 125 miles between Fredericton and Loggie-ville, and they said to the Railway Commission: "We want to cease operating that piece of road on the south side of the river," what would the Railway Commission say? They would say: " These people have vested rights, and you must not take away from them the railway privileges that they have paid for and that they have enjoyed for upwards of a quarter of a century." Now, I have said that if these two pieces of road were owned by a railway corporation, the Crown would step in and interfere with any attempt on their part to cease operating a portion of the railway on either side of the river. Yet, on the .principle that the King can do no harm, and that the King will not allow any ohe else to do any harm, what does the King do? The King steps in and robs one hundred people of their vested rights.


George Perry Graham: Who acts for the King?


William Stewart Loggie: The Governor General in Council-the Government of the day. I charge that the Government of the day have robbed 100 people in my county of rights and privileges that they have enjoyed for the last thirty years and without giving them any compensation whatever. I will not say that they did not attempt to give some salve that would perhaps heal the wound more or less, because what did they do? They actually ordered a survey for the construction of one bridge or more across the river so that the residents on the south side of the river might have an approach to the railway that they were operating on the north side.
And this is as far as compensation has gone -simply a survey for the bridge and a promise from the acting minister in 1914 that the bridge would be built. I want to have a heart-to-heart talk with the acting minister as to his promise, and as to the necessity of constructing these bridges, so
[Mr. Loggie.l
that the families so adversely affected may have an approach to the railway from the south side of the river. One hundred families have been ruthlessly robbed of their vested rights and privileges. Their farms have been used for right of way, and to-day it is necessary for them to keep up fences on each side of the road-bed. And their own money helped to construct the road, because the Provincial Government gave the subsidy to them. In the name of fair play, why is it necessary to allow this ugly scar, if I may so express myself, to remain? Will not the acting minister instruct the general manager to take this matter up once more and see if he cannot find a way to relieve the situation. Let the acting minister, or the deputy minister, or the general manager, visit the locality and see there the road-bed with the iron rails taken from it, and find out how it has adversely affected the people in that district. Let him come down there at this time, when the river will be almost a rapid, when it must be practi-eally impossible to gst across, even. in. 3. canoe; and yet families that have enjoyed railway facilities are now deprived of them. This committee has 'been talking for three hours about additional railway facilities, yet you take up the rails, and refuse to operate a piece of railway because you have the power in your own hands to do so, because, as you say, the King can do no harm. But the King would not allow anybody else to do what he himself has done in this case.


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: The King can do no wrong.


William Stewart Loggie: This .Government has a
power and exercises it unfairly.


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: The King did wrong.


William Stewart Loggie: Did wrong-a gross wrong; robbed a hundred families of their rights and privileges.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Stewart Loggie: Now, I want to show what the acting minister had to say on this subject last year. I want to give about the only answer the minister gave last year for not operating the railway. These were his words:
But the fact remained that there was not enough traffic on the road to justify its operation.
That is the excuse for robbing these families of their railway privileges. I had the honour of telling the minster that a survey was made of the river. I think, the

year before, but the minister, in replying to me on that point, said:
I know nothing of surveys having been made, as the hon. gentleman says they were, but perhaps the work was done when I was away, and therefore I cannot contradict my hon, friend. It is the province that should move in the matter, and not this Government, and if the province sees its way to undertake any bridges which this Government might assist them in, I shall be glad to hear representations from the province in that respect.
As I understand it-and it has been published in the local press-the representatives of the Provincial Government claim that the Dominion Government should construct these bridges. Here we have the Dominion Government putting it, as it were, on the Provincial Government, and the Provincial Government saying it is up to the Dominon Government. And all the time these families are suffering. If this sort of thing were to go on, it would look to me as if these people were to be penalized for all time. It is a case to which, I think, the acting minister should give his best attention. Let me state what the acting minister said. I had this matter up with him two years ago, and here are his words:
Bridges are now being built across the river, or it is intended to build them.
The survey made in the meantime, or prior to that time, I am not sure which, and not one further step that I know of has been taken. Then the acting minister said as follows:
Is it not reasonable that before final action is taken, the Minister of Railways and Canals should discuss the matter with the Provincial Government, and see what is advisable to be done, whether this Government or the Provincial Government should build the bridges and where they should be located. That is the reason why it is very difficult for me to give definite information upon the matter or to arrive at a final decision.
This was on the 9th of June, 1914.


John Dowsley Reid: That is exactly what I remember saying. But I think the hon. gentleman read, a little before that, that the bridges were being built.


William Stewart Loggie: That is what you said prior to that.


John Dowsley Reid: It was not the same day?,


William Stewart Loggie: No. I said:
The minister on Friday last said-
And then are the words I have already read.	,


John Dowsley Reid: I think I got the information and gave it to the hon. member the following day.


William Stewart Loggie: The truth of the position is that the Acting Minister of Railways practically asked for a little breathing time that he might take this matter up with the Provincial Government, and that these bridges would be constructed. And yet, in spite of all that, and in spite of the grievance these people have-


Hugh Boulton Morphy: And in spite of the war-


William Stewart Loggie: -and in spite of the war, if you like, nothing has been done. I have no doubt, though I cannot recall at the moment, that sons of these men are at the front giving their blood for the sake of country and home. And yet the King, who can do no wrong, has inflicted a wound that will not be quickly healed. The time has come when the acting minister should take measures to redeem what was considered, at any rate, a pledge that these bridges should be constructed and access given to the railway on the north side of the river for the residents who are so aggrieved.


George Perry Graham: He is an acting minister who does not act.


William Stewart Loggie: Now that the matter has been brought to his attention, I hope that he will take it in hand. The minister used these words:
The opinion I have from parties in that section of the country is that with a little bridge or two across the river they would really be better situated than with the road they had, owing to its being impossible to operate heavy trains and heavy engines on account of the bridges. I have not seen much opposition to the present scheme.
I invite the acting minister to hold a meeting in that district and find out whether there was opposition to that scheme. I say that the action that has been taken has -much interfered with the prosperity of the farmers in that district. We talk about economic waste, but it seems to me that this is a case where the minister could avoid economic waste. Indeed, he could have quite the opposite; he could help these people to build up what is more or less a shattered home because of their rights having been taken away from them by the King, who can do no wrong. Of course, the Government are responsible for what the King does in this regard. We hold the Government responsible, and we hope that they will fully discharge their duties and responsibilities.	[DOT]


George Perry Graham: Is the claim of M. E.
Keefe an old claim?


John Dowsley Reid: This is to cover amount of
an arbitration award to M. E. Keefe Construction Company, Limited, for full settlement of claims for extras on their contract for the construction of Willow Park engine house, machine shop, etc., at Halifax, dated December 20,	1906.
With reference to what the member for Northumberland has said, I may say that I stated the position of this matter when I took it up two years ago. Since that time, when the minister took charge of this department, the matter has been in his hands and I have not had anything further to do with it up to the present. When the hon. member brought the matter up last session, the minister said that he took up the rails of the road because there was not sufficient traffic to justify its being continued. If I remember correctly, the road had not been operating for some time prior to the taking up of the rails, on account of bridges being destroyed. I do not see that I am in a position to give the hon. member much information. When the hon. gentleman brought the matter up last session, the minister, no doubt, went into the matter thoroughly. All I can say is that I shall bring the matter to the minister's attention again. I do not think that the hon. gentleman could ask me to assume the responsibility of taking any further action, particularly in view of the fact that it is hoped that the minister will take charge of his department within the next few weeks.


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: When the minister made his statement to the House on March 9, he showed that during the past year the Intercolonial railway had a surplus on operation of over $2,000,000. Out of that amount there was diverted for renewal of equipment account, $600,000; rail renewal account, $400,000; fire renewal account, $100,000. The other $1,000,000 has been put into the general treasury of the Dominion, and the result is that at the present time the railway is sadly in need of proper equipment, which should have been* provided out of the money which the people who live along the line of the Intercolonial gave when they paid their railway fares, freight and other charges connected with the operation of the road. The minister has had various questions put to him during the last week or two with regard to the reasons for the embargo that has been placed* upon freight o*n the Intercolonial. I received a letter to-day from a prominent merchant who said that it took from thirty

to forty days now to bring ordinary staple goods from Montreal to points in the Maritime Provinces. Besides the serious inconvenience to business caused by this condition, drafts were being made and liabilities incurred while the merchants were unable to get the goods in reasonable time. I have also a complaint from farmers' organizations in Nova Scotia to the effect that an embargo has 'been* placed by the railway officials upon the hauling of fertilizer from the fertilizer works in Sydney. This is the season of the year when fertilizer is required, hut it is impossible to get the Intercolonial railway to haul it from Sydney. This is stated by reputable people who are interested in the farming industry. Of course, my hon. friend, while he assumes responsibility for the minister, is not able to tell us why this policy was adopted. Why did the minister take $1,000,000 and turn it into the general revenue of the country when equipment was needed? The difficulties on the Intercolonial have not occurred because of the boys going to the front. That is not the reason. A certain number of trains are being run. for military purposes, but the trouble is that* there is not sufficient equipment on the Intercolonial to-day. There is not sufficient engine power, and the consequence is that the business interests of the Maritime Provinces are being seriously interfered with. If, when it was known that a large surplus was to be available, the minister had provided for a large number of new engines and new cars, the conditions which exist tQ-day would not have arisen. I think we are entitled to an explanation from the acting minister as - to why these conditions were permitted to arise.
There is another point. In the town of Trenton, which is the home of the Nova Scotia steel industry and of kindred industries, and one of the busiest manufacturing centres on the Intercolonial railway, a new station was required, and it was understood that plans were being drawn to provide for a station that would be worthy of the business done in that vicinity. , The minister had a surplus of $2,000,000, but, instead of proceeding to build a station worthy of the conditions, and of the place, he constructed a cheap wooden building, which is regarded by even his own friends as a disgrace to the Intercolonial railway. I cannot understand a policy that permits such things to be done. The Minister of Railways is a gentleman for whom, personally, we all .have the highest regard, and

we all regret his illness,, but I am bound to say that he does not take that interest in, or show that sympathy with the people who live and work along the Intercolonial, that the Minister of Railways should have. He seems to have the conception that the people down there have only one desire, to get everything they can out of the Intercolonial railway, and that therefore nothing should be done for them. And within the last year the Government have taken $2,000,000 out of the pockets of the patrons of the Intercolonial for the purpose of enabling the minister to go through the province of Ontario and say: Look at me; what a fine Minister of Railways I am;
I have succeeded in getting a surplus of $2,000,000." In regard to equipment, and in regard to all the conditions which ought to be considered in connection with a railway, the Intercolonial has been starved in order to get that surplus. To-day the conditions along that railway are paralysing the industries, and these conditions are due to the policy Which has been pursued by the minister. Another conception of the minister is that no employee of the Intercolonial who has grown up in the service is fit to be promoted to a higher position. Last year no fewer than 18 men were imported from other railways and placed oh the permanent staff, drawing salaries of over $900 each. Without any boasting, I think I can claim that among those who have been brought up along the Intercolonial, and in the eastern provinces of Canada, there are men capable of filling any position on the road. I do not believe in a policy which lays down the principle that the man from Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick, or Quebec, who enters the service of the Intercolonial must not look forward to promotion to any position of importance or responsibility on that railway. That, I repeat, seems to be the conception of the present Minister of Railways, and the result is that along the Intercolonial railway you find that the employees regard the methods of the present minister as more Objectionable than those of any previous minister. The feeling among all the employees in regard to the present management is of the keenest character. If the acting minister does not know that, he could easily find it out from any of his friends who live along the line. The canals of this country have cost the people of Canada_ more than the Intercolonial cost, and they are operated without
any tolls upon the traffic. I claim that this Government had no right to take $2,000,000 from the people who patronize the Intercolonial when it was necessary to provide for equipment, or place $1,000,000 of that surplus in the general treasury of the country while they do not tax the trade interests that patronize the canals. Why should that be? I submit to the minister that, if he has a surplus during the coming year, instead of diverting it as he has done, instead of building second rate and ridiculous stations in towns where there are first class business conditions and large receipts1, instead of crippling the road by failing to supply a proper equipment of oars and motive power, his first consideration should be to improve the conditions, which, at present, are paralysing the business in the Maritime Provinces. In making this complaint,
I am voicing the feeling of the people in these provinces.


John Dowsley Reid: munitions to Halifax during the whole of the winter, and we have not been able to supply the number of cars required.


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: Why did you not
anticipate that?


John Dowsley Reid: It is hardly fair to suggest
that we could have anticipated it. Everything possible was done last year. We ordered cars last year, but we could not estimate that we .were going to have a surplus such as we have had. You cannot order cars and get them in a few days.


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: But you knew these supplies were going to Halifax.


John Dowsley Reid: We had no idea of the quantity we were going to get, and we did not know the surplus we were going to have at the end of the year. But we have ordered some equipment during the year, and we are still ordering it. The total amount of the surplus will be expended on the Government railway system.


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: Surely you are not going to take that money from the eastern provinces and put it into the Transcontinental railway?


John Dowsley Reid: No, we are going to use it on the Intercolonial, but t'he cars will run over other roads as well. It is hardly fair to say that we have taken that amount out of the lower provinces. An enormous amount of trade has been received this year from the Western provinces and sent over the Intercolonial. The Canadian Pacific has been forced to send large amounts of freight from St. John to Halifax to be loaded on the transports there. All t'he railways have been sending goods to St. John and Halifax in that way, because hundreds of thousands of tons of freight have come from the western provinces. This traffic has not come from the lower provinces, or from the territory through which the Intercolonial passes, as ip years gone by. Most of the collections in years gone by have been more of a local character, but this year there has been an enormous amount that has gone to our Canadian ports on account of war conditions and which has not been diverted to Portland as in years past.


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: Does not the Canadian Pacific haul any?


John Dowsley Reid: It hauls freight to St. John, but in addition to carrying large quantities to St. John it sends large quantities to Halifax, because the transports go from Hali-

fax. It is not the desire of the people of the western provinces to see a large amount made out of the earnings of the Intercolonial in order that we may participate in any benefits therefrom. We realize that the canals are free. But there has never been a time within my recollection when, if any surplus has been made, it has not immediately been paid out in getting additional or renewed equipment. If there was a deficit, whatever was required for renewal or increased equipment was charged to the capital account of the Dominion, applying the same rule as that which was applied to the canals. However, even if there was a profit, and it all came out of the lower provinces, which, of course, would not be the case, it would immediately be turned over for the purchase of equipment. The very fact of our being able to release 75 engines and a lot of cars to help out the Transcontinental railway shows that we had a fair equipment at that time. No part of this surplus will go into the general fund but it will go into equipment for the Intercolonial in order to put the road in a better position to deal with the traffic.


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: Is the minister going to proceed to deal with the surplus on the lines which he (mentioned on the 9th March? On that date he said that he had transferred the surplus last year to three different accounts, $600,000 for equipment, $400,000 for rail renewal, and $100,000 for fire renewal.


John Dowsley Reid: The rule has been that whatever the surplus is at the end of the year, it is transferred to the three different accounts I mentioned the other day. During the year we transferred a million dollars as stated. With respect to this surplus, the same policy which has been carried out since the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) adopted that allotment will be followed. Whatever the final profits are, over and above what has already been transferred, will be transferred to the three accounts mentioned, but what the proportions will be I cannot just say. With regard to the shortage of cars for fertilizer, that matter .came before me not long ago. I forget exactly how it came up, but I will give the hon. gentleman (Mr. Macdonald) the information to-morrow or as soon as I look it up. Somebody brought it to my attention, and I either wired the general manager to say that something should be done about it or I spoke to him while he was here with the view of avoiding any

delay in so far as shipments of fertilizer were concerned.


Mr.   MAGDONALD@: Will the minister tell me if he has called for tenders with the view of making a coal contract for the coming year, or,, if not, what he intends to do?


John Dowsley Reid: I have had that question up with the general manager several times. This year we will, have to purchase coal not only for the Intercolonial railway hut for the Transcontinental as well. We will have to purchase coal for the road all the way from Port Arthur, or Fort William, to Sydney. We will have to purchase a very large quantity, and for the Port Arthur end we will have to purchase American coal, because we cannot take it fronl Sydney as far west as that. At the present time we are dealing with the coal situation with a view to settling the quantities that may be required for the Intercolonial railway, and we are trying to get the matter in such a shape that the coal companies of the east will be able to supply us. There is a difficulty this year Jabout taking coal from Sydney to the St. Lawrence on account of the scarcity of tonnage. Igi addition to that, the coal companies in Sydney and other places are using practically all their coal for hunkering at the present time. I am not in a position to give the hon. member more information this evening on that point, but trust to be able to do so within a few days.


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: 
Mr. ROBB:: As the minister has brought up the question of the Transcontinental and its equipment, could he tell us what the policy of the department is with regard to the six cents a bushel rate that was put in force by the Government on the 6th of January last on wheat for export from Armstrong to Montreal and Quebec? I understand that that rate expires on May 1st. Is it the intention of the department to renew it, for the benefit of shippers during the summer months?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman will remember what trouble the farmers in the West had in getting their grain shipped owing to the congested state of the elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William. The Canadian Northern and Canadian Pacific railway did all they could, and were able to bring out a certain amount,
12	m. but it was thought advisable to assist the farmers along the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific in getting, their grain to market. The only place the grain could be taken was to Eastern Canada, for if it had been taken to the elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William there would have been the double haul, when it had to be taken out again. So I understand the Minister of Railways put in a 6-cent rate between Armstrong and the cities of Montreal and Quebec. Armstrong would be about on the line with Port Arthur and Fort William. Six cents was the allwater rate or the water-and-rail rate for the summer months between Port Arthur and Montreal, and it was thought well to give the farmers along the Grand Trunk Pacific the same rate in order to help them get their grain out. It was also in the nature of an experiment to see how the rates would work out, and I understand was only put in temporarily. When the rate came into force, the grain had to go over the Transcontinental, and then over the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway, and then over the Grand Trunk to Montreal-I am speaking of Montreal shipments-and the six cents divided among the three.railways meant a small proportion for each; but all the same the Grand Trunk and the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario were willing to give the matter a trial until " the opening of navigation, until which time hi understand the rate will continue in [force. There will be no difficulty in getting

the- grain that is	not already in the
elevators down to Port Arthur and Port William. All the grain coming over the Grand Trunk Pacific and destined for Montreal or Quebec "will be carried at the six cent rate from Armstrong to the -city of Quebec. I do not think the Minister of Railways has taken any further action in this matter.


James Alexander Robb: The minister has not yet told me whether the rate is to be continued during the summer months. The intention of the department in putting that rate into force was probably good, but in practice it has been a gold brick to the farmers. An answer given in Hansard on March 1 shows that all the grain that had been carried up to that time at that rate was 20 carloads to Montreal and 80 to Quebec, and the reason for that was that there was a shortage of engines and cars for carrying the grain. Consequently, grain was worth 3 to 4 cents a bushel more to get it on the tracks, and it paid an exporter much better to buy May wheat and take his chances of getting a low rate at the opening of navigation. The experiment was therefore of no advantage to the shipper; but it would be an advantage if the Government would give the western farmers that ' rate during the summer months; and surely, if it pays to carry the grain to Montreal and Quebec for six cents a bushel in the winter months, it would pay still better in the summer, when the trains would have a clear track and could carry much heavier loads. I hope the minister understands how the rate worked out. An exporter buying May wheat at 4 cents a bushel less would be just about a cent a bushel better off than by using the six-cent rate in winter. The rate was practically of no value either to the exporter or to the western farmer.
While the intention of the Government might have been to relieve the congestion in the West, they did not relieve it to any extent. Up to the first of March they have handled only 100 cars, or about 100,000 bushels of wheat at the six-cent rate out of a 300,000,000 bushel crop. I think the minister ought to take the matter up with the transportation department, and see if they cannot continue the experiment during the summer months, because there is a shortage of vessels on the Upper Lakes this season, and already bookings are being made at rates running from nine cents. Seven cents is the lowest rate that I have heard of from Port Arthur to Montreal. The minister can see that there is plenty
fMr J. D. Reid.]
of freight offering in the West if they want to get after it.


John Dowsley Reid: From his remarks, I would judge that the hon. member comes to the conclusion that about 100,000 bushels of grain have passed over the Transcontinental up to the first of March.


James Alexander Robb: That was the report given by the minister.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know whether that answer was intended to cover all the wheat that had passed over the railway up to that date.


James Alexander Robb: That was all that passed over at that particular rate.


John Dowsley Reid: 
James Alexander Robb: That is during the summer months.


John Dowsley Reid: During the whole summer the rate will be kept in force. The situation is not exactly the same in Montreal, because in that city there are two other roads, and it is difficult to d,eal with them in regard to rates. Some one disoussed this question some time ago, and I asked my private secretary to make a memorandum for me so that I would not forget it, and this is the memorandum which has just been handed to me by one of my officials:

You may find it of interest to state that the Transcontinental has to date, April 8, moved
4.000.	000 bushels of grain from Fort William and the West since the close of navigation last fall.
That corroborates the statement that I made a few minutes ago.


James Alexander Robb: But not at the six-cent rate. Under the tariff, if that wheat is re-consigned in ships to St. John, Portland, Boston, or Halifax, the rate is 2.1-7 cents.


John Dowsley Reid: 1 cannot give any other answer to-night than I have already given, but it is good news to hon. members that, with the shortage of equipment that we have experienced on the Transcontinental on account of taking the road over without any equipment, we have been able to move
4.000.	000 bushels of grain as well as quite a
quantity of other traffic.	.


James Alexander Robb: I am quite satisfied. The minister tells the House and the country that the six-cent rate to Quebec will be kept in force during the summer months?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. I discussed that matter a few days ago with the officials of the department.


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: Before the minister comes again with his Estimates, will he be good enough to furnish a statement of the receipts and expenditures of the Vale railway, and state whether Any final agreement or lease has been made in regard to it?


John Dowsley Reid: I cat} tell the hon. member now that there is only a tentative agreement in the meantime.


Mr.   M ACDONALD@: The agreement has not been signed?


John Dowsley Reid: It has not been completed. There is some little difficulty; I do not know what it is. I do not think the receipts and expenditures will show a great dividend on the earning power of that road. I will see that that information is brought down.


Mr. McCREA:: Can the minister tell me what are the prospects of moving freight on both the Transcontinental and the Intercolonial east of Quebec? There js a large quantity of lumber on both roads, and there has been practically a congestion on both roads, especially on the Transcontinental. You cannot get cars or move the freight. In fact, there is freight that has been on the road for two and a half years.


John Dowsley Reid: Surely not.


Francis N. McCrea: I bought some wood two and a half years ago, and I cannot get it.
There is a local rate into Quebec or Levis, where the Government road connects with other roads, and then a through rate which makes it prohibitory to ship that class of freight. I would like to know when we may expect through rates from the Transcontinental, and also when we may expect cars to move the stuff that is offered as freignt.


John Dowsley Reid: I expect that within a couple of weeks there will be plenty of cars to take care of all the local traffic to which the hon. member has referred. On the opening of navigation the freight goes to Montreal and Quebec, and there will be available the cars that have been used during the winter for carrying munitions, and an enormous quantity of hay, oats and other supplies. The other roads-the Grand Trunk, the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian Northern-have all suffered from a shortage of cars; but as soon as water navigation comes in, I hope we shall be able to supply the hon. member with cars.
I have not gone into the question of through rates with the general freight agent, so I am not in a position to-night to give a complete answer to the hon. member. But he has 'brought it to my attention, and I will be prepared at the next meeting when the Intercolonial is discussed to state exactly what position we are in so far as these two rates are concerned.


Mr.   McCRAE@: It is very interesting that these rates have been put in force at as early a time as possible, because it will be an indication of the demand there will be for this class of goods.


John Dowsley Reid: If there has been any delay, if they have not been in force, the hon. member having brought it to my attention, I will take it up with the management, and, see what the difficulty is; and, if they are in force, I will give the hon. gentleman an explanation.


Avard Longley Davidson: What course does'the Government propose to follow with regard to a line from Orangedale to Cheticamp?


John Dowsley Reid: The only answer I can give to that is the same that I have given in other cases-as soon as financial conditions will permit, we will take that up.
* Mr. GRAHAM: I am glad to hear that the Transcontinental has moved 4,000,000 bushels of grain. I see that the manager of the Government railways says that it would take the three transcontinental railways 200 days of active operation to move

the grain crop alone. With that estimate, and with the boasting of the hon. gentleman as to what the road is doing, we shall probably hear no more of the uselessness of the Transcontinental railway.
The hon. gentleman has given as a reason for the tearing up of rails in New Brunswick, that' the traffic did not warrant the operation. Will the minister please keep that in mind during the next five or six weeks-that the reason given for not operating a road that the people have had for a quarter of a century is that the traffic did not warrant the operation. Will the hon. gentleman bear that ini mind when other discussions come up-that this Government is getting rid of railways, that- do not pay-and see to it that they do not take on others that are in the same position. The hon. gentlepian for Northumberland (Mr. Loggie) has a stronger case than some bon. gentlemen understand1, who wonder that he speaks so feelingly. Here you have-a branch of the Mirimaehi river with a railway on each side. The road on one side is a through line to Fredericton, and the other a short line. The Government takes up the rails on one side altogether, leaving the people without this railway which they have had for years, and giving them no bridges to cross the river to gain access to the other railway. The Government leaves them in that condition, waiting for the Provincial Government to make some proposition. I say that in this case it is the duty of the Government, which ha3 taken away the only means of comuni-cation that these people have, to replace it with something else which the Government has promised time and again. This is not a question of waiting for the Provincial Government to build these bridges; the ordinary conditions do not prevail.
Now, I will make a suggestion that will startle the minister. With the proviso that we shall be allowed a, general discussion on any of these items, I would suggest that item 102 go>
through and that we adjourn.


John Dowsley Reid: I thank the bon. member for making that suggestion. On any other item we can have a general discussion.


William Stewart Loggie: I would refer the hon. minister to Hansard of 1914, page 4877, where he is reported as saying: " It is intended to build them"-referring to the bridges.


John Dowsley Reid: I will have to look further into this matter.


William Stewart Loggie: And I would ask the hon. gentleman to ibeaT in mind what the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) said last year:
If the province sees its way to undertake any bridges which this Government might assist them in, I should be glad to hear representations from the province In that respect.
And I would like to ask have such representations been heard?


John Dowsley Reid: Not yet.


William Stewart Loggie: Will not the hon. minister take that up with the province?


George Perry Graham: He won't do it.


William Stewart Loggie: My respected friend from South Renfrew says that he thinks the province has nothing to do with it. T am only using this as an alternative. If the Government Will not act on their own initiative altogether, will not they ask the Provincial Government to join in the construction of these bridges and thus afford access to the railway on the north side of the river for those from whom they have taken the railway?


John Dowsley Reid: The minister himself will
probably be here within two or three weeks, and I will draw his attention to the remarks made and ask him to give the matter his most careful consideration.


William Stewart Loggie: The hon. gentleman is more cautious than he was in 1914.
Progress reported. .
On motion of Mr. Reid, the House adjourned at 12.25 a.m. Wednesday.
Wednesday, April 12, 1916.