1918-04-09

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders' of the Day:
Mr. JOSEPH READ (Kings):: I rise to a question of privilege. I notice in the Ottawa Citizen of this morning an excerpt taken from the Hansard report of the debate on April 5, as follows:
Quebec Difficulties.
From Hansard Report, House of Commons, April 5, 1918.
Sir Sam Hughes:	I am satisfied that if
common sense had been exercised this trouble would not have occurred. I do not look upon it as a matter of very great importance, but it is of great importance to know what the unseen power is that has prevented these splendid boys-and there are no finer in the world-from following the dictates of their own impulses and joining the forces. What has prevented them-?

Mr. Joseph Read: Let me tell you-bigotry.
Sir Sam Hughes: I am very sorry to hear that. X do not think these boys are actuated by bigotry; I know they are not, and I hope that the power behind them is not bigotry.
The honourable member for Victoria when he made that statement, misapprehended the methods of a good soldier because by implication he made me appear to say that these boys were actuated by (bigotry. I never intended to make that assertion, and the subsequent speech which I made in the House at the end of the debate will show what I did mean. I just take this opportunity of drawing attention to it so that there will be no misapplication of what I said.



VAN BUREN BRIDGE COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid (Minister of Railways) for the third reading of Bill No. 14 to confirm an agreement between His Majesty the King, and the Van Buren Bridge Company.
Mr. MIOHAUD:: I wish to move an
amendment to the third reading of this Bill:
That all the words in the said motion after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
The said Bill be not now read a third1 time hut that it be referred hack to the Committee of the Whole of the House for the purpose of adding to clause 1 of said Bill the following words:	Provided that the Railway Station at
St. Leonards on the line now known as the International railway shall be maintained, reconstructed If destroyed and kept in operation during the term of the said agreement.
This means that the present station shall not be removed but shall remain where it is at present.


Mr. REID:: Perhaps the honourable
gentleman will explain what he means by that.


Pius Michaud: The explanation is that the people living at St. Leonards do not wish to have the station now built on the International railway transferred to the Transcontinental railroad. They want to leave the station at the terminus of the International, railway. On the second reading of the Bill I presented a petition which urges very forcibly that no change he made in case the Government leases the branch line between the Transcontinental and the International railways. In the name of the people of St. Leonards I ask the Government not to remove the station but to leave it where it is at this moment.


John Dowsley Reid: We discussed this matter in committee and the honourable gentleman

is only moving again on the lines of that discussion. The object of the Bill is to make provision that the International railway and the Transcontinental railway may be connected by a small piece of railway, two or three miles in length, that we are leasing and which has been operated by the Bangor and Aroostook railway. I do not think that any member of the House would think that the suggestion of the honourable member that we keep both stations is fair or reasonable. The Government now own and operate the Transcontinental railway between Levis and Moncton, and on that line there is a station 'in the village or town of St. Leonards. Since the Transcontinental railway was taken over by the Government, they have purchased what is known as the International railway running between Campbellton and St. Leonards. The International railway had a station also iin the town of St. Leonards, and it has been running into that station. The Government therefore are compelled to keep up two stations and to maintain that portion of the road, two or three miles in length, that is>
being operated by the International railway from the point wihere it will branch off to go over to the Transcontinental station. It does not seem to me that it is in the public interest that we should keep up two stations in one place and it does also strike me that it is much better for the travelling public that -all the trains should go to the one station. As I understand, from what the hon. member said a few evenings ago, the International railway station is a little nearer that of the Canadian Pacific railway and it would 'be more convenient perhaps for passengers coming in on the International who wanted to go to the Canadian Pacific railway. They would have a little less distance to walk than if they had to go from the Transcontinental Railway station. But, as shown by the statements of the hon. member, and by plans which I submitted the other evening, the distance between the Canadian Pacific Railway station and the Transcontinental is only about one thousand or twelve hundred feet. I cannot see why the people of St. Leonards should ask us to keep up two stations. This small piece of road is necessary for traffic passing over the International railway to the Transcontinental railway and in order that we shall not.be paying for the carriage of that traffic to the Bangor and Aroostook railway. Under the circumstances I could not possibly accept the amendment which has been moved by
the hon. member, and in the interest of the public service, and for the convenience of the public that travel on both Government lines, I would ask the House to reject that amendment and accept the agreement that has been arrived at and signed.


Pius Michaud: I would like to point out-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member has already spoken.


Pius Michaud: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: If Government-owned and controlled railways are to be made a pure matter of parish polities, then I have grave doubts as to the success that we shall ever attain in the operation of such railways; and if it is any consolation to the Minister of Railways to know it, I would like to say to him that here is one member of the Commons that is going to stand behind him rigidly in following the policy of his predecessor and turning an absolutely deaf ear to those who would subjugate a great national undertaking to a simple basis of political grab, which is what many members of this House, representing different parts of the country, apparently desire to do with Government-owned railways.
Amendment negatived, Bill read third time.



DOMINION LANDS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Arthur Meighen (Minister of the Interior), Bill No. 5, to amend the Dominion Lands Act. was read third time.


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice), Bill No. 27, to amend the Supreme Court Act, was read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-Appointment of ad hoc judge; Quebec appeals; evidence of appointment; duties; compensation; delivery of judgment.
Mr. DOHERTY:: I desire to. move to amend section 1, not with any desire of materially altering the nature of the Bill, but merely for the purpose of modifying the procedure by which the particular judge who is to serve may be designated.
The proposed amendment would provide that in the cases where the Exchequer Court judge is not available the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, instead of directly himself designating a particular judge who would Ibe called in, would request of the Chief Justice of any of the provinces to designate one of the judges of the High or Superior Court in his province. I suggest this amendment because it has been pointed out to me that it was not desirable, that it might, perhaps, even be considered not to be absolutely courteous to the Chief Justices of the provinces for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court directly to intervene and select the judge who should act. In the

second place, it has also been pointed cut, and with considerable force, that the Chief Justice of the province from whose court the judge is to be taken is in better position to determine what judge is most available in the existing condition of business of the court in the province. The modified section will have the further advantage of proceeding, say, in the same manner as is provided in some of the provinces, if not in all, for analogous cases where it is necessary to have a judge ad hoc to sit in the Court of Appeal of the province. In the province of Quebec, for instance, where there is occasion, similar to the occasion foreseen here, to call for a judge to sit ad hoc in the Court of Appeals, the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals addresses himself to the Chief Justice of the Superior Court, who, in consultation with his judges, designates the one who is to act. I think that the reasons which I have outlined, and to which my attention has been called, are sufficient to make clear that the amendment which I am about to propose would be an improvement over the system which the section originally in the Bill as introduced proposed to adopt. I beg, therefore, to move, Mr. Chairman:
That subsection (1) of Section 1 be amended by adding at the end of the subsection the words "to be designed in writing ,by the Chief Justice of such, provincial court upon such request being made to him in writing."
That amendment will necessitate some further modifications in the balance of the section, and we might as well deal with them all at once. There is one other amendment which does not turn upon them, which I desire also to move, and it is:
That sub-section (2) be amended by striking out the designation of numeral (2i) and inserting the words "provided always that."
It will then read:
Provided always that unless two of the judges of the Supreme Court available fulfil the requirements of Section 6.
And so on.


Mr. BUREAU:: Those words will be inserted at the beginning of subsection (2) , before the word " unless "?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Instead of section (2) we will have a proviso to the first subsection. I desire further to amend it by substituting in the second line of the subsection, before the words " ad hoc," the word1 " the," instead of " an."


Jacques Bureau: Striking out the wbrds
" ad hoc? "


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, but substituting the definite article ' the " for " an." I wish

also to amend the third line of the present section (2) by striking out after the word " judge " the words " from a provincial court." The effect of this modification would be to make the requirement that where one of the two judges who is absent or ill, and who is to be replaced, is one of the two judges which by the statutes are required to be judges of the province of Quebec, that in this case application should be made for the judge of the provincial court wherever it is a matter of cases coming from the province of Quebec.


Jacques Bureau: It would be a King's Bench judge?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, or if the Chief Justice chose to designate a judge of the Superior Court, I do not think he would be limited in that regard. The application would go to the Chief Justice of the provincial court. .1 presume he would designate a judge of his own court, I think it would be probably the proper action on the part of the Chief Justice. Of course, there might be cases where it wbuld be difficult to do that, because an appeal might be from the judgment of that very court of appeal in which possibly one of the judges of the appeal court might have sat.
II would beg further to amend subsection
(2)	which, if my amendment carries, becomes the proviso, by adding at the end thereof the words " designated as above provided," so that the provision would be that he " shall be a judge of the court of King's Bench or a judge of the Superior Court of that province designated as above provided."
Of beg further to amend subsection (3). This is also an amendment consequent upon the previous change to amend subsection
(3)	of section 1, in the first place, by substituting the figure (2) for (3) and in the second ipla-ce by inserting in the second line, after the words "senior puisne judge," the words " 'and where a judge of the provincial court is designated to act, of the letter designating him." That particular subsection made the requisition of the Chief Justice the proof of the authority of the sitting judge, whereas in virtue of the proposed change it will be necessary to have not only a requisition of the Chief Justice but a designation by the Chief Justice of the province to complete the proof of t'he authority. It would be proper, at all events, to provide that, the requisition and the designation shall be the proof of the authority.
Also, following upon the proposed change in .subsection (1) I beg to move to amend subsection (4) by substituting the figure (3) for 'the figure (4), and by inserting after the word " requested " in the second line of the subsection the words " or h.as been so designated," to- provide for the case of the judge who is properly requested, and the case of the judge who is designated.
I beg further to move to amend section (5) hy substituting (4) for (5), and by inserting in the second line of the subsection, after the word " request," the words " or upon such designation." And, finally, to amend subsection 6 by substituting (5) for (6)


Mr.   D@: I understood from the minister during the previous discussion on this Bill that he would have no objection to calling upon the second judge of the Exchequer Court in such cases.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I should have no objection to allowing the second judge to sit, but as we are dealing with the final Court of Appeal of Canada it seemed to me that we should not provide for the sitting of a judge who, in the particular court to which he belongs, is the assistant judge. The reason why it had been considered desirable that the assistant judge should sit was in order to have, in cases from Quebec, and in cases where the absent judge was a Quebec judge, a judge versed in the law of that province. That object is attained hy the provision that where the absent judge is one of the two judges required by the statute to be judges of the province of Quebec, and where the case to he dealt with is a case from that province, there shall be asked for and designated a judge of the Superior Court or Court of the King's Bench of the province of Quebec. So that the provision as it now stands, with the amendment, meets the necessity of having at all times, in cases from Quebec, the statutory number of Quebec judges. It did not seem, therefore, desirable that we should specify or designate the assistant judge of the Exchequer court when we had open to us the entire field of provincial judges.


Mr. MORPHY:: A Bill of such importance as this cannot be properly considered until it is printed in the form which it will assume with the amendments. Five or six amendments have been proposed and discussed; 'some members have not heard them, and some cannot understand them. Moreover, a large number of members have not heard the remarks of the minister, and I suggest that he have the Bill referred

back and reintroduced in proper form so that we may consider it intelligently.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under ordinary circumstances I should be glad to meet this suggestion, but I should like to point out that the Supreme Court is prevented from carrying on its business at present because Mr. Justice Duff Js engaged in the hearing of appeals under the Military Service Act, and, by reason of the illness of one of the other judges, it is not possible for five judges to sit in court. Accordingly, they adjourned their Court until April 15 in the hope that this measure would be adopted in time to enable them to proceed with the business. The situation is, perhaps, peculiarly urgent because of the fact that in the last term they were suffering largely from the same difficulty, and were in a position to hear only those cases in which the parties were wdl-ing to proceed with four judges. Though the amendments are numerous, they are all, with the exception of a slight modification making subsection 2 a proviso instead of a subsection, the consequence of one change, which is as follows: under the Bill as introduced it was provided that where there was need for an ad hoc judge the chief justice or senior puisne judge of the court could himself select that judge. The effect of the amendment is that where there is need for an ad hoc judge, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court may address himself only to the Chief Justice of any of the provinces, asking him to provide an ad hoc judge. The Chief Justice so applied to would thereupon, no doubt in consultation with his judges, designate the particular one who was to act. That is the entire effect of the proposed amendment. The others, with one exception, are the necessary consequences of making that change. Then there is an amendment merely to	meet what	was suggested the
other evening:	that in cases coming from Quebec you might not have a court constituted in compliance with the express requirements of the statute, which makes it necessary that there shall be two judges taken from the bar of the province of Quebec. The amendment provides that in such a case a judge shall be applied for rather than a judge of the Exchequer Court taken. I should be glad, therefore, if the committee could see its way clear to deal with this matter to-day. If, of course, hon. gentlemen feel that they have not had proper opportunity of fully grasping the effect of the amendments, we must meet that; I would not ask the committee or the

House to pass a measure without having ample opportunity of becoming thoroughly familiar with its provisions. But I may add that if the measure is to enable the Supreme Court to proceed on the 15th, it will have to go through the Senate as well as through this House and receive the assent of the Governor General during the present week.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I appreciate to the full the argument of the Minister of Justice, but I still feel like adhering to the request I have made, that the Bill be brought back printed as it will appear with the amendments, for further discussion. The minister has told us that through his importuning all the Superior Court judges of the province of Quebec are sitting on the tribunals. I suggest that he take the balance of the Supreme Court judges that are here and put them with Mr. Duff in order that the work may be speeded up. In the meantime, the Supreme Court work can be postponed for a little while, notwithstanding the great importance of the cases that may be awaiting trial.
I am pleased that my main objection, about which I purposed saying a word, was removed by the amendment striking out the name of the Chief Justice in section 1. Nevertheless, the measure is a very far-reaching one; it extends over the jurisdiction of the whole country, and there may be some points to ibe raised even as the Bill stands now. I do not think it is fair to ask the House, on such an important measure as this, to take absolutely the iword of the Minister of Justice for everything. As we are supposed to be individuals here, we are surely entitled to consider for ourselves the full effect of any measure that is brought before the House, I again request the minister to have the Bill referred back, reprinted and introduced' in the proper form, even although that may cause some delay.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I, for my part, take very strong objection to the suggestion of my hon. friend from North Perth (Mr. Morphy). The Bill has 'been introduced and is in the possession of the House. When it has gone out oi Committee, it can be reprinted'. But I do not think it is in the power of this Committee to order that the Bill be reprinted with amendments that have not been accepted by the Committee. There may be some discussion on the amendments, and objections may be taken to them. I think, therefore, before we order the reprinting of the Bill, we must discuss the

Bill as it stands, and then -when it is accepted by this Committee, it may toe reprinted.


Mr. TWEEDIE:: I regret very much that I have not heard the remarks of the Minister of Justice in regard to this Bill. While it is a very short Bill, it is very important, and it lays down a principle in connection with the judiciary of this country which should receive very careful consideration before any change is made in the general practice. Under this Bill, we give the Government power to fill temporarily vacancies which may toe caused toy the illness of members of the Supreme Court of Canada; but when we do that, we should not go any further, and the Governor in Council should perform its function in connection with temporarily filling these vacancies just as it does -in connection, with a permanent appointment to the bench. It is perhaps unfair to this country to place such a power-as would toe- done under this- Bill as originally printed, or as it is proposed to toe amended by the Minister of Justice-in the hands of the Chief Justice of Canada or the Chief Justice of .the Supreme Court of any province. Perhaps it would be wise if the Government would adhere to the original practice, and have these appointments made, even although they are made temporarily, toy an Order in Council, for which the Government shall toe responsible. As to delay in having these amendments printed, I call the attention of the House to the fact that, prior to the calling together of the House of Commons, there was dislocation of the work of the Supreme Court of Canada. About a month before Parliament assembled the Supreme Court of Canada had to adjourn its sittings by reason of the illness of two of its members. If there had been absolute necessity for haste this matter might have been disposed of much earlier in the session than now. Personally, I am desirous of seeing in type the amendments which the Minister of Justice proposes to make to this Bill, and then I shall be able to vote intelligently on it.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: I wish to press once more the suggestion I made the other day to the Minister of Justice about the assistant judge of the Exchequer -Court. The minister will remember that when the Supreme Court was constituted Exchequer work was done by the Supreme Court. It was only in after years that a separate jurisdiction was created, and that the Exchequer Court came into existence. At first there was only one
judge of the Exchequer Court, Mr. Justice Burtoidge. Then the present incumbent, Sir Walter Cassels, wa-s appointed, and an assistant judge was appointed with the same jurisdiction, the only difference toeing that one was the senior judge and the other the junior. My hon. friend is right in -stating that the -Chief Justice of the Supreme Court may request the Chief Justice of any Superior Court to delegate some one to act as judge ad hoc. Would it not -be more proper and more in the interests of the litigants, inasmuch as iit would save time, for the chief justice to request the judge of the Exchequer Court, who originally had the same jurisdiction as he has, either to give his services as judge ad hoc or to ask his assistant to act in his stead? The reason is obvious, because it may happen that the Chief Judge of the Exchequer Court may be away. The Exchequer Court judges travel from one part of the country to another. Sometimes you have Mr. Justice Audette or Sir Walter iCassel-s in Prince Edward Island, or Quebec or Nova Scotia. One of the two is generally in Ottawa. There is no distinction as between their jurisdiction; it is the -same except that the one is Chief Judge and the other is Assistant Judge. It seems to me it would serve the ends of justice, and it may on many occasions save time to get right in the same building the very man whom the Supreme -Court would like to have to fill a gap. I shall, under these circumstances, give notice of an amendment to add to line sixteen, after the word " judge," the words " or the assistant judge."


Charles Joseph Doherty: I appreciate what the leader of the Opposition has pointed out as to the impossibility, so far as I can see it, of our reprinting the Bill -at this stage with the amendments in the position in which they now stand. At the same time, I have every desire in the world that the measure should not be dealt with, without every hon. member feeling he has had every opportunity to grasp its full effect and significance. Under those circumstances, we might proceed to-day in committee, and if, after we -have got through the committee stage of the Bill, hon. members still feel they desire -further time for consideration, we might perhaps not press the Bill further to-day. It might still be possible, if we get this Bill through this House to-morrow, to attain the result, which I think is desirable, of having the measure passed, if the House desires it should be passed, in time to put the court -in a position to act next week.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: The Bill can be printed after it has gone through committee and before the third reading.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We could have the Bill reprinted before it goes to third1 reading, and then everybody will have an appor-tunity to grasp its meaning and effect.
Mr. TWEEDIiE: Will it be brought back into committee again after it is reprinted so that we may see the amendments? I have not heard a word the Minister of Justice has said to-day and I am particularly interested in the first clause of the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand
that the Minister of Justice proposes to amend the Act by requiring the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada to ask the Chief Justice of a provincial court to designate a judge of his court who can be spared for the purpose of attending to the duties of an ad hoc judge in the Supreme Court olf Canada, and thereupon it will become the duty of t'he Chief Justice of the Provincial Court to designate sudh a judge. When so designated, he becomes an ad hoc judge for the purpose of this Act.
Mr. TWEED!E:	What limitations are
there as to the particular province in which the Chief Justice shall be requested1 to make an appointment?


Robert Laird Borden: If the judge is to .supply the place of one of the judges from the province of Quebec, the application will be made to the Chief Justice of the province of Quebec. If the judge is to supply the place of one of those who' have been selected in the other provinces, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would apply to the Chief Justice of the highest court of the other province.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It" is only in the one
exceptional instance where these two things combine, namely, that the judge to be replaced is a judge originally from the province of Quebec, and secondly, that the case to be dealt with came from that province, that it is imperatively required that the Chief Justice shall go to a particular province. The reason for that is obvious: We have to meet the statutory requirements that there shall be two judges appointed from the province of Quebec. With regard to. the other provinces, as the Act stands at present, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court might apply to the Chief Justice of any province. It might be desirable to provide that where the judge who had to be replaced came from some province other than Quebec, and the case it-

self came from some other' province than Quebec, in that case the Chief Justice should address himselif to the Chief Justice of some of the other provinces. That was wfhat I had in mind. I am not quite certain if that is made absolutely clear in the Bill, hut I shall be very glad to make it quite clear , if, in the judgment of the com mittee, that method is thought the most desirable.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: Is there any objection to allowing the Governor in Council to make these temporary appointments? In my opinion there is no need to pass legislation which will involve restrictions as to the appointments which may be made by the. Chief Justice of a province with the assistance of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. I think if the Governor in Council w'ould simply take the responsibility of making these appointments, in the same way that he makes permanent appointments, our troubles would be at an end.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is hardly proper to speak of these as appointments. It is simply calling upon somebody to perform duties of essentially a temporary character, and if, to meet that requirement, we legislate, as we would have to legislate, to empower the Governor in Council to appoint an ad hoc judge, we should create a situation where an assistant judge was appointed to a specific office and would hold that judicial office for only a limited period of time. I would submit to the committee that it is not desirable to have men act as judges for only a little while-men who are taken from the practice of the profession to sit as judges for perhaps a month or two, and then return to the practice of that profession. I think that would hardly be consistent with the idea, which is a very important and very fundamental one, that judges dealing with cases should be men whose entire work is of a judicial nature-* men set apart for that purpose. By the method we propose we secure that the men who will act are men who are already judges, and that the individual man will be designated by the man who is in the best position to judge which one of those judges can be spared to the best advantage, from the point of view of the ordinary business of his court. It is true we might by statute empower the Governor in Council to appoint a man and to select him from among the judges of the other courts, hut that would be putting in the hands of the Governor in Council the determination as to which judge in any

particular province could best be spared from the judicial work of that province.
If you put that power in the hands of the Governor in Council, acting, as it would seem to me he ought to act, if 'he wanted to act wisely, he would consult, I think, with the Chief Justice of the Court from which he was going to take a judge .away; that is one consideration. There is another consideration which I submit is 4 p.m. not * without importance, and it is this: I think it is undesirable to create a situation where we would have a particular class of appointments- appointments, it is true, not carrying with them any financial remuneration, but still implying the very high honour of being asked to sit in the Supreme Court of Canada- which would be in the hands of the Government of the day to make, and which the Government of the day would be constrained to make as among the judges. Personally I think thiat would create a situation where it 'might he suggested that the judges were liable to have ambitions for something which was in the gift of the Government. Anything tending to create that position is undesirable from the point of view of maintaining the principle which I think is oi great importance, that the judicial officer should be acting in a position of absolute independence and without anything before his eyes -as an object of ambition which is in the gift of the Government of the day. The question whether what is desired to be done had better 'be done by direct appointment of the Governor in Council or by some such method as ' we here propose, whereby we leave the designation of the individual who is temporarily to act to the Chief Justices, had very careful consideration before the Bill was introduced. I think that the proposed amendment improves what was originally contemplated, but as regards the choice between the Bill as now proposed to be amended, and a system by which the Governor in Council -would make the appointments from among the judges, I must confess that after the best consideration I have been able to give to it, though I would of course defer to the opinion of the committee, it seems to me the balance of advantage is in favour of leaving the selection of the individual to the judicial officer in the very best position to determine who, among the judges, can best be spared. I think that there is a further objection to the appointment of these men coming from the Governor General in Council. If the Governor General in Council designates a man to act as judge ad litoc, in the
Supreme Court, and the circumstances are such that he remains in that position for a term or two, and a vacancy then occurs,
I think, as human nature is constituted, he finds himself face to face with a gentleman who will think that in some way he has a claim, or a particular right, to be appointed to the vacancy that occurs. That is an undesirable state of affairs. In so far as it is humanly possible, when the Government is called upon to appoint a judge, and particularly a judge of the highest court in the country, it ought to be able to approach the question of who ought to be appointed as free as possible from any claims to preference upon the part of anybody. I have tried to put before the committee the reasons which, as the result of careful consideration, led us to the conclusion that it would be better to have the matter dealt with in this way through the intervention of the existing judges than by the direct action of the Governor General in Council. There are possible objections which may be suggested to the method originally proposed. I have tried to make clear to the committee-I am sorry if I did not make myself heard by everybody-the reason which led us to think that this modification would be an improvement on what was originally proposed.


Mr. RICHARDSON:: (I woiuld like to know if the question of remuneration is dealt with in the. Bill and if there is any change in the remuneration which a provincial judge will receive when he is appointed?
Mr. DOHERTY. No, he will receive no additional salary. All be will receive will be his travelling expenses and living allowance just as he -would if he went from one city to another to, perform the duties of his own court. There is_ no remuneration attached.


Jacques Bureau: There are five or six amendments before the Chair which means that the whole section is now being discussed as it was hist put before the House. I understand the first part of the remarks of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, but not the last part. I suppose they were a repetition of the remarks made to my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Tweedie). The Minister of Justice knows very well that in the province of Quebec certain action ihas been taken to remedy our judicial system and I have been one of the prominent kickers as to the constitution of our Court of Review. My objection is based upon the fact that our Court of Review is composed of three judges and that these

three judges, when they sit in Montreal, are taken from among the judges of the Superior Court of the district of Montreal. Every time there is an appeal before them they have to pass upon the judgment of one of their confreres sitting on the same tribunal. If the appeal is from the judgment of the Superior Court of the district of Quebec, there are three judges chosen from the Superior Court of that district and these same judges for the time being sit as judges of the Appeal Court and have to pass upon the judgment of their confreres. I do not mention this because T have any suspicion about thehonpsty or righteousness of the judgments of those gentlemen sitting in review but there is a feeling about it among the public. I have often heard it said among business men that they could not understand how it was that these judges should be sitting in the same court. It is only natural that they should consult with one another when a case comes up. My honourable friend the Minister of Justice knows better than any one else, because of his long experience while practising at the bar and while occupying a position on the bench, that judges consult with each other at the court house when an intricate or a new question, comes before the court for decision. That being the case, the first objection I take to this Bill is because of the provision it makes with regard to a judge of the Exchequer Court. The Exchequer Court is a court of exclusive federal jurisdiction. It is a Federal tribunal and when you appeal from any decision of the Exchequer Court you go before the Supreme Court and the first man you want to appoint to the Supreme Court is the man whose judgments are subject to revision by that court.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In that case the judge cf the Exchequer Court would be unable +o sit. If it is necessary we will put in a proper provision. He is not to be applied to if he is absent or unable to sit. If there is any ambiguity about that we will correct anything that would make it possible to ask him to sit in appeal on his own judgment.


Jacques Bureau: I am sorry if my hon. friend has ever suspected that to be my view. I do not understand1 the Bill in that way and I do not believe that you would ask the Exchequer Court judge to sit on the bench to pass on his own- judgments. It is not the fact that he would expect to sit on his own judgments to which I take exception because I know he would not. He would not be a judge of the Exchequer

Court if he went so far, or if he were so wanting in self respect, to sit and pass upon his own judgments. But there is the idea of a judge of the only federal court in Canada with original jurisdiction sitting as a judge of an appeal court which has to pass upon his own judgments. I do not say that he will sit on a case upon which he has already passed but the fact of his being part of the tribunal is not absolutely right. There is a shadow of doubt about it. I have the idea but I cannot express it. Among the judges of a court, as I think my brother lawyers well know, there is a certain solidarity.


Mr. McMASTER:: Camaraderie.


Jacques Bureau: More than camaraderie because when they meet at the court house they consult upon any important or intricate question. Judge So-and-so has given a certain decision and a judge, of course, is anxious to justify his judgments and to have them confirmed by the higher court; therefore judges consult their confreres. There is a close relationship between the judges. I do not think that the judge of the Exchequer court ought to sit as a judge of the Supreme court.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Would the suggestion of the hon. gentleman be that it would he better to eliminate the judge of the Exchequer court?


Jacques Bureau: Certainly not; I do not mean to abolish the Exchequer court.


Charles Joseph Doherty: But to eliminate him as a judge to be called upon to act as a judge ad hoc in the Supreme court.


Jacques Bureau: What I mean is this:
instead of appointing a judge of the Supreme -Go-urt to investigate all t'he scandals of the late Government let that judge remain in bis own court and attend to the discharge of the duties which are imposed upon him by statute. If a judge falls ill, or the increase in- the business of the country demands it, why not increase the number of judges, the same as has been done in the district where ll reside? There owing .to the industrial growth, the litigation has been increasing, and the existing judges could not overtake the work, and therefore other judges were drawn- from Montreal, Artbabaslk'a, and other districts. If litigation is increasing rapidly the first remedy to apply is to return those jud'ges, who are now doing outside work, to the bench of their own court and make them stay there. The second remedy I would suggest is to appoint another judge of the

Supreme Court, if the volume of business is too great for the present staff. If that were done it "would give great satisfaction.
I am confining my remarks to the province of Quebec because I am not familiar with the constitution of the courts in other provinces. 'Taking that province let me say that there is not a case which goes to the Supreme Court which has not originated from- the Superior Court. If my learned friend (Mr. Doherty) is going to take a judge from the Court of King's Bench, the chances . are that the case has originated in the Superior Court, and from there has gone to the Court of King's Bench, and the appeal to the Supreme Court is from the Court of King's Bench. The possible exception may be a judge taken from the Circuit Court in Montreal, where the judges have Circuit Court duties exclusively and no other jurisdicion. In my opinion, what is proposed is not a proper way to deal with litigation; the judges of the highest court in the land should he kept absolutely apart from any influence or contact whatsoever with any matter which might weigh with them when they render their decision. In taking this position, however, I want the committee clearly to understand that I do not entertain the slightest suspicion about the character of any of the judges iwiho may he called upon to decide appeals coming before the Supreme Court. My hon. friend' from Calgary (M!r. Tweedie) stated a moment ago that he would' like to see an outsider appointed, by the Governor General in Council. Speaking for myself, I do not concur in that.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: The hon. gentleman did not correctly gather the purport of my remarks.


Jacques Bureau: I thought my hon. friend wanted an outside barrister appointed by the Governor in Council to act as Supreme Court judge ad hoc.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: I said that the Governor in Council should take the responsibility of filling vacancies temporarily ( the same as they take the responsibility of making permanent appointments to the Bench, I do not care whether it be a barrister, or a judge of any Superior Court or Exchequer Court.


Jacques Bureau: With respect to the appointment of an outsider, the Minister of Justice has answered that suggestion. If :t is proposed to appoint a judge of the Superior Court for the Supreme Court my position is the same whether he be appointed by the Governor in Council, by the Superior Court, or by the Chief Justice of the Court from which he is drawn. My idea is that Courts of Appeal should not be connected in any way, whether temporarily or otherwise, with any justice or any court of inferior jurisdiction upon whose judgment they have to pass. That is one of the defects I find in our Court of Review, and it is one of the pleas I have been making for a long time that we should have a special Court of Review, composed of three judges. Under the circumstances it will be possible to secure great improvement in the judicial procedure by wise thought and careful deliberation over this matter. Our tribunals ought to be organized in such a manner as to render justice to all litigants in this country. At the present time tnere may be circumstances which justify the Government in utilizing the knowledge and experience of certain judges in other directions, but such provision would only be temporary, whereas what is proposed by the present legislation is of a permanent character. Now, if it is proposed to enact permanent legislation 'because of prevailing extraordinary or abnormal conditions, we ought to think twice before we pass such a law. Mr. Justice Duff will conclude the consideration of these war-time appeals some day, and then he will revert to his normal position in the Supreme Court and stay there. Mr. Justice Brodeur will soon recover his health, I hope, and will be able to sit all the time, as heretofore, in the Supreme Court. If the Minister of Justice considers, from the reports made to him, or as a result of his own observations, that the business of the Supreme Court has increased to such an extent as to warrant it, why not do as is done in other courts where the business becomes too great for the judges who have to administer it-why not appoint another judge. That suggestion, I submit, is worthy of the consideration of the committee. I am perfectly indifferent in the matter because I shall not suffer very much whether my suggestion is carried out or not, but I think the principle proposed to be adopted is not -I will not say vicious because that implies a meaning contrary to what I have in mind-is not a correct one, to have a man pass upon the judgment of any of his colleagues who have been acting or sitting in a particular court.


Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette):: I agree with the hon. member for Three Rivers in the opinion that it is a great mistake to have judges stepping from one jurisdiction to another. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bureau)

has just mentioned that he is one of the kickers with respect to the Court of Review. Let me say that he is not the only one, but that practically all the lawyers that I know of in the province of Quebec, or in the district of Montreal, are also kickers with respect to that particular court. In French it is styled the Cour de Revision, but many have called it a Court of Confirmation, because its function is to confirm judgments. If we take the record of that court we will find that it allows appeals at the ratio of perhaps one in ten cases. This does not mean that the judgments of the Court of Review are bad. Nor is there any intention in this discussion, as my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) has just said, of casting any reflection on the reputation of the Court of Review. But I maintain that when the Court of Review in Montreal hears from six to eight- or ten cases each day for three or four days in succession, the court cannot fully study the records and render to them the attention which they deserve. What is true of the Court of Review should be true of the other courts; but the main point is this: It is not right and proper that judges in one tribunal should sit as judges in another tribunal.


Jacques Bureau: Hear, hear.


Jean-Joseph Denis: We know that such is the case 'to-day, and any lawyer who practises in the province of Quebec is aware of it also. It is only right that judges should consult among themselves. It is only right that the five judges of the Court of Appeal should consult, but I do not think it is right that the judges of the Superior Court should consult among themselves and after that that their judgments should be revised by other judges of the Superior Ccurt, because it is inevitable that it will often happen that when a judge of the Superior Court consults with his confreres about a case, the same case may come before the Court of Review, and one of the three judges of that court, who has been consulted before, would be sitting in the Court of Review. * I do not think that is right or fair. The same principle applies here. My hon. friend has said that this Government is well able to provide the country with judges. I think that if an advertisement were put in the newspapers we could get as many judges as we need; and I do not think that in order to get a supply such a step should be necessary. There are plenty of learned and well-read lawyers in the country out of whom the Government can make judges. I do not want to launch out too far, but perhaps I may go so far as to say that it is bad enough that

judges should be named for life, without taking a judge who is appointed for life and who has no account to render to anybody but his own conscience, and transfer him from one court to another. Consequently, Mr. Chairman, I follow the leadership of the hon. member for Three Rivers in the conviction that this Bill should not be accepted.


The CHAIRMAN:: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt subsection (1) as amended?


Jacques Bureau: I understood from the Minister of Justice that his amendment was made only as a matter of courtesy to the Chief Justice of the province of Quebec.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Not only to him.


Jacques Bureau: I understood that.
Mr. /DOHERTY: That was one reason; it was not the only reason, nor was it only for the Chief Justice of the province of Quebec. I did mention that it was a matter of courtesy to all the Chief Justices that if a judge was to be taken from their province, they should be asked to designate him.


Jacques Bureau: As the minister well
knows, there are two judicial districts in Quebec covering the whole province. The Chief Justice of the Superior Court, Sir Frangois Lemieux, is now in Quebec, and at other times the Chief Justice may be in Montreal. How would it be to leave to the discretion of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or the senior puisne judge o- the Supreme Court, the making .of this request either to the Chief Justice. of the Superior Court or to the Assistant Chief Justice? While I do not want to be taken as acquiescing in any way in this legislation, because I am dead against it, and consider that it is wrong in principle, if it is going to be enacted I want to get the best procedure that I can, and that is why I make this suggestion.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I hardly think there would be any advantage in providing that the acting Chief Justice in the district, say, of Montreal, shall act. Although there is an Acting Chief Justice in the district of Montreal, there is a Chief Justice of the province of Quebec, and he is the Chief Justice of the entire province.


Jacques Bureau: Supposing he is away?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If it is to meet the case of his absence, then perhaps we could provide in his absence for somebody else doing

it. There may be some advantage in that. If we carry that out, or it the chief justice

- Mr. BUREAU:	Or the assistant chief
justice. I do not know how it is in other provinces, but talking with my confreres I think Quebec is the only province with that situation. I understand that in other provinces there is only one judicial district for the whole province. The chief justice, whether .in Montreal or Quebec, could take necessary action.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The chief justice could undoubtedly draw from the whole province.


Jacques Bureau: I admit that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If we are going to provide for the case of his absence, we will have to nominate the acting chief justice or the senior puisne judge, because if we are going to foresee it is possible that both will be absent, and if we specifically provide


Jacques Bureau: Supposing it happens
that you have only one chief justice?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In Ontario they have
four or five chief justices. They are rich in chief justices in Ontario.


Jacques Bureau: They are luckier than, we are. I was not assuming any knowledge other than that of conditions in my own province. Under the circumstances, how would the Minister of Justice get around it if our chief justice was away or absent from the province of Quebec?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If we insert the words "or the acting chief justice," would not that meet such a case?


Jacques Bureau: Suppose 'both were away?
Mr. BOYiS: We had< better make it read "the senior puisne judge."


Charles Joseph Doherty: If we make provision
for the absence of the chief justice, then we ought to make a provision which will give assurance that there will always be somebody competent to act. Perhaps we might add the words "or acting chief justice, or senior puisne judge," or perhaps it might read "or in the absence of either or both, the senior puisne judge."


Mr.   D@: : Does this Bill not provide for the calling of more than one ad hoc judge at a time?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, there is no power for the calling of more than one ad hoc judge. This is the first time that there has been
any provision for an ad hoc judge in the Supreme Court of Canada, and I think that if we make provision to fill the absence of one judge we 'are, perhaps, going as far as is necessary at present. There are six judges, five being required for a quorum, and, therefore, unless two are incapacitated for some reason, there, is no need of resorting to any such provision. I did give thought to the possibility of two being needed, but I came to the conclusion that it would not be wise to create the possibility of more than one ad hoc judge sitting at a time in the Supreme . Court.
iMr. Du TREMBLAY: The clause does not seem to be very clear on that point. It seems to me that under the Bill more than one judge could be called to replace judges who were absent. A couple of judges of the Superior Court of Quebec might be called, or two or three from other provinces.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think the language oi the section makes it amply clear that the power is limited to calling for one judge. The Exchequer Court judge is first called upon, and in his absence only one other judge. There is something to be said for the suggestion that power should, perhaps, be extended to the calling of two, but for myself I do not think that desirable. I think it is undesirable except in case of absolute necessity to have sitting in the Supreme Court a judge or judges ad hoc.


Jacques Bureau: The Minister of Justice has stated my case exactly. I agree that it would be extraordinary if three Supreme Court judges at the same time should not be in a position to sit; therefore, this provision is for the appointment of only one ad hoc judge. The only difficulty that might be experienced in replacing the absent judge would be to comply with the Supreme Court Apt in the case of judges from the province of Quebec. If this legislation is passed, I think the minister had better reconstitute the Supreme Court and be able to show whether or not the increase in business justifies an increase in the number of judges, or whether the inclemency of the weather or other circumstances will result in our being obliged to having a spare man in the background for emergencies. I was suggesting that this point should be taken into consideration, and the suggestion of the minister with regard to the provision, for the emergency for a judge being absent makes my request a little bit stronger than it w,as before.
Mr. MORPHY. The member for Three Rivers has raised a very important point.



This Bill has not had the consideration which a measure of its importance should have had. I think that the whole difficulty can he got over if the Government itself will take the responsibility of appointing such judges as may be required-two, or three, if necessary-so that the court may always be properly constituted and so that the difficulty suggested by the member for Three Rivers could not possibly arise. The country would have confidence in the appointments of the Government, and all the difficulties suggested would fade away like a snowball in the hot sun. Let the minister put a provision In the Bill to this effect; let him do away with all these varied conditions which are likely to arise in the case of judges not being present or the case of two being required- when only one is provided for. Let the Government take the responsibility so that the business of the country may not be held up at any time for want of a quorum of judges in the Supreme Court of Canada, and so that we shall have a court with, perhaps, more life in it than it ha,s had for a long time past.


Mr.   D@: I do not think that it is a good principle to adopt that the Government should appoint a judge or judges in special cases when the properly constituted judges are unable to sit. The people would complain of these appointments; they would certainly be displeased, and would not believe it to be a good principle. Moreover, the principle of the Bill in every way is wrong. I support very strongly the suggestion of the member for Three Rivers; let us appoint another judge of the Supreme Court, if necessary. The minister knows well the position 0* the Superior Court in the province of Quebec; we have no judges to spare, and if any move in the matter of appointment is to be made, a good move would be to appoint someone to that Superior Court. The business of the Quebec courts is suffering, especially during certain months, and I suggest that the Minister of Justice look into the matter.	-


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the amendment carry?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: No.


Jacques Bureau: I do not wish to be understood as having stated that if any judge was to be taken from any Superior Court or inferior tribunal to sit ad hoc in the Supreme Court, he ought to be appointed by the Governor in Council. I say that judges should not be taken from their jurisdiction. The appointment of judges in such cases

by the Governor in Council would be radically bad. The chief justice would at least be able to tell what judge he could dispense with or what judge would have more time to spare than another; while the Governor in Council could not possibly be familiar with any of these conditions.


Mr. DEVLIN:: I am heartily in sympathy with the measure brought down by the Minister of Justice. I feel that no man is more competent to express an opinion as to what men should be chosen to sit on cases in the Supreme Court than the chief justice of the court to which the application is made. From the experience which the chief justice has had in dealing with the particular judges of the court, he is, it seems to me, in a position to know who has the most talent, who has the most experience, who is the best versed) in law. I readily support the Minister of Justice'.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. Lemieux moves
to further amend clause 1 by adding to line sixteen, after the word "judge" the foil-owing words "or the assistant judge." The clause "will then read:
-as an ad hoc judge, for such period as may he necessary, of the judge or the asistant judge of the Exchequer Court.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not want to appear as being in the position of criticising in any way or suggesting that the assistant judge of the Exchequer Court is not, speaking of him as an individual, in every way thoroughly competent, but I do think it is incongruous that, when we are dealing with providing a judge for the ultimate appellate court of the country, we should, in preference to the chief justices and the judges of all the higher courts of the provinces, call in a gentleman who, however high his qualities, does hold the position of assistant judge in the court to which he has been appointed. I do not wish, as I have said, to suggest that that implies any lack of qualification upon his part, but at the same time it does not seem to me to be desirable that we should take an assistant judge of any court and place him in the position of sitting in the ultimate tribunal. There is also this that might be pointed out as a practical consequence, namely, that you will create, a situation in which, although the letter and the spirit of the law is that you f-ully meet the special system of law in Quebec by providing two judges from that province, you will, in every case, even in cases coming from other provinces, where you need an ad hoc judge

-if the judge lacking is from some other province and the cases come from some other province-be compelled to have three judges sitting from the province of Quebec. While we all want to see that the statutory rights are recognized, on the other hand, there is this ito be considered from the point of view of the other provinces, that we should not impose upon them the possible absolute necessity of trying the cases in that way. I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that there is not anything of sufficient importance involved in his suggested amendment that should prevent him from reconsidering the desirability of insisting upon it.
Mr. LElMIE.UX: I am not at all converted by the argument of the minister. It seems to me that the judges of the superior courts of the provinces should, only in exceptional circumstances, be called upon to sit as judges ad hoc in the Supreme Court of Canada. The first call of the chief justice of Canada-and in such case he would have to exercise his own judgment-should be at the Exchequer Court where he has two judges who heretofore would have been members of the Supreme Court; that is to say, under the old system that prevailed they would be members of the Supreme Court, the Exchequer jurisdiction being exercised by the Supreme Court. There he has two judges with exactly the same jurisdiction, except that the one is junior and the other is senior. Having those two men available, you provide for all contingencies and emergencies, and it sterns to me, that in the interest of justice, without any additional cost, without any travelling expenses, the chief justice of the Supreme Court should call uipon the one or the other. 'It may be that to-day Sir Walter Oassels is in British Columbia or Mr. Justice Audette is in Prince Edward Island, but at all events there is always one of the two in Ottawa, and the chief justice can call upon either of them to sit as ad hoc judge. It is only under extraordinary circumstances that we should rely on the Superior Courts of the provinces* We should not deprive the provinces of their judges, because, as the minister knows, the courts are generally congested, and they will he congested for a long period of time. The Exchequer Court is sitting in Ottawa. It is admitted that the two judges have equal jurisdiction. It seems to me, therefore, they should he called upon to sit, the one as well as the other. Why should we make this invidious comparison between the chief justice and his assistant? While one is the senior and the other is the junior,
34i
they have exactly the same jurisdiction; they hear exactly the same oases; they interpret exactly the same statutes. By permitting the appointment of either of them as ad hoc judge, you woiuld save money and you would save time in emergencies. Let us take a case in point. The minister informed the committee a moment ago that the legal fraternity could not proceed to-day before the Supreme Court because one or two of the judges are away. Mr. Justice Duff is sitting as Central Appeal Judge, and Sir Louis Davies is, I think, ill. The dourt, therefore, cannot sit. According to this first section, if it is not amended, the chief justice would have to inform, let us say, the chief justice of Ontario, that he is deprived of two of his brother judges on the bench. This would entail shine correspondence, and the chief justice of Ontario would have to select two of his judges to sit in the Supreme Court. This means a lot of correspondence and delay, whilst the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada can, by pressing a button in his office, send for one of the two judges of the Exchequer Court and have him sit on that very day. The matter is so clear I am surprised that my good friend the Minister of Justice doer not yield to my appeal.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I am afraid I would make a poor member of a Union party. Just a moment ago I agreed with the Minister of Justice in saying that I believe the chief justice of the province was the better man to choose the judge. I now find myself in the (position of differing from him in his idea of ostracizing one of the two judges of the Exchequer Court. I know the Minister of Justice is not doing this because he feels one is less competent than the other, but simply because the one is the assistant of the other. I support the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) because in choosing one of the members of a certain bench to sit in special cases of the Supreme Court, I do not think it is right to cast the stigma on the other judge on that same bench that, simply because he is assistant judge, he is not qualified to sit with his brother judge and try the cases.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am very sorry indeed that one of my hon. friends should look upon this as being invidious, and the other as casting a stigma or ostracizing. Certainly nothing was farther from my mind. I must confess I fail to grasp why it is considered that there is any ostracism or any reflection whatever cast on the capacity of

an individual gentleman, when in enacting a statute it is provided that a man holding another and a different office from his shall be the person called upon to do a particular work. I do not think there is any reflection upon a gentleman because he is an assistant judge while someone else is the judge, nor any reflection because one may be a puisne judge and somebody else a chief justice. It might appear proper, and there are not wanting instances where powers and functions are conferred upon the chief justice as such. Does anybody say that that iis a reflection on any one else? I entertain the highest respect for Mr. Justice Audette, and I am very sorry it should be insisted upon that this is in any way intended to cast the slightest reflection upon him. It is not a question of personality at all. Parliament in its wisdom thought it was right that there should not be two judges on absolutely the same footing in the Exchequer Court. Parliament so provided, and the gentleman who holds the position of assistant judge accepted that office and accepted that decision of Parliament. I am very sorry the personal equation should be introduced in a matter in which there is nothing personal at all. Whatever the distinction was that Parliament intended to create between a judge and an assistant judge, when we are dealing with the question whether it is wiser and better for us to call upon someone in some other court to sit in the Supreme Court of Canada, and not to call upon the gentleman who holds the position of assistant judge of the Exchequer Court, I repeat, I am sorry it should be insisted that we are casting any reflection on the assistant judge. For my part there is no reflection intended.


Mr. MOWAT:: 
Mr.   ROYS@: As I understand it, the amendment proposes to insert after the word "judge" in line 16, the words "or assistant judge," and to make a change in the next line by saying "or should they be absent." It seems to me to come down to this: These changes would render almost useless the following language in the section, for as I understand it, either the judge of the Exchequer Court, or the assistant judge thereof is always present in Ottawa, and in consequence no other ad hoc judge would be designated. I think that would be undesirable, because you might get a case like this-in an appeal from the province of Ontario, two regular judges of the Supreme Court might be unavailable; you would then require an ad hoc judge. The judge of the Exchequer Court might be absent, in which case the assistant judge, Mr. Justice Audette, would be called upon to preside. You might then have the Supreme Court constituted of three judges from the province of Quebec trying an appeal from the province of Ontario. I do not think that would be any more desirable than having three or more judges from the province of Ontario, or some province other than Quebec trying an appeal from the province of Quebec. It seems to me that the section as worded is more desirable than -as proposed to be amended by my hon. friend from Maisonneuve.


Wilfrid Laurier: If the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) were to have the consequences which have just been pointed out by my hon. friend (Mr. Boys)
I would altogether agree with him. This takes us back to the formation of the court. Section 6 of the Supreme Court Act reads as follows:
Two at least of the Judges shall be appointed from among the judges of the Court of King's Bench, or of the Superior Court, or the barristers or advocates of the Province of Quebec.
What is the reason of that exceptional provision? When the Act was passed in 1875 establishing the Supreme Court there was great objection in many of the provinces, in Quebec particularly, to having the Supreme Court constituted as a court of appeal to pass upon provincial laws. Many held, as I did myself-I was a young member then-that it would be better to. have a court of appeal, to be known as the Supreme Court, to pass upon the laws of the Dominion alone. But a contrary opinion prevailed and it was made a court of appeal for all the provinces. The province
of Quebec, not being under the common law but under the civil law, it was thought fair that two judges of the court should at least be versed in the civil law and not in the common law only. That, I think, was a wise provision. If the effect of this amendment were to be that three judges versed in the civil law would have to pass upon a case from the province of Ontario, which is under the common law, it would be very unfair. If that should be the consequence I would advise my hon. friend on my right (Mr. Lemieux) not to press his amendment. But, let us look at the Bill. The Bill provides that if there is a judge ad hoc to be appointed, the first choice should fall upon a judge resident in Ottawa. Everybody can understand the advantage wf having a judge resident in Ottawa. There come here lawyers from all parts of the country, from Prince Edward Island to British Columbia, their time is precious; of a sudden a judge cannot sit, the court has no quorum and it is indispensable that the quorum should be filled at once so that it can go on with its business. The first thing that happens is that the judge of the Supreme Court takes a judge sitting in Ottawa-the judge of the 'Court of Exchequer. If there is no judge in the Exchequer Court available, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, or in his absence the senior puisne judge, has to seek one elsewhere. If you say that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall have the power to address himself, first, to the judge of the Exchequer Court, or, if for any reason he is unable to act, then to the assistant judge or to a judge of any provincial Superior Court, leaving a discretion open to the Chief Justice to call either for the Exchequer Court judge or the assistant judge or for a judge in any of the different provinces, the difficulty is obviated.


Mr. BOYS:: That is not the wording of
the section as amended by the hon. member for Maisonneuve.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear. I agree, but I repeat what I said at the beginning:	If the wording is such that the
possible consequence might be that three judges from the province of Quebec could not be avoided, or if we should have to take the judgment of three judges from that province, I would advise my hon. friend, (Mr. Lemieux) not to press his amendment because it would not be fair nor in accordance with the principle which was embodied in the Supreme Court Act.


William Alves Boys: I understand that the chief justice of the Exchequer Court is away



* COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
most of the time which would mean that the assistant judge would he called upon to act as the ad hoc judge.
Wilfrid Laurier: It would be
sufficient to say in the Bill that-the judge of the Supreme Court should have discretion to call either the judge of the Exchequer Court, or the assistant judge or a provincial judge. I am sure that the judge of the Supreme -Court would always see that there were not more than two judges from the province of Quebec on the bench. If we would not trust to his discretion in that regard it might easily toe provided for tout I do not see why there should be that exclusion, mentioned by the Minister of Justice and by my hion. friend from Simcoe, of the assistant judge of the court of exchequer.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think it is
susceptible of question that, with the amendment in, the provision will reach the results pointed out toy the hon. member for Simcoe because, if we leave it as it stands now and add the amendment of the hon. member from Maisonneuve, it will be imperative fo-r the chief justice of the Supreme Court, before he asks for any provincial judge, to take either the judge of the Exchequer Court or the assistant judge of the Exchequer Court. If the judge of the Exchequer Court be -away it will be imperative upon the chief justice to take the assistant judge. If the absent judge who had to be replaced was a judge from *a province other than Quebec you would have three gentlemen, all of them originally versed in the civil law of Quebec, sitting. If I seized rightly the suggestion of the leader of the Opposition it was that we should remove from the chief justice the obligation in any case of taking the Exchequer -Court judge and leave to him freedom to say whether he will call on the Exchequer Court judge or whether he will call upon the assistant judge, or whether he will call upon the chief justice of a province to give ihim a judge. As the Bill stands now, with the amendment as suggested this afternoon, it has the effect of leaving the chief justice no choice as to the individual judge. His duty is to call upon -the Exchequer Court judge. If the Exchequer Court judge is not .available then it becomes his duty to call upon the chief justice of one of- the provinces to furnish him with a judge. If we accept the suggestion of the leader of the Opposition we put the chief justice of the Supreme Court in this position: the judge of the Exchequer court is here and the assistant judge is ' 
here. If for any reason the chief justice would rather have .a provincial judge he will be put in the position of having to make an invidious distinction by having it placed in his hands to select either of these two judges or by passing them over to ask for a provincial judge. I hardly think it is fair to put the chief justice of the Supreme Court in the position of having to decide as between individuals. As it stands at the present time.his duty is all marked out for him. Hs asks for the judge of the Exchequer Court. It is not because he wants to do it but because the law says he has to do it. Failing him, he has to ask the chief justice of a province to furnish him with a judge.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Will it be competent for the provincial chief justice to furnish -him with the assistant judge of the Exchequer Court according to the meaning of' this Bill?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Not as the law is worded now, and it would perhaps be a little anomalous for the chief justice of a court, say in British Columbia, to designate the assistant judge of the Exchequer Court for any particular duty. I am afraid to do so would be to introduce confusion into the operations of the Bench. While I am quite prepared to admit the force of the different objections that have been made from that point of view, from the best consideration I have been able to give the matter up to the present time, I am still disposed to think that the section as amended perhaps meets all the exigencies of the case, and I would like to repeat that it could not be interpreted as implying any reflection upon the gentleman who happens to be assistant judge of the Exchequer Court. '


William Alves Boys: There are only two Exchequer Court Judges for the whole of Canada, and it seems to me that if this amendment be carried -we may have this result: It will be some months yet before Mr. Justice Duff may be liberated from his duties as -Central Appeal Judge, and be free to return to the Supreme Court. Now if one of the two Exchequer Court Judges should be required elsewhere, it might have the effect of causing a congestion in the Exchequer Court, and tying up business there. That is the reason I would not be disposed to favour my hon. friend's amendment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Supposing that one of the judges of the Supreme Court of the province of Quebec is ill, and has to be

replaced, does not some objection arise there?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I quite agree that there should be a provision in this Bill that where an ad hoc judge is to be chosen, he should be appointed from the province from which the judge whom he is to replace comes. I gathered from the remarks of the Minister of Justice that he really intended that, but I find no provision in the Bill which makes it plain. I quite agree that in case of an appeal from the province of Quebec there should be two judges from that province; but there is no interference with that arrangement because it is a statutory provision anyway.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As far as regards existing legislation, the proviso is quite clear in its terms if the case is a Quebec case and the absent judge is a Quebec judge. As regards the other provinces, I am quite in the hands of the Committee as to what is the wisest course to pursue. All the other provinces have a common system of common law; Quebec is the only province which has a distinct common law system of its own. Now (would there toe any advantage- in having an Ontario judge because a case comes from Ontario, or in having an Alberta judge because a case comes from Alberta? Both of these judges will toe men versed and trained in the same common law. I must say that if it were not for this exceptional system of law which prevails in the province of Quebec, I would not dream of making any exception in the case of that province; it would protoatoly be an advantage that the judge who is to go to the Supreme Court of Canada to try a case coming from Quetoec should toe a judge from some other province, because then we would avoid the suggested objections of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) of a possible relationship between judges from the same province who have been associated in the same court. Similarly with regard to the province of Ontario, if you could have an outstanding lawyer, trained and brought up in that province's system of common law, tout "who has had no relations with the judges upon whose judgments he is sitting in appeal, I think it would toe a desirable thing. If it is considered that any advantage would be gained toy getting a man from the same province I would not be disposed to strenuously oppose it, although I think it is wiser to Leave the field as- wide as it can be left.
Amendment negatived.
On subsection 2-Evidence of appointment.
Mr. Doherty -moved to amend the subsection by adding after the word "judge" in the second line, "and where a judge of a provincial court is designated, the act of the letter designating him."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On subsection 3-Duties.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I move the following
words (be added in the second line after the word "requested," "or has been so designated."
Mr. MoMASTER: Should the word "or" in the phrase " or any conference " not be " on? "


Charles Joseph Doherty: No. In that event he
will get nothing when he attends a sitting of the court.


Jacques Bureau: Would not the request
be sufficient? A designation would correspond to a request.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. But if he is a
provincial judge he cannot attend merely on the request. The Exchequer Court judge will attend simply on the request o-f the chief justice of the Supreme Court. But a judge coming from any other court, in order to be entitled to sit, must come in consequence of the request of the chief justice of the Supreme Court addressed to his chief justice, and the designation coming to him from his chief justice is the authority upon which he attends. And for that reason I thought it wise to say in the Bill " a j-udige who attends a sittings of the Supreme Court on such request or upon suc'h designation." Then the reason why we say " or any conference of the judges " is in order that the judge so attending may get his travelling expenses, not only when he comes to attend a sittings of the court, hut also when he comes to attend a conference of the judges with regard to the rendering of the judgment.


William Alves Boys: Would it not make it plainer if you said " an ad hoe judge " and left out the words " on suc'h request " in the second line of the section?


Georges Henri Boivin: I would suggest that
the words " on such request or upon such designation " be added after the word "who." The wording (would then be: "A judge who; upon such request or upon such designation, attends a sittings of the Supreme Court or any conference of the

judges called for the consideration of judgments," and so on.


William Alves Boys: Would it not simplify it still more to strike out the words " on such request " in the second line, and to begin the subsection with the words " an hoc judge?"


Charles Joseph Doherty: That will be all right.
The GHlAiIRMAN: The section as amended now reads:
An ad hoc judge who attends a sittings of the Supreme Court or any conference of the judges called for the consideration of judgments in cases in which he sat, shall be paid his travelling expenses and shall receive a per diem allowance for living expenses of ten dollars for each day that he is necessarily absent from his place of residence, as provided by section eighteen of the Judges Act.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
On subsection (2)-Valuations in assessment appeals.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This amendment deals with appeals of a special nature provided for by section 41 of the Supreme Court Act, which provides that an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from the judgment of any court of last resort created under provincial legislation to adjudicate concerning the assessment of property for provincial or municipal purposes, in cases where the person, or persons, presiding over such court is, or are, by provincial or municipal authority authorized to adjudicate, and the judgment appealed from involves the assessment of property at a value of not less than ten thousand dollars. This is an appeal especially with regard to the assessment of property for provincial and municipal purposes, and, as will be seen, provides for a general right of appeal if the value of the property is not 'less than ten thousand dollars. I understand that in certain of the provinces there have been constituted assessment boards, who have been constituted the final valuators or judges without further appeal, or which are courts of last resort practically for valuations of this sort. It is not proposed to withdraw the appeal in cases of judgments or determinations of such valuations, but to add a proviso to the effect that the Supreme Court of Canada shall not disturb or vary the judgment unless it is satisfied that in fixing or affirming it such court of last resort in the province has proceeded upon an erroneous principle, and, instead of its fixing the amount of the assessment, which in its opinion should be [The Chairman.]
varied, the court may remit the case to the court of last resort in the province to fix the same according to the principle which the court declares to be applicable. In other words, there is not to be an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada for the mere purpose of valuating or estimating values. If this proviso be added to the section, the court is not to disturb the judgment merely upon the simple question of valuation if it finds in the principles upon which the original courts have proceeded that there is no error.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is that not the present jurisprudence?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That principle is very generally laid down, but inasmuch as these very questions themselves are questions of valuation, and that there is a special section giving an appeal in this particular kind of valuation, it did appear that there was room for the suggestion that since the cases are cases that involve nothing but valuations, and the especial appeal is created for them, there might be the inference that the intention is that the Supreme Court should substitute itself as a valuator pure and simple.


Jacques Bureau: Would that be a limitation of the prerogative of the court?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It will be a limitation of its power, certainly.


Jacques Bureau: Why should we do that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Because it seems to me that so long as you keep this to the exclusive question of valuation with no principle involved at all, and the province has provided for a board to make that valuation in the place itself, and has determined that in its judgment that valuation ought to be final, the Supreme Court of Canada seems to be rather a peculiar body to substitute as a board of valuators for the exclusive purpose of correcting valuations, in portions of the country which, in a large number of cases, the judges, even if they were expert valuators, are not at all familiar with, and it seems to me, as suggested by the right hon. gentleman, that it is only clearing, where the case is purely on a question of valuation, the right of the court to decide what it practically, I think, decides in the great number of cases, that is to say of ordinary appeals, that it will not interfere where it is a question purely-and simply of estimating values and there is no error whatever in the principle upon which the court below proceeded.

As for its .being derogatory to the prerogative of the court, I shall be disclosing no secret if I say that the court itself desires in the strongest possible way that this legislation shall be enacted. As the result of its experience it is very much impressed with what I am trying to point out: that it is not the best body in the world to perform the pure and simple operation of the valuation of property.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-courts of final resort:
Charles Joseph Doherty: The purpose of this amendment is to subject appeals from all the provinces to the same rules and restrictions that are imposed upon appeals from Ontario; to assimilate the law determining in what class of cases there shall be appeal in all the provinces other than Quebec. As the law now stands, certain restrictions are imposed on the right of appeal from Quebec, and certain restrictions on the right of appeal from Ontario, those effective in the former case being greater than those effective in the latter. The other provinces remain under the general provision of section 36 of the Act, which provides that, except as otherwise provided, appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any final judgment of the highest court of final resort now or thereafter established in any province of Canada, whether such court be a court of appeal or of original jurisdiction, in cases in which the court of original jurisdiction is a superior court. But there is no limitation, for instance, as regards amount. In Ontario there is no right to appeal from a judgment of last resort unless the amount involved on the appeal be at least $1,000, or unless the case comes within the limited category of cases provided in section 48. The effect of this provision is to assimilate the law in regard to the right of appeal in all the provinces other than Quebec, and that assimilation is brought about oy subjecting them all to the same limitations that are presently imposed on the right of appeal from Ontario. I understand that when the restrictions were imposed on Ontario and not on the other provinces, it was largely because in all or in the majority of the other provinces at that time there was no distinct and separate Court of Appeal, appeals within the province being from a judge of the court to the court iteelf in banc. In all the provinces now, with the exception of Nova Scotia, there is a separate and distinct Court of Appeal, so that there seems to remain no reason why there
should be a distinction between the conditions respecting the right of appeal from Ontario and those respecting the right of appeal from the other provinces. It is possible that Nova Scotia will at no very remote period be put on the same footing with regard to the existence of a separate Court of Appeal as the other provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, and amendments read the first and second time and concurred in.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: When shall the Bill be read the third time?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understood from the
leader of the Opposition last week that he would be willing to facilitate the passage of the Bill in time for next week, and I should be glad if the Bill could be read the third time now.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The objection was made by the bon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy.)


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand that the
hon. member for North Perth is satisfied.


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


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid, Minister of Railways and Canals, the House went into Committee, Mr. Boivin in the Chair, to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to provide that during the present war and for one year thereafter, the Minister of Railways and Canals, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may acquire engines, cars, rails and other railway equipment and materials, and may sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any such equipment to any Canadian railway company or companies upon such terms and conditions as may be approved' by the Governor in Council, and may defray all expenditure made hereunder out of any unappropriated moneys in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada; and that for the payment in whole or in part of any such equipment the Minister of Finance, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may issue equipment notes or other obligations or securities, or may guarantee the principal and interest of any securities issued by any company approved by the Governor in Council; and the times and manner of the issue of such securities, and the forms and terms thereof or of any trust deed', lease or other instrument incidental thereto, and the trustees, shall be approved by the Governor in Council, and the provisions of section four of chapter thirty-eight of the statutes of 1907 shall apply to any instrument relating to such equipment
[Stage Direction]
executed under the terms hereof, and such securities shall be made payable by instalments, the last instalment to be made payable on or before the expiry of ten years from the issue thereof; and further, to provide that the Minister may transfer to the Canadian Government Railways any equipment so acquired, and in such event there shall be charged to the accounts of the said railways such amounts as may properly be chargeable herefor, and the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act shall, as far as applicable, extend to the accounts and charges incurred hereunder.
John Dowsley Reid: I may explain the necessity for this legislation. Owing to the Government taking over the Canadian Northern railway, and owing to the Gtowernment requiring more equipment for the Government railway system, and then, on account of the war, owing to the other railways requiring equipment, it is necessary for the Government to purchase and finance this equipment. In doing so, we wish to have the power, after purchasing it, to lease or sell it to railways, other than the Government railways, that may require further equipment. In purchasing this equipment, we wish to be in the same position as other railways are at the present time in making such purchases. For instance, other railway corporations, such as the Canadian Pacific, or the Canadian Northern, or the Grand Trunk, are in a position to issue equipment bonds and in that way not pay the full purchase price of the equipment at the time delivery is made. By issuing equipment bonds they can spread the payment over a term of years. It certainly makes it very difficult for the Government to finance the purchase of equipment when it is called upon to pay a very large amount in one year at the present time. For instance, last year the Department of Railways and Canals ordered 160 engines and six or seven thousand cars. We put the amount in the estimates, and of course we were compelled to pay the amount of the equipment delivered last year. We received the equipment, and we leased a portion of it to the Grand Trunk railway system and a portion to the Canadian Northern railway system. The Canadian Pacific railway got four or five of our large engines, and the other engines went to the Canadian Government railways. If we had not purchased that equipment, we would have Seen in a very serious position during last winter on account of not having sufficient motive power. It was, therefore, a good thing that we ordered the engines last year. The other day we had, in order to protect the transportation situation during the coming winter and for- the future, on account of the heavy movement of troops 
and so on, to give orders for a very large quantity iof engines, cars and other railway equipment. We had to order 100,000 tons of rails that will cost five or six million dollars. We want to be in this position that we can pay for the equipment and then transfer it to other companies by way oi sale tor lease. The purchase of the. items that come under this Bill is all done in the regular way by tender and Order in Council, and any lease or sale is done by Order in Council in the usual way.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Is any part of the $500,000,000 loan to be effected under the Bill introduced by the Prime (Minister to be used for purchasing any of this equipment?


John Dowsley Reid: No, this is a regular operation, irrespective of any war measure at all.
'Mr. DEVLIN: I find in the Canadian Daily Record of Saturday, March 23, 1918, a
paper published by the Canadian Records office for the boys in the trenches, this article:
Record railroad order, Government places contract of $22,500,000 value, mostly cars for Canadian Northern railway.
(Daily Record Cablegram), Ottawa, Friday. One of the largest railroad equipment orders ever placed in Canada has just been given by the Dominion Government.. The order totalis S 22,500,0 00, the bulk of it being for cars for the Canadian Northern railway. The Canadian Car and Foundry Company, of Montreal, receives about $16,000,000 worth of orders, which will be distributed between several subsidiary companies at Montreal and Hamilton and in Nova Scotia.
Will the minister state what other companies are to have the balance of the-orders totalling $22,500,000?


John Dowsley Reid: This is the -equipment that we have ordered. In the first place, we have ordered 150 engines, that is divided between the two companies in Kingston and Montreal.. That disposes of the question of engines. In regard to other equipment, we ordered 5,000 forty-ton steel frame box cars from the -Canada Car and Foundry Company. They are dividing that order amongst the plants at Fort William, Montreal and Amherst. We ordered 1,000 forty-ton steel frame box cars from the National Steel Car Company. We gave them an order for 1,000 cars a year ago, and up to the present time they have delivered about one-half, but they say that they will, about the first of May, deliver the 'balance of those cars ordered last year, and that they will have this last order of 1,000 ready by the fall.
Mr. DEVLIN >
Where is that company? Mr. REID: The National 'Steel Car Company, Hamilton. We ordered 750 forty-one

foot-, forty ton flat ears and 650 fifty ton coal cars from the Eastern Car Company. That is all they said they could handle. We ordered from the Hart Otis Company 250 Hart Otis side dump cars and 200 Hart Otis side and centre dump oars. Those are all we wanted of those types. We ordered from the Pressed Steel Car Company, I think of Pittsburg, or some other American point, 25 general service tank cars, that is oil tank cars.


Jacques Bureau: Is that the only American order so far?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. That was the only company that tendered for those cars or that could !build them. We also ordered from that company 25 water service tank oars. From the Canada Car and Foundry Company we ordered 250 refrigerator cars. From the Pullman Car Company we ordered fourteen sleeping cars and seven dining cars. No company in Canada wanted orders foT' those cars at the present time. From the Montreal Locomotive Works we ordered 50 consolidated freight engines and 10 switching engines. From the Canada Locomotive Company we ordered thirty Pacific type engines, 60 Mikado type engines, six switching engines and four narrow gauge superheated engines.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What is the total amount of those orders?


John Dowsley Reid: $32,966,515.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Is that the total amount
of orders given within the last year?


John Dowsley Reid: That is, so far as my .memory serves me, the total amount. When I say within the last year, probably it was about the first of April or the first of May when we gave last year's orders.
Mr. LEM1IEUX:	The only objection I
have is that we are giving carte blanche to. the Minister of Railways to order equipment to -any amount. Will the Bill contain any limit beyond which the minister shall not go? Can the minister give the House an .approximate idea of the amount that will be involved by these operations in the course of the next fiscal year?	-


John Dowsley Reid: 


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the amount he
mentioned in the Bill?


John Dowsley Reid: 
Mr. ROBB:: The hon. Minister of Railways and Cenals (Mr. Reid) said that he was asking for this resolution on account ef the Government having acquired the Canadian Northern and other railways, that it was now their purpose to purchase engines, cars and rails; and that, in order to finance these purchases, the minister required legislation authorizing him to issue equipment notes. The inference I gathered from the statement of the minister was, that, in his judgment, the men who will -sell to the Government of Canada the engines, cars or rails, would consider a mortgage on this property of greater value than national bonds.


John Dowsley Reid: No, that is wrong.


James Alexander Robb: Why, then, is it necessary to obtain this legislation? Why cannot the minister, if he desires to purchase this rolling stock, .pay for it as we have paid for dredges or steamboats in the past? That is something I vrou.ld like to have cleared up.
I am not at all objecting to the policy of purchasing engines and cars. Indeed; the minister will remember that I myself advanced the idea, a couple of years ago, that the trouble we had experienced in the past in getting the grain crop moved from the West was due to the fact that we were short of engines and cars. It was suggested from this side of the House that the Government might- very well consider the possibility of purchasing engines and cars and leasing them to the roads at a time when they might require them. Certainly, the minister created in my mind the idea that in his judgment these equipment bonds would be more acceptable to the parties selling this rolling stock than bonds of the national
54G

treasury, and I think it -would be well to have that cleared up.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member (Mr. Robb) must have misunderstood my explanation. What I wanted to say was that the several railways-the Grand Trunk, the Grand Trunk Pacific andthe Canadian Northern-required extra equipment in the way of cars, engines and rails. At the present time theserailways are not allowed to put out loans. If they purchase equipment and issue bonds they cannot go on the money market of the United States and sell those equipment bonds, they are not allowed to do it by the United States Government. The British Government will not allow them to raise money in the United States. They have to get the consent of the Canadian Government to put their bonds on the Canadian market. In order to protect the public and the railways we are purchasing equipment of all kinds. When we purchase the equipment we pay for it, hut we take the equipment bonds of the railway company, for instance, the Grand Trunk, and dispose of them at the proper time. The money will come back in that way. The conditions which I have explained are attributable to the war, and the Bill which I purpose to introduce will make provision for a term during the present war and for one year thereafter. The financing conditions are a little difficult, but the Government can take the equipment bonds from the railway, purchase the equipment and at the proper time dispose of the equipment bonds. We ordered a hundred thousand tons of rails tfie other day. Part of that order is going to the Grand Trunk railway, several hundred miles to the Canadian Pacific, some to the Canadian Northern and some to another railway in Quebec owned by the Delaware and Hudson. We will be able to sell the rails to the Canadian Pacific, and they will pay the money immediately. The Grand Trunk and some of the others may not be able to do this, and we will have to take their securities. This Bill is for that purpose and no other. When we get into committee honourable members will see the Bill, and it will perhaps be easier to understand it. The clauses of the Bill give information that probably the resolution does not.


James Alexander Robb: The minister has not quite cleared up the point I raised- I understand him now to say that the Government are to take the equipment notes or bonds of these several railways, guarantee them, I suppose, and give them in payment of the

rolling stock. The legislation asked for authorizes the Government itself to issue equipment bonds. Does the minister consider these equipment bonds of greater value than national bonds issued in the ordinary way?


John Dowsley Reid: If it were for the Canadian Northern we might issue equipment bonds. I do not consider them better. No man would admit that; no bonds in the world are better than Canadian Gbvernment bonds. But it is the custom of the railways to issue equipment bonds. I do not say it will be necessary to issue Canadian Northern equipment bonds but they can be issued and if on account of our taking over the 'Canadian Northern railway it is necessary for us to guarantee the equipment bonds issued by that company, there is no reason why we should not do it, because we own the Canadian Northern now. We are not asking for any powers here other than we should receive in connection with the operation of these railway systems. That is the opinion I get from the lawyers and solicitors who understand everything that is necessary in carrying on the operation of a railway.


Mr. SHEARD:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister-and I ask simply for information, not wishing to be critical- if, in his opinion, this resolution is not broad enough to authorize the purchase of the whole of a railway excepting the right of way, and, if the Government at any time saw fit, would it not 'be possible to convey that railway to any other corporation? i ask the question because I understand this resolution is preparatory to a Bill being introduced based upon the resolution.


John Dowsley Reid: The Bill gives the answer to the question asked by the hon. member. It states that notwithstanding anything in the Act, or in any other statute or law, the minister, during the present war and for one year thereafter, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may acquire directly or indirectly, or assist in acquiring, engines, cars, rails and other railway equipment and material hereinbefore called equipment, and so forth. This explains that the resolution relates only to equipment.


Mr. CAHILL:: It seems to me that before this resolution passes, the Government should give the House a statement of its proposed policy with regard to the railway situation in Canada, which is undoubtedly one of the gravest problems with which we have to deal. We are told by the minis-

ter that the Government has taken over the Canadian Northern railway, but I understand that there is at the present time an arbitration board sitting in Toronto valuing the stock of that railway. If such is the case, the road has not been actually taken over by the Government.


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: We have acquired five-sixths of the total shares of the Canadian Northern railway.


Frank S. Cahill: But as a matter of fact the railway has not yet been taken over. I sincerely hope when it is taken over its administration will not be placed in the hands of a minister of the Crown, because this is entirely too big a proposition to be handled by any minister, the administration of nine thousand miles or more of railway, with the thousands of employees. I believe the argument has been used that the Canadian Northern is being taken over on the strength of the recommendations contained in the Drayton-Acworth report. One of the recommendations in that report is as follows:
We do not consider that the operation by a minister directly responsible to Parliament would be in the public interest; it would not secure better service or lower rates. We therefore reject the idea of direct Government ownership and operation.
Before the Government asks for this blank cheque, so to speak, for the purchase of equipment for roads which either are now owned by the Canadian people or may be acquired as the hon. minister suggested, we should have a statement from the Government as to what their intended policy is. The minister suggested that other railroads may be bought because every province in the Dominion was asking that that be done. When the Drayton-Acworth investigation was undertaken, we are told the men in charge had to take inexperienced men to make a valuation of the road. On the recommendation o.f these inexperienced men, after an investigation of six or eight weeks which should properly have taken a year, we are being asked to take over some nine thousand miles at a cost of five or six hundred millions of dollars; and it is now further proposed that we should hand the Minister of Railways a blank cheque to expend the balance of the country's money. Before this is done we ought to know something more about the proposition. There is no question but that our railway condition in Canada to-day is a very bad one, and it will be very much worse judging by existing circumstances. I cannot see how we can possibly manage
this great railway system without placing thoroughly experienced railway men at its head, and in my opinion we should hesitate to authorize the expenditure of such great sums of money for equipment and new purchases.
In connection with the purchasing of other railways, we have the statement of the Drayton-Acworth reportj in which it is stated that the Mackenzie and Mann interests had no equity in the stock. Nevertheless we find that a board of arbitration is sitting for the purpose of valuing the stock. Either we should or we should not accept the Drayton-Ackworth report. What is being done with the railway situation? Personally, I am strongly opposed to spending one dollar of Canadian money on these railway propositions as long as the system is to be left in the hands of a minister of the Crown. I think that such a policy will lead Canada, as well as the Government, into grave difficulties. I think the situation is one that merits the best consideration of the greatest railway authorities in Canada, and the fact that representations are coming from other provinces in favour of our assuming other railways should should bring home to the Government the actual condition of railway affairs in this country. It would seem to me a good plan to appoint a commission of practical railway men to review the whole railway situation of this country and 6ee if something cannot be done to put our railway systems in such a position that they can be financed and carried along, and not literally " eat us up " as they are apparently doing now. I venture to make the prediction that if conditions continue as they are, if the management of the Canadian Northern railway remains in the hands of a minister of the Crown for two years more, public ownership of railways will be killed for a long time in this country, because t'he railway systems will get into such a condition that nobody in this country will want to hear any more about Government ownership or public ownership of railways. I know nothing about the abilities or capabilities of the present Minister of Railways, but I do know that he is not a railway man. The railway situation in this country should be handled by practical railway imen, and until we take that step I am afraid we shall be heading for a bad state of affairs in the Dominion.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If the purport
of the resolution before the committee was to empower the (Government to (acquire further railway systems in Canada, the

remarks of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat might be quite pertinent and well worthy of consideration. But that is not'the object of the present resolution, which is simply to enable the Government to assist in t'he purchase of rolling stock for some of the railway systems in which we are interested.


Wilfrid Laurier: What railway systems?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I will come to that in a moment. It is hardly fair, I think, to expect a declaration of the Government's policy on a resolution of this character, because- that would hardly fall within the scope of the resolution. The Minister of Railways will be going into supply almost at the first opportunity, and then, I think, the House would be entitled to some statement as to the Government's policy with respect to the railways of this country.
Now, what is the position of the Government in respect of the railways systems in Canada. In the first place, we are the sole owners of the Intercolonial railway known as the Canadian Government railway system. As far as the Canadian Northern railway is concerned, we have acquired practically all the shares of that system, and a commission is now conducting an inquiry at Toronto to determine the value of the equity of redemption of the shareholders. The maximum amount of the equity was fixed at ten million dollars, so that any amount which Canada may Ibe called upon to pay toy that commission c-annot exceed that sum. Nevertheless, at this moment we are in possession of the shares of the company and that railway system is under our control. A certain n-umber of the board of directors have been nominated toy the Government, and to all intents and purposes it is a railway system belonging to the Government. Hon. gentlemen know that the road is not financially strong and that in one way or another it must (be assisted for many years to come by the Government in order that it may carry on the ordinary functions of a railway system. At the last session of Parliament an Act was passed enabling the Government to pay an amount not exceeding $25,000,000 to meet obligations maturing during the year, to pay interest, and to supply such equipment as was necessary to carry on the operations of that road; and, during the year, that amount of money was advanced .by the Government to the Canadian Northern railway. A similar Bill, not quite exactly the same, will toe sub-

rnitted to Parliament this session. There are obligations of the Canadian Northern railway maturing this year to the extent of $78,000,000 which we must care for in some way or other, because that railway system belongs to this country.
The purpose of this resolution, however, is to enable the Government to assist the railway systems in which it is interested directly and indirectly, and to assist some roads in which it is not interested at all as owners to secure sufficient rolling stock so that the trade and commerce of this country can be carried on unimpeded and without loss to the citizens of Canada. Last year hon. gentlemen know the traffic of this country was seriously tied up at many times, and it would be a very serious matter, indeed, if at any time in these days the traffic of Canada could not be moved by our railway systems. While it is a very difficult thing, and quite embarrassing in these days, for a government to be called upon to finance to such -a large amount as forty or fifty million dollars any of our railway systems, still for th ' common good, and in order that the commercial strength of this country may not be impaired, we must do it in one form or another. The Minister of Railways has already intimated to the committee that it is desirable to purchase rolling stock for the Intercolonial railway, the Canadian Northern railway, the Grand Trunk Pcifice -and the Grand Trunk system itself. None of these roads, outside of the Intercolonial, is in a position to finance the purchase of the-equipment which they severally require, therefore the obligation falls upon the Government to assist them.
Now, for the Government to purchase this equipment, involving such a vast amount as was indicated by the Minister of Railways, and at the same time carry on our civil and war expenditures, entails quite a serious burden upon this country, and very naturally the Government are anxious to devise some other method of financing these expenditures if it is possible, and in a manner that will not entail any larger outgo of revenue than is absolutely necessary. Therefore, the Minister of Railways proposes by this resolution to purchase rolling stock on behalf of all the roads which I have mentioned.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: And others.
Mr. A. K.-MACLEAN: Well, there would be no others. They might be limited by name, but that would be hardly necessary. The Minister of Railways proposes, as a matter of fact, to purchase and has in fact already ordered, rolling stock for the Inter-

colonial Railway system, the Canadian Northern system, the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the Grand Trunk system.


Wilfrid Laurier: How much for each?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 
James Alexander Robb: Before the Finance Minister (Mr. A. K. Maclean) leaves that point, what does he mean by exercising either power as defined in the resolution?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: As I understand the resolution, under the first part the Government may acquire all the rolling stock necessary for these railway systems *and itself issue equipment securities, or it may hand over'to the Canadian Northern and Grand Trunk railway systems whatever portion they require, these companies, in turn, issuing equipment securities, guaranteed, if necessary, by the Government. It is unfortunate that so many of the railway systems of Canada are at present in such a financial position as to require government assistance to the extent shown by the large purchases of railway equipment. Nevertheless, the Government must stand behind these railway systems, because if it did not the whole commercial fabric of the country would fall to the ground, and we should find ourselves in a very uncomfortable position indeed. The member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) suggested that there should be some limitation as to time or amount in this resolution. That may be well worth considering, but I suggest to him that he allow that consideration to stand until the Bill is introduced.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is what I intended.


Mr. FIELDING:: I judge from what the member for Maisonneuve says that there has already been some discussion as to the limitation of amount. The object of this resolution is one which we should all heartily approve. The need of rolling stock on most of the railways is urgent, and the companies themselves are not in a position to do their own financing. I agree that somebody must help the railway companies to get rolling stock, whether this help be given through the medium of equipment bonds or by the Government's paying for the rolling stock -and then lending it to the companies. These are matters of detail; the Government are wise in leaving these various avenues open. But the resolution is open to the observation made by an hon. gentleman who has spoken: that the Government are taking a "blank cheque." The Minister of Finance is authorized to issue equipment bonds. Whatever you may call them, if issued by the Minister of Finance, they are the bonds of the Government of Canada, and under this resolution the Government may issue them for untold millions. I do not speak in a criti-

cal spirit, tout I suggest that this is a matter into which inquiry might well toe made and that an estimate'-not necessarily exact, an approximate estimate-toe made of- the amount required by the several railways for this purpose. It would toe the wiser and safer thing, toefoTe the Bill is through, to provide a reasonable limitation, so that there shall toe no such thing .as the "blank cheque" which has been spoken of.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I shall toe pleased to consider that matter when, the Bill is introduced. I think it is worthy of consideration.


Wilfrid Laurier: Before we vote this resolution, we are entitled to have a more detailed statement as to, its application. A general and vague statement has been made, tout we have not been furnished with details.


John Dowsley Reid: This afternoon I gave a detailed statement of the $32,966,515 worth of equipment that has been ordered. I gave the details in respect of each company.


Wilfrid Laurier: In what proportion is this amount divided among the different companies-the Intercolonial, the Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk, and the Grand Trunk Pacific?


John Dowsley Reid: There will be a small amount for the Canadian Government railway system, which, of course, includes the National Transcontinental between Winnipeg and Moncton,' as well as the Intercolonial.


Joseph Read: And the Prince
Edward Island railway.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. The largest portion of it, however, is for the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk. Seventy-five of the engines ordered are for the Grand Trunk railway system; $4,500,000 is being expended in engines alone. Last year we purchased 100 or 150 engines, and the Grand Trunk got 45 or 47 of them, so that we are really providing equipment for the Grand Trunk *system. An hon. member a few moments ago said that I should make a statement with regard to this matter. It has been the custom of the Minister of Railways to make a statement when he brings down his estimates, .and I intend to do that so far as this railway question is concerned. The same hon. gentleman said that the railways of Canada were not in a very good shape in the matter of operation. Taking everything into consideration, I think

' that the standard, of the operation of the railways of Canada during the last winter was equal to, if not better than, that of any other country.


Joseph Read: Except Prince
Edward Island.


John Dowsley Reid: I will tell you why I
believe they were well operated. The equipment that we purchased a year ago gave great assistance during last winter, which was a very severe one. In the month of October last the presidents of the Canadian Pacific, Canadian Northern, Grand Trunk and New York Central railway systems met in Montreal and formed an organization known as the national railway defence association. They practically agreed to operate the several railway systems of Canada as one. They have since formed a subcommittee of the several railways; the members of that committee have been meeting every week and have been operating the railways practically as one system. In other words, if one railway gets into trouble the railway which is in the best position to do so comes to its assistance and runs trains over its lines. The members of that association are entitled to the greatest credit for the splendid .assistance they have rendered during the last winter. I am in communication with that association every day; its secretary has sent me the minutes of its meetings and 'has kept me advised of everything it has been doing. I have a full report, if it is of any interest to the members of this House, of all that the association has done from the time of its organization up to the present day.


Mr. GAUTHIER:: Has that association
reported to the minister, in his official capacity as Minister of Railways and Canals, that many engines, on account of not having been .overhauled, have been lying idle at junction points? And has the Government been requested to supply skilled labour to overhaul those engines?
iMr. J. D. REID:	I never heard of any
such eomplaint unltil the hon. 'member mentioned it to me this evening, but, since that organization was formed, when I received a complaint of any kind I immediately communicated it to Mr. W. M. Neal, secretary of the organization, and it did not matter whether that complaint was in regard to shortage of cars or trouble at any point, I .always received an immediate reply and assistance was at once forthcoming, or the matter in regard to which the complaint was made was taken up by the association and promptly dealt with.

As I have said, the heads of that organization are the presidents of the railways. Some of the men on the subcommittee are: Sir George Bury_ representing the Canadian Pacific; Mr. Gillen, representing the Grand Trunk; Mr. Hanna, representing the Canadian Northern; Mr. A. E. Warren, representing the minister here at Ottawa; and Mr. Hayes, representing the Government railways. I think Sir George Bury, Mr. Hanna, Mr. Gillen, and the rest of those gentlemen will ibear me out when I say that they have done everything possible to operate the railways during the past winter practically as one system, and to give the very best service and assistance in their power as operators, and as the railways themselves could Tender. I wish at this point to give those men all the credit that is due to them. At the present time they are carrying on that organization and doing everything they possibly can. I should not like the impression to go out that the railways had notj during the past year, been operated to their fullest capacity. I should like it to be known that in my opinion those men, from the president down to the humblest man on the railways, have, during last year, worked harder and had better co-operation than at any previous time in the history of the railways of Canada. I believe they all realized that, on account of this war, it was their duty, as men, to do all they could. I believe they did their work sincerely and honestly; they are continuing to do so now, and they will continue to do so as long as this war is going on.	.


Louis Joseph Gauthier: I did not wish to attack the association, and I do not wish to oppose the purchasing by the Government of the equipment necessary for our railways. I do not object to that at all. I think, however, it is a matter of amazement for the public to see the Government of this country giving the railways financial assistance to purchase engines, while at junction points everybody is at liberty to see many engines lying idle, and when you ask why all those engines are lying idle there, thus diminishing the hauling power of our railways, you are told the reason is that the railways of this country are unable to secure the skilled labour necessary to overhaul those engines. If that is the reason why you often see trains with two engines when one should be able to do the work, my opinion is that instead of purchasing new engines, it would be better for the Government to supply skilled labourers to overhaul those engines in order that the
greatest tonnage might be hauled. That is the point I am endeavouring to make.
Mr. J. D. REID; Might I ask the hon. member at what point he saw so many engines lying idle? The reason I ask is this: Complaints of that kind should be brought to the attention of the organization. If the hon. member will tell me on what road and at what points those engines are lying idle, I shall be able to explain the matter when my estimates come up in a few days from now.


Louis Joseph Gauthier: When the minister brings down his estimates, I shall be able to give him all the information. It is a matter of public notoriety, even in our province, that at all junction points you see those engines lying idle. When you travel, you will come across two engines hauling a train when one engine is generally able to do the work.
Mr. A. K, MACLEAN: That is because the engines are not sufficiently strong in motive power. The railways have not been able to purchase engines of sufficient stiengtfh to operate their trains. During the last year or two they have not been purchasing a sufficient number of locomotives. Therefore the condition the hon. gentleman describes might very well happen. Railway companies in 'Canada during the last year have had to operate trains with engines which in ordinary times they would use in their yards, or which would be engaged in light and unimportant work.


Louis Joseph Gauthier: The explanation of my hon. friend may he all right; but when your curiosity is excited by seeing two engines hauling a train and you inquire into the hauling capacity of each engine, and you make the addition of the tonnage, land when you are told the reason why there are two engines on the train is because the engines are not properly overhauled, t'he explanation of the minister does not fill the bill.


John Dowsley Reid: I should like again to ask the hon. member to tell me at what point on any railway he has seen a number of engines lying idle since October last, and I shall tell him the reason why. Time and again during the last month or ,so I have had up in my office the head officials of the Grand Trunk railway company. I have had Mr. Robb, who is the general master mechanic of the Grand Trunk railway company, and Mr. Robb assured me that every engine of the Grand Trunk rail-



way was in operation and that there was no trouble to keep them in repair. Therefore, from the statements made to me by the Grand Trunk officials, I do not believe that it is on that railway that engines have been lying idle since October last. As to the Canadian Northern, Mr. Hanna tells me that all their engines have been in operation and they have had no trouble making repairs when necessary. So far as the Government railways are concerned, the officials tell me they can keep their engines in repair, and they have sufficient men tx>
do so. I cannot for one moment believe that the Canadian Government railways have any engines lying idle at any point on the system. Therefore, from the information before me, and not having heard from the Canadian Pacific, I conclude that if engines have been lying idle since October last it must have been on the Canadian Pacific. In discussing matters with the Secretary of the Canadian Railway Association for National Defence, I was informed that the railways had used all their equipment. The question came up whether the Canadian Pacific could loan four engines to the Algona Central railway, and Jhey would only consent to loan them on condition that we gave them four of the new engines in their place; that is the way I understand it. It was the greatest surprise to me this evening to be told that on any of the railway systems of Canada there have been a lot of engines lying idle since last October. It is such an important matter that I think the hon. member should give me the names iof the different railways, so that tl can take the matter up with the Canadian Railway Association for Naional Defence and ascertain why engines were allowed to remain on the railways unrepaired. .


Louis Joseph Gauthier: I will supply that information at the proper time.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman should let me have it now, so that I can give him a reply when my estimates are up.


Louis Joseph Gauthier: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: Before six o'clock I
urged the Minister of Railways to fix a limit to the amount required for the equipment of these railways', and I am glad that this evening the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. A. K. IMaclean) promised the committee that when the Bill founded upon this resolution is introduced my suggestion will be considered; I am quite satisfied with that. In view of that_ I think the minister should amend his resolution because, as it stands, it is still a very large order. It reads:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that during the present war and for one year thereafter,-
I think everybody will agree that during the course of this war we shall have to come to the aid of all the railway companies of Canada with the possible exception of the Canadian Pacific. I quite admit that this equipment will be more urgently required during the winter months on account of the heavy traffic. But I do think the minister should amend his resolution to read as follows:	.
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that during the next fiscal year,-
And so on. The minister knows that every railway company prepares an annual budget, just as the Government does, and estimates its requirements for the coming fiscal year, and it would be quite easy for my hon. friend to thus estimate his requirements of rolling stock.
In fact, if you read the annual report of any railway company, you get the data about the requirements of that company. I repeat, this is a very large order. Nobody
35i
objects to helping the railways during the present emergency; on the contrary, the people are quite ready to commit their Government to the aid required by the railway companies in order to facilitate the transportation system. But this is, after all, a money Bill. Whether the Finance Minister is called upon to give cash, 'or to issue treasury bills, or to endorse notes, or to sign bonds, or to sign equipment bonds, the-credit of the country is none the less engaged. Being a money Bill, we cannot amend it by decreasing it, because we do not know the amount which will be required by my hon. friend under this resolution. We could, however, decrease the amount if we knew it. At all events, my hon. friend can easily find out from the companies wt"*t help they require from the Government in the matter of equipment for the next current year, and with that information at hand he can say about what amount wall be involved during that period. Otherwise my honourable friend is not amenable to Parliament; he puts himself above His Majesty the King. His Majesty the King, requiring supplies from Parliament, states the amount in the estimates, and each item is checked and debated. But, my hon. friend is above the King. He comes and asks, not for a limited sum, but for any amount during the present war and for one year thereafter. If my hon. friend will amend his resolution and provide that there will be a stated annual amount based on the estimates which he will receive from the railway companies, he will meet no opposition in the House, because everybody is anxious to help the transportation system.


John Dowsley Reid: I think my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Finance explained that if the resolution is allowed to go through he will introduce the Bill, and when we get into committee we can amend it there.


Wilfrid Laurier: Amend it in what respect?


John Dowsley Reid: We can then consider amending it in so far as limiting the amount is concerned.


Wilfrid Laurier: I was glad to hear the hon. Acting Minister of Finance say, in answer to my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding), that he proposes to limit the appropriation. But I would call the attention of my hon. friend to the fact that he must do it on .the

resolution, because he cannot do it afterward.


John Dowsley Reid: Why?


Wilfrid Laurier: Because the Bill is founded on the resolution and you must limit the amount that you are asking Parliament to vote by your resolution.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Bill must not authorize a greater amount than was authorized by the resolution. There being no amount stated in the resolution, it would seem to 'be perfectly proper for the Bill to put a limitation to the amount. Therefore, I do not think there will be any violation of the rule.


Wilfrid Laurier: There would certainly ibe a violation of the rule. The rule is that no blank cheque can be given to the Government. They must state what they ask of the people to spend, and if they ask for a limited appropriation, a fixed amount, that certainly must be put in the resolution. The point is worth considering.


Robert Laird Borden: I have not examined the point particularly, but I would think that if a resolution, upon which a Bill is to be founded, authorized an expenditure of $100,000,000, the amount could be reduced in the Bill to $50,000,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: Exactly.


Robert Laird Borden: That is the absolute point which the Acting Minister of Finance has made.


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


Robert Laird Borden: He says that inasmuch as there is no limit in the resolution you may nevertheless properly put a limit in the Bill, and that is what he proposes to do.


Wilfrid Laurier: If you have a money Bill it must be founded on a resolution to limit the amount that may be expended. You may decrease it, but you cannot increase it.	.


Joseph Read: I suppose, in discussing this railway question, the Prince Edward Island railway is 'considered as part of the Intercolonial railway?


John Dowsley Reid: It is part of the Canadian Government railway system.


Joseph Read: It appears to me that this resolution calls for the expenditure of the whole of the consolidated fund of Canada that is not appropriated. My hon. friend has pointed out a great many diffi-
['Sir Wilfrid iLaurier.]
culties that have been encountered in connection with the transportation question of Canada during the past year. I mentioned on a previous occasion that this transportation question is one of the most important which comes before the Parliament of Canada to-day. It is all very fine for people to talk about increasing production on the farms, but it is of no use to increase production on the farms if you cannot move the product. In my province the whole railway system is in the cellar and has been for the last four years. The fact is demonstrated by the acts of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. J. D. Reid) in providing four new narrow gauge locomotives for a railway which in the natural course of events will cease to toe a narrow-gauge railway in the very near future. I am not blaming the Government for that.
I want to say a word about Mr. Hayes, the General Manager of the Canadian Government Railway System. I know him very well and I have had a great deal of 'business with him. He is the most capable gentleman that ever at any time handled the Canadian Government Railways. When Mr. Hayes told me he was going to order these four locomotives, he igaid, "I suppose you will object to them?" I replied, "Not by any means; it is the best thing you can do to tide over a situation which at present is unbearable."
But, Sir, there is a better way of obviating the difficulties on the Prince Edward Island 'railroad, and I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Railways to what I am going to say in this regard. Notwithstanding that I am not an expert-like my hon. friend across the House who has been riding on the railroads for a long time-I know what I am talking about because I am an old transportation man. I want to tell the minister that the best way to obviate the difficulties on the Prince Edward Island railway with reference to rolling -stock and engines is to widen the gauge of that railway, or supply a third rail between Port Borden and Summerside and Port Borden and Charlottetown. That will accomplish results very much better than by buying a lot of narrow gauge cars and narrow gauge engines that we would have to re-sell within the next two or three years.
While I am on this subject I would like to ask the minister whether the Reid-New-foundland railway system has prerempted, or done anything towards purchasing, the narrow gauge rolling stock and locomotives on our system, when we dispose of it.


John Dowsley Reid: I have not heard of
the Reid-Newfoundland railway making any proposition with respect to the purchase of any narrow gauge equipment on our railways, because we would not consider it for one moment until the existing gauge has been widened. I can say to the hon. gentleman there has been no proposition whatever of the nature to which he alludes.


Joseph Read: The minister knows as well as I do that the Reid-Newfoundland system is narrow gauge like the Prince Edward Island railway. He knows further that a promise has been made to us, which the right hon. leader of the Government is going to implement as soon as he can, to widen or standardize the gauge of the Prince Edward Island railway. Otherwise he will lose the credit which 'he is getting to-day for having provided the Prince Edward Island car ferry system. Our narrow gauge system in Prince Edward Island is owned by the Dominion Government, hut it was paid for by the people of that province, a fact which some members of this House ought to know when the affairs of Prince Edward Island are being discussed, and allusion is made to the railway deficits, and all that sort of thing. We paid for the Prince Edward Island railway ourselves and presented the Dominion Government with it. The Government may say, "All right, take it hack," hut that is not the question. We will take the railway back if the Government will give us the money that is due to us, for you must remember that when we went into Confederation the Dominion owed us five or six million dollars, and that was the money with which the railroad was built.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: If this were not somewhat of a war measure I certainly would put myself upon record against the resolution, because it really places too much power in the bands of a minister. However, if it is to he considered in any way as a war measure I want to give my ready assent to it. Before doing so I call the attention of the Minister of Railways to the fact that under the Appropriation Act of 1916 we have already paid the Canadian Northern $15,000,000. The minister , informs us that so far by way of equipment we have given over to the Canadian Northern some $22,500,000.
I would like to know from him whether anything else has been given to that company, by way of equipment, material, or rolling stock?


John Dowsley Reid: That is all that has been given to the Canadian Northern. We are purchasing some rails and that company
will get some of those as well as the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific systems.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: That is apart altogether from the $22,500,000 which the Canadian Northern have already received during the current year?


John Dowsley Reid: The $22,500,000 of equipment will 'be paid during the present fiscal year. We have not yet bought any equipment of any kind.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: But contracts have been placed?


John Dowsley Reid: Not for the Canadian Northern, except as regards the contracts I read a few moments ago.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What about the message cabled over by the Government directly to the boys in .the trenches about the Order " totalling $22,500,000, and' the bulk of it being made up of cars for the Canadian Northern railway?


John Dowsley Reid: That is all included in the figures to which I have referred.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Has the minister in contemplation the purchasing of further roiling stock for the Canadian Northern for the coming year?


John Dowsley Reid: Outside of what I read to-night, the only equipment that I contemplate purchasing is as follows: A requisition has been made on me to purchase ten or fifteen snow ploughs, which might probably cost another $100,000. Then I have been urged by the National Railway Defence Association, the organization representing all of the railways in Canada, to purchase one hundred tourist cars. At the present time, speaking from memory, there are probably six or seven hundred cars owned by all the railways in Canada that are available for the transport of troops to and from the .seaboard, and I have been discussing the proposed purchase of one hundred additional cars with Sir George Bury, the head of the Canadian Pacific railway, with a view to ascertaining if we cannot get along without any more equipment of the kind. We have also been asked to purchase nineteen baggage cars to be used in connection with the movement of troop trains to and fro, and it may be requisite to acquire a few more-things of that kind.
As to the suggestion of the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) (that I limit the scope of this motion, I would move * that the resolution, be amended by adding the following words:

Provided, however, that the expenditure in any one fiscal year under this resolution shall not exceed the sum of fifty million dollars.
I mention that amount for the reason that we have 100,000 tons of rails ordered.
I may have to purchase some more equipment such as I mentioned a little while ago. That is not a very large amount over what we have really contracted for, and if the hon. member will accept this amende ment I would like the resolution to be moved.
Mr. LEM1IEUX: Certainly, I accept the amendment for myself. But I hope that when the Bill to be founded on this resolution comes before the House, my hon. friend will be able to give an approximate estimate of what is to he expended during the present fiscal year.


John Dowsley Reid: Of course, I will be glad to do that. I shall give the hon. member all the information I can.


Joseph Read: While the hon. minister is on this question, will' he kindly let us know how many of the 25,000 cars which were in the United States a few weeks ago are still there? According to a statement of the hon. Minister of Public Works, in a speech he made in New York or Boston, they had 25,000 of our cars down there. Have we got them back yet?


John Dowsley Reid: There has been an excess of Canadian cars in the United States over and above the number of American cars in Canada. The highest number at any one time was, about twenty-three or twenty-four thousand. I have been pressing, and the Canadian railways have been doing everything they could to get the cars back, but the car shortage in the United States has been ao great that any cars sent over there we could not. get back, and the number increased until it reached twenty-five thousand, and the shippers in Canada were suffering because we could not get our cars back. We had to refuse to allow Canadian cars to go over to the United States until we got the number over there reduced. Ffiom time to time the number was reduced, and if my memory serves me right in the last report I had, a week or so ago, the number was down to about eleven thousand. If we had those cars in Canada we would not have any shortage of cars to supply the public.


Frank S. Cahill: Before this resolution goes thro-ugh, I would like to point out that the hon. minister's amendment furuier strengthens my opposition to the measure. It is further evidence to me that the Minister
[Mr. J. I). Reid.I
of Railways- and Canals should not undertake the management o-f this great railway system of Canada. He is able here, in five minutes, to make his estimates for an indefinite period, from now until the war is over, and for a year after that. How does he know that he will not require $51,000,000 next year, or $25,000,000, or any other sum ? It is altogether too large an order, stepping out here with a fifty-million-dollar-a-year resolution. I think that the Government should take the matter under consideration and come to some determination as to what they intend to do with the railway situation in this country, before we go on spending these millions toy the fifties ot hundreds.


Mr. HAY:: If I may be permitted, and
if I may make bold to do so, I would like to offer a word of advice to the Minister of Railways. I have had some experience as a .railway man, not as my bon. friend from East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) on the engines of a railway, but as- a maintenance of way main on the roadbed of the Canadian Pacific. I would like to point out to the minister what, in my opinion, seems to be the necessity for the vast expenditure on equipment of the railways at the present time. The whole trouble, lies- in. the fact that the TO-adbed of these different railways is in poor condition, and has been so for a -great number of years. I think it would be well, if it -c-omes under the- jurisdiction of the Minister of Railways, to see that these roadbeds are put into proper shape, and I know that if that is done not nearly the amount of money which is- being asked for will (be required in the -future to kee-p the rolling stock in condition. I know conditions in the West, because I have travelled over the- Canadian Northern to some extent, and I know that, the roadbed is in poor shape; in fact, I happened to be in a wreck on one of the 'branch lines of the Canadian Northern near Winnipeg; and in that wreck some seven or eight freight cars were derailed, and- they were simply lifted aside with a lifting machine and burned on the ground. Now, that is occurring all. over Canada at the present time on the .Canadian Northern system, and, I believe, on the other Government systems in, the Dominion. If the roadbeds were put into proper shape the engines at present used on these different roads would be able to pull double the number of ears they are pulling -at the present time. I understand that in the West, on some sections of the Canadian Northern system, the engines are pulling something like twenty or twenty-five cars, and that is the

utmost they can pull. An engine, if it is any good at all, on a good roadbed, on the prairie sections of the road in Manitoba and the West, should pull at least fifty to sixty cars loaded to capacity. 1 say that it the roadbeds are put into proper shape it [DOT]will be. of great assistance to the Government in financing and in providing for the rolling stock of these different railroads. The whole trouble lies in the fact that the roadbeds are not kept in proper shape. I suppose, if 'I began to discuss the labour question, and what the Government intends to do in regard to it, I would be driving away from the question, so I shall not take up that phase of the matter at this time, but on another occasion >1 may have something to say on this point.


Mr.   D@: I do not think it is fair that the hon. minister should ask us to give the Government a blank cheque of fifty million dollars. We are sent here by our constituents to vote what definite amounts should be spent this year and next year and each year. The Government might just as well ask us once for all to vote them as much money as they want, iand let us go back home. The Government should respect the people, and inform their representatives what they intend to spend, and how they intend to spend it, giving details. The Government comes to the House with an estimate of $250,000,000, with another estimate of $500,000,000, and now we are asked for $50,000,000 more. They are spending money as if it were peanuts. I am opposed to this method of doing business. No company would do business on such a basis. Before we go further with this resolution, Mr. Chairman, I submit that for the benefit of members of the committee and the people of the country we should have more detailed information on the subject.


Mr. DECHENE:: This resolution will authorize the Minister of Railways to buy a good deal of equipment; in fact, orders have already been placed for such equipment. The National Railway Defence Association appears to be taking good care of the engines, but I do not know that they have taken as good care of the freight cars. On the way from Montreal a month ago any one could see in the yards many freight cars, empty, some with missing doors, some with parts of the roofs off- cars which could have been repaired very easily and put back in the service to help relieve the shortage of equipment. Many of these cars now lying idle could easily
be repaired at Moncton. The Canadian Government railways own and operate big shops, some of which are not used at all, or practically not used. Take, for instance, the Canadian Government shops at Riviere du Loup. These shops, which were built at great expense, are now lying idle; why are they not used for the repairing of freight cars in order to relieve the situation? I understand also that many of our freight cars are used in various parts of the country for storing freight. For very little money sheds could be erected and these cars could be unloaded and put back into service. Last winter, the member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Gauthier) told the House some engines had been left idle and that a great many cars had been left loaded in the big yards because of the lack of water facilities. Take, for instance, in Mont-magny, where there are a few miles of track and siding, and where I have seen five or six freight trains at a time delayed on account of lack of water facilities. Often the engineers have to run their engines from Montmagny up the hill to St. Pierre to get water; then they cut the train in two, leave part at Montmagny, and do not come back to Montmagny to get the other part of the train. This difficulty exists on account of water facilities not being placed at Montmagny, and consequently much traffic is not properly taken care of. The minister says that $50,000,000 or thereabouts will be sufficient to help relieve the situation during the next fiscal year. That is quite a sum. He has already ordered $35,000,000 worth of equipment; to this he adds $15,-000,000-what for? We do not know. He wants the committee to adopt a provision under which $50,000,000 may be appropriated each year during the war, and one year thereafter. Surely it is in order to provide a sufficient amount for the next fiscal year, and if when Parliament meets, nine or ten months hence, more money is required, then we will grant, perhaps, another $50,000,000. That is a safe procedure; it is better than providing for the expenditure of $50,000,000 a year for an indefinite number of years. When will the war end? Will it be considered as ended when the men cease fighting at the front, or when the treaty of peace is signed? Or will it ha ended by Order in Council passed by this Government under the War Measures Act? So far as I can see, anything at all can be done under that Act. I do- not think it would be safe for this committee to vote so many millions under the plan suggested. I think

the position taken by the member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) is very wise, and that many members of the House will support it.


Jacques Bureau: The minister told us tonight before six o'clock that he had placed an order for 60,000 cars and 150 engines. According to the resolution, a considerable number of cars will be added to the stock already purchased. Has an estimate been made of the number of cars that will be required, and has any inquiry been made as to the possibility of building the cars, the number of shops now working, and the number of cars which can be turned out each year? I put this question to the minister because I have sent him a letter written to me by a gentleman from Three Rivers who has had considerable experience in car building and who is ready and willing if the order is placed with him, to deliver ten freight cars a day five months from this date, provided the order justifies the manufacture. Surely this amount is not asked haphazard; some estimate must have been taken of future requirements of the railways which desire to procure equipment from the Government. Has any estimate been given to the Minister of Railways as to the number of cars that the railway companies are short or the number of cars that may be required for transportation during this year? If so, are the cars so required to be ordered through the Minister of Railways, and has he any idea what apportionment is to be made to the di^erent companies of the various kinds of cars-flat cars, coal cars, tank cars, and so on mentioned in the statement the minister read to the House this afternoon?


John Dowsley Reid: Before ordering any equipment at all, I got together in my office the heads of the Canadian Northern railway, the Grand Trunk railway and the Canadian Government railway system, and we had a discussion as to the quantity of equipment that would be required during the present fiscal year, so that the railways could haul next season's crop and also he in a position to be operated to their full capacity during the coming winter. After going over the matter with those gentlemen, we gave an order for the equipment, a list of which I have given to the House. Each railway, of course, stated what it would require, and I have given that statement. In Canada, there are companies that manufacture cars that have a capacity very much larger than necessary to fill our orders. I see by the press, and, in fact, I know,

that the Canada Car and Foundry Company have received a very large order from the United States Government, because the United States Government are giving veTy large orders for cars for the railways of that country. The United States Government are doing practically the same as we are doing in this regard. In this time of war, it is not in the interest of the country that railway companies should go on to the market with their bonds. I shall be very glad to give the hon. member further detailed information if necessary, but I think the information I have given covers all the questions he has asked. This equipment will be distributed amongst our own Canadian railways.
.Mr. BUREAU: The Grand Trunk is the only one that is not under Government control.


John Dowsley Reid: The Canadian Northern, while it is owned by the Government, is being operated as a private corporation. There is the Grand Trunk railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific railway.


Jacques Bureau: That is under Government control.


John Dowsley Reid: Not yet.


Jacques Bureau: Partly.
* Mr. J. D. REID: The Quebec Southern, which I think is owned by the Delaware and Hudson, requires a few rails. The Canadian Pacific, under this legislation, will get 300 miles of rails, two or three million dollars' worth of the purchases we propose making. They will, of course, pay cash for what they receive; at least we expect they will. It will be seen, therefore, that we are purchasing equipment that will be used by the several railways.


Mr. McCREA:: Do the Grand Trunk, the Delaware and Hudson and the Canadian Pacific prefer to have the 'Government buy their equipment for them? Are they not capable of purchasing their own equipment?


John Dowsley Reid: I mentioned the Canadian Pacific for this reason. The Canadian Pacific have been trying to purchase rails. There are only two companies in Canada that make rails, and the Canadian Pacific could not purchase rails from those companies because they were manufacturing munitions. The Government arranged with the Dominion Iron and Steel Company to change their plant from what they were manufacturing and to supply 100,000 tons of rails. We purchased that ourselves, and we intend to distribute it amongst the several railways.

Mr. MeCREA:	Do the several railways
prefer to have it done in that way?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. they asked that
it. be done in that way.
Mr. MeCREA: The minister told ns that early this season 20,000 Canadian cars were in the States, .and that the latest report he had was that that number had been reduced to about 11,000. Can the minister give any information as to horw many foreign cars are in Canada?


John Dowsley Reid: There are, in the
United States, 25,000 Canadian cars in excess of foreign cars in Canada.


Mr. CURRIE:: At the present time the
country is suffering from the lack of care and also from a lack of passenger accommodation. That portion of the country which I represent and a part of the country represented by the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro). containing a population of approximately 150,000 people, is back to the old days again of construction; they get one train in the morning and one train at night.
Mr. MeCREA: The hon. member should be glad to have that.


John Allister Currie: I want to know from the minister if there is .any possibility of this war board giving any better passenger accommodation than has been given, or if it is going to be.like a new "cop" on the corner, stopping all the traffic.
With reference to freight cars, I know that so far as shipping during last winter, is concerned, the shortage of cars' occasioned a loss to shippers in Ontario of thousands of dollars daily. A concern in which I am interested had no less than 27 carloads of steel tied up between Buffalo and Col-lingwood, the amount involved being close on a quarter of a million dollars, and that shipment was tied up for weeks and weeks. Something must be wrong. We know, of course, that the snow was pretty bad, but I 'was held up on a passenger train, travelling thirty miles in two days, and in that thirty miles there was not a snow drift that stopped the train for three minutes. There were four snow-ploughs ahead of us. What was wrong? The crews? When the Bill comes before the House, the labour question will have to be discussed, because we all know that the men have been giving service to the railroads for a great deal lees money than is paid to men in any other department of business in the country.
In regard to this resolution, I am pleased that the minister has limited the amount,
because I think it is asking Parliament to go a very long way to give any minister of the Crown in such a democratic country as this a blank cheque on the treasury. That has never been done in the history of British parliamentary institutions, and I do not think we should establish a precedent. Further than that, I do not think it is a good precedent to establish an annual vote for years ahead. Are we going to give up all our parliamentary functions? Is Parliament going to cease to exist? Is Parliament going to go out of business altogether and give a blank cheque to each of the ministers of the Crown to carry on business- until a year after the war? I say with all seriousness, that this war may continue for four or five years. If one reads the papers this evening, the conclusion of the war looks as far off as it did two years ago. For that reason, I think the minister should hesitate. This Parliament has never refused a Minister of Railways or any other minister any reasonable request for funds that has ever been placed before it. There is no reason why we should give up all our functions to a star chamber and allow any department of Government to have a blank cheque up to fifty million dollars a year from now on to the end of the war I believe in- British institutions. I believe in maintaining the constitution of this country, and to do that I think we should carry on in war time the same as at any other time. There are too many people going around the country wanting this fad and that fad on account of the war, and men are wanting to sell corn cures and this, that and the other thing to help win the war. This Parliament is asked to vote $50,000,000 until the conclusion of the war for no other reason than that it is in connection with the railways on account of the war. I think the minister will be well advised when bringing down the Bill to limit the time to the fiscal year. I think there will be a few of us, <at all events, left for next session; we do not expect the Germans to come and take possession Of the country before then, and as we shall have another session of Parliament, the minister could bring down another vote next year. I am not opposing this vote, but I am opposing the unconstitutional features of it. The first thing .about the resolution that struck me, and which I could hardly swallow, was that it was giving the minister a blank cheque. The second feature to which I objected was that it was good during the war and for one year thereafter. Something might be said in its favour if this were for a foreign

(expenditure during a war period, but Parliament is quite able to cope with domestic expenditures of this kind by voting an *amount annually.
Mr. MgGRiBA: Unquestionably there has *been a great shortage of both power and oars. The hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) has complained about the passenger service. No doubt it is not what we should like to have, but I have never heard of a man having to wait for a week for a *passenger train, as has frequently happened in the case of freight shipments. *The passenger service has been curtailed, *but on the whole I think the needs of the *people are well taken care of. We are certainly nlot so badly off in that matter as we are in respect to freight. There is a great quantity of freight to be moved, and there is evidently a severe shortage of cars. *One gentleman has said this evening that the sidings are filled with empty cars out of commission, but I think you will find that these cars are of an old type and of light capacity, and therefore not safe for heavy traffic.


John Allister Currie: The hon. member is a very large shipper. Has he been able to get all the empty cars he wants in which to ship his freight, or is he a month behind with his orders?


Francis N. McCrea: I certainly agree that there is a shortage. That is the point I was trying to make.


John Allister Currie: Everybody says the same.


Francis N. McCrea: I think the minister was justified in bringing down this measure in order to supply the needs of'this country. What I was not clear about was whether the Canadian Pacific, the Delaware and Hudson, and the other roads who are able to take care of themselves were satisfied with this arrangement, but the minister assures me that they are, so that is all right.
What the shippers want is
10 p.m. means of transporting their goods, and I think'the minister will be well advised to proceed as quickly as possible to provide the required equipment and rolling stock to carry on the business of the country. I must say, however,, that it is not wise to give carte blanche even to the Minister of Railways. The minister might amend his resolution limiting the period to one year, and then he could ask for another vote next session, and it would he quite in order for the House to give it. But I do not think he should ask to be given carte blanche for an unlimited period, and without any restrictions on the expenditure.


John Dowsley Reid: Replying to my hon, friend from North Simcoe, the passenger service has undoubtedly been curtailed during the past year.


John Allister Currie: Is it going to be increased this summer?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member wishes us to increase the passenger service in Canada. Let me tell him why the passenger service was curtailed, and no one knows it better than my hon. friend. We have a lot of troops to transport to the seaboard, and a lot of men to bring back, and it was necessary for the railroads to cut down their .passenger traffic in order to provide the necessary cars and engines for this purpose. The position of the board of railway commissioners, of which J approve, was that we should take all the passenger cars we could possibly get and use them for war purposes during the war. We cannot build ears in a day; it takes time. . All the roads have had instructions to decrease the passenger traffic as much as possible in order to .provide cars for the purposes I have mentioned. That has been the policy, and so long as this traffic continues, we must have the cars. Let me give one instance where extra passenger cars have been, required. A very large number of cars

perhaps I should not mention just how many-have been required to bring a great many thousands of Chinese from the Pacific to the Atlantic coast on their way *overseas. We had to take ears from some ' of our systems for this service, and the passenger traffic was decreased on certain roads. The hon. member for North Simcoe asks whether he will get a better service during the coming year. I say to him that when the traffic of which I have spoken ceases I am willing to urge the railway commission to give him a better service on his road, but if it is necessary to- transport troops from the Pacific to the Atlantic in order to help the (boys at the front, then my hon. friend's passenger service will be decreased, if necessary, in order that we may get the ears. The coal situation also accounts for a further decrease in the number of cars. The railways, were taxed to their utmost in order to get fuel to the different parts of Ontario, and, in fact, throughout the whole Dominion. I can say, having gone into this matter, and being in touch from day to day with the organization in Montreal, that I believe the heads of the different railways have done everything possible to give the best service they could to all parts of the Domin-

ion. during the last year and they will continue to do so during the present year if they can possibly spare the cars. But war needs must foe supplied first. I have been dodnig my best, and the railways .have been doing their best, to get cars built during the past year, and the companies I have mentioned have promised to let us have these cars in time for the rush in the fall. The criticism that this resolution is practically giving the Government a blank cheque for a certain length of time, is met,
I think, toy the fact that the amount is lim

ited to $50,000,000, and the period is limited to the duration of the war and. one year thereafter. We all hope the war may end this year, but it may go on for another year. That is a matter that I would like the committee to allow me to consider when we get the Bill in the committee. At all events, it limits the amount to $50,000,000. It is for the war and one year after, but it may possibly be for one, two or three years. It is not for an unlimited time; it is limited by the clause "for the war and one year thereafter." We all hope it will not be for more than one year.


John Allister Currie: Is it not a fact that in the year 1916 there was double the number of troops moved in this country, and is it not also true, as everybody knows, that there was no slackening in the passenger traffic?


John Dowsley Reid: No, that statement is absolutely incorrect.


John Allister Currie: It is correct and everybody knows it.
M. J. D. REID: I say to the hon. member it is not correct.


Joseph Read: I want to ask the minister if, when he was making his estimate, he allowed for the extra revenue the railways are going to get by reason of the increase of fifteen per cent in freight rates. I understand the railway commission has permitted the railways to increase their freight rates by fifteen per cent. I had a letter from a western man complaining of the good western Unionists and saying it was going to take at least $20,000,000 out of tne western farmers, and that it served them right. Well, that is all -right. When you were estimating it at $50,000,000, did you allow for the $20,000,000 that you are going to take out of the western grain growers by this increase of fifteen per cent? That only applies to the grain crop. There are the other freights all over Canada and I should think that the fifteen per cent
added to the freight rates is going to give the railways an immense sum. I see the Government penalize the Canadian Pacific to the extent of fifteen per cent showing that they can make both ends meet, like the dog when he was catching the flea. I understand that the Grand Trunk railway last year paid up all their liabilities and that they have been able to expend $26,000,000 in speculation in the last two or three years. These railways are doing all the work they can, and if you are raising tne rates by fifteen per cent they must be getting a big rake-off. I want to know if the minister allowed for this increased revenue that is going to accrue to the railways by reason of the advance in freight rates?


Frank S. Cahill: I do not want to be put on record as being opposed to the country getting more rolling stock; quite the reverse. I am only objecting to the system that has allowed the country to be two or three years behind in getting rolling stock. As the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Hay) has pointed out, the roadbed is in bad shape. That will come in for consideration,
I presume, at a later date. But that is another question that is being left a little late. My position is, not that this country does not need rolling stock or repairs to the right of way, or that the maintenance of way should not receive attention, but my complaint is of the system that allows the railways to get into this position before conditions are taken care of. I maintain that under the present system of management we will not have efficiency. I do not find fault with increasing the rolling stock. I know we are short.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I only heard the minister make a few remarks in reference to the status of the railways. I gathered from him that the Canadian Northern belongs to the Government, but that it is operated by .the Canadian Northern corporation. Is that correct?


John Dowsley Reid: It is.


Robert Lorne Richardson: It is now the property of the Government?


John Dowsley Reid: We own the stock, but the road is being operated by the Canadian Northern directors.


Robert Lorne Richardson: There is an arbitration in regard to the majority portion of the stock, is there not?


John Dowsley Reid: The Government have taken over the stock, and therefore own the Canadian Northern isystem. A portion of

the equity is subject to arbitration, and the board of directors are operating the system.


Robert Lorne Richardson: What is the status of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Transcontinental?


John Dowsley Reid: The Transcontinental railway between Winnipeg and Moncton is being operated by the Government. It is part of the Canadian Government railway system. The Grand Trunk Pacific is being operated by the board of directors of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway company, a separate corporation controlled by the Grand Trunk Railway company. The Grand Trunk Pacific practically belongs to the Grand Trunk Railway company.


Robert Lorne Richardson: They are in an entirely different position from the Canadian Northern and the Transcontinental railway which belong to the Government?
M. J. D. REID: Yes,


Robert Lorne Richardson: 1 understand the minister to say that this amount that we are asked to authorize, and the expenditure to he made for rolling stock will 'be distributed among the various companies. He also stated that the Government would give to the Canadian Pacific a portion of the rolling stock and that the Government expected the Canadian Pacific to pay them back.


John Dowsley Reid: I said the Canadian Pacific would get a portion of the rails that we had ordered. There are a hundred thousand tons of rails. That is only a portion of the equipment to be purchased under this Bill. Three or four hundred miles of those new rails out of the hundred thousand tons will go to the Canadian Pacific.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The minister said that it was the expectation of the Government that the Canadian Pacific would pay for those rails,


John Dowsley Reid: They will pay for them.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I think the House is entitled to a clear and positive declaration, not that that is the expectation, but that the money will be demanded from the Canadian Pacific. That company has a surplus of tens of millions of dollars, in addition to which this Government has granted an increase in rates of fifteen per cent, which will enable the company to increase its earnings by from $20,000,000 to $25,000,000 or $30,000,000. Of course, it is understood that they are to be taxed. As far as my judgment goes, that is somewhat indefinite.
I had hoped that before this stage of the
,
session was reached we would have had a field day on the railway question. The granting of an increase of fifteen per cent to the railways all round will mean an additional direct burden on the people of this country who use transportation, of not less than $30,000,000, and it will mean, in my judgment, an indirect burden upon the people of probably $100,000,000. The moment this increase in rates was announced the price of sugar advanced ten cents a hundred in Winnipeg, and an intimation was given that the price of all commodities would be increased. Merchants will seize this as an opportunity for increasing the price of foodstuffs and staples. That is the tragedy of this increase. Perhaps this is not the time to discuss this question. I should like to have a day to myself to discuss it, but at present I only point out that in so far as the Canadian Pacific is concerned, a wealthy corporation with a surplus of tens of millions, it ought to be very clearly understood by this House and the people of this country that the Government does not propose to use its resources in order to feed that company with millions and millions of dollars' worth of rails and equipment. I feel strongly that we should not give a blank cheque to the Government for an indefinite period. The question as to when the war will close is, in my judgment, a very indefinite one-the war may last ten years, it looks to me as if it will certainly last two or three years anyway-and while we want, and must provide, transportation in this country, still I think that Parliament ought to reserve to itself the right to control the expenditures from session to session.
While il am on my feet and discussing the question of rates, I want to say that
J.	think the result of the increase will bear with especial severity upon the people of the Northwest. After all there is only a limited percentage-
The OHAIiRlMAN: Order. I must ask the hon. gentleman to desist from discussing railroad rates, and the circumstances of the people in the Northwest, because that subject is too far from the scope of the present resolution.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I beg pardon of the Committee, and I will not proceed further on that line. Probably when a field day takes place on this subject we will have the opportunity of expressing our views.
Mr. .1. D. REID: I can say to the hon. member that the Canadian Pacific Railway
company will pay for the rails they get.

Mr. (LEMIEUX: The 'Minister of Railways has mentioned only a few of the companies that may benefit from this resolution in the matter of equipment. He has mentioned the Canadian Northern, the Canadian Pacific, the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the Grand Trunk system. Might I ask the minister if some of the branch lines on the Intercolonial which have not been .purchased by the Government and other branch systems in .eastern Canada will also ,be heard if they require any equipment?
While opposing the mode adopted by the minister in presenting this resolution, I am not against the spirit of the resolution itself. On the contrary, I believe that we .must help-lour railway systems to get equipment during these years, especially in view of what occurred last winter when traffic was congested during the hardest months of the year. In that connection, however, might I suggest to my hon. friend an increase in the demurrage charges? Last winter-and I know this because I am identified with the pulip business indirectly-some of the firms with which I am connected could hardly secure any cars because the railway companies were suffering from a shortage, their cars were in the United States and were not being returned. Is there not any possible means by wmch the railway commission in Canada, and the inter-state commerce commission in the United States, could reach an agreement whereby an end would be put to that state of things?


John Allister Currie: What do you say as to
reciprocal demurrage?


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is what we have.


John Allister Currie: Let me give you an illustration:	You want coal for your factory
and the railway company switches your coal into a siding half way towards your factory, and leaves it there foT a couple of weeks. Why should you not collect demurrage from the railway company? There are two sides to the demurrage question.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Minister of Railways says that he is willing to do so.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If he had admitted that I would not 'be asking the minister to refrain from taking the power to expend $50,000,000 per year during the balance of the war. There's where I differ from him. The war may last several years, or it may only last a few months, and it is not dignified on the part of the Government to secure holus bolus-I shall not say the benefit of the war because it confers no benefits-^ but during the continuance of the war, unknown as its duration may be, a huge sum of money. I appeal again to my hon. friend to consider the matter very seriously, and to amend his resolution so as to declare that the Government will only expend the $50,000,000 in the one year. Next year he can apply to Parliament again, and he will be as liberally and generously treated as he has been this year.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman asked me a question with respect to branch lines in New Brunswick.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I had reference to those that had not been acquired by the Government.
Mr. ,T. D. REID: There are six or seven of them?


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is one also in Gaspe.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, there is one in Gaspe, but all of these railway companies stated last fall that they had not sufficient equipment and were in trouble. I issued instructions at that time to General Manager Hayes to give them all the equip, ment and assistance they needed at any

time to keep their lines- in operation, and the railways in question received that assistance during the whole winter. If these railways wanted the use of our cars we would charge them a certain amount for the privilege, if they wanted to purchase any of our equipment we would let them have it; but really the amount they required altogether was very small. We deal with them as we do with the Canadian Government railways, and they are given engines or cars as they may require them, an arrangement which is perfectly satisfactory, I think, so far as they are concerned.
Now with reference to the resolution, two questions have been raised. One was as to the amount. That was answered several minutes ago, when I moved the amendment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is no objection to that.
Mr. J. 0. REID:	The other question
raised is as to the period toeing for an unlimited time. I stated some time ago that it was for the duration of the war and one year after. I said that when we got into committee I would consider the matter at that time. The Bill, of course, could not go further without being again in committee. However, if it be the wish to. insert it in the Bill -before the Ball has been introduced-I have the Bill here printed and ready-I am willing to limit it to the fiscal year. I do not want to do anything other than what I think is fair. Therefore I [DOT]would a6k that the resolution be made to read as follows:
That it is expedient to provide that during the present fiscal year the Minister of Railways and Canals, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may acquire engines, cars, rails and other railway equipment and materials to an amount not exceeding fifty million dollars-
And so on. That would limit the time to the present fiscal year and the amount to fifty million dollars. I beg to move:
That the resolution be amended by striking out the words "present war and for one year thereafter"-and substituting therefore the words "present fiscal year."


John Allister Currie: Would the minister allow me to make a suggestion? Occasionally _ Mr. Chairman, it is the custom, in the case of large public buildings, to grant a total sum, and then vote a certain proportion of that per annum. Might we not provide in this resolution a sum not exceeding $200,000,000 during this present war, and that fifty millions would toe voted for the present fiscal year?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


John Allister Currie: That has -been the custom. For instance, the parliament buildings estimate was fixed at five million dollars^ and half a million appropriated from year to year.


Jacques Bureau: That is a different question.


John Allister Currie: Parliament is not voting
that amount at all, tout it specifies some sum which may possibly be voted. That was what the 'minister felt in the first place, that he could- not put the omnibus amount in. If he wishes to amend it to fifty millions annually as he has done now, I am quite willing to accede to it.


Georges Henri Boivin: It is moved toy the
Minister of Railways and Canals-:
That the resolution -be amended by striking out in the first and second lines thereof the words "war artd for one year thereafter," and substituting therefor the words 'fiscal year," and by adding in the fourth 1-ine of the said resolution, after the word "materials," the words "to an amount not exceeding fifty million dollars."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Resolution as amended agreed to.
Mr. FAFARD:: Might I ae-k the hon. minister if it As the intention of the Govern-men to increase the number of cars in the section between Levis and the east, including the -counties of Montmagny, L'Islet and Kamo-uraska? That section is a farming country, and I noticed last year that the farmers and lumbermen could not get the cars they required.


John Dowsley Reid: I took up with the
general manager a short time ago the question of providing cars in the very district mentioned, and he promised me that he would do his very best, and stated that he expected to relieve that situation within a very short time.


Mr. DAVIS:: May I ask the minister whether the calculation he has made includes the necessary equipment for the completion of the Hudson Bay railway?


John Dowsley Reid: No, that is not in this item.


Mr. GASGRAIN:: Following the example of the hon, member of L'Islet (Mr. Farfardi, I would like to say a few words regarding conditions in the district of Abitibi. Reading La Presse the other day, I came across an article headed " Colonization in the Abitibi," in which it was stated that there is practically a crisis in that region, that colonization and agriculture cannot be carried on for lack of means of transportation.

I know of a lumber company which has a great deal of lumber and pulpwood ready for shipment, thousands of cords of pulp-wood are ready for delivery, which cannot be sent to the United States, or to the wharves and harbours in this country, for the reason that there is no means of transporting it. I would like to ask the minister if it is his intention to remedy that situation.


John Dowsley Reid: I have had that question up with the board of railway commissioners and with the national defence association, and we have been, doing our best to relieve that situation. As I stated a few moments ago, the whole trouble is that if we send our Canadian cars to the United States we do not get them back, so we are then unable to transport the pulp-wood to the mills in Canada.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Abitibi is in the northern part of the province of Quebec.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I asked a moment ago if the hon. minister could remedy the situation which existed last winter owing to our cars not being returned promptly from the United States. The exporters of Canada were really in a very difficult position on account of the shortage of cars. The United States keep our cars, and I do not know whether it is that the demurrage is not high enough, but they do not seem to care about returning them promptly. Is there not an arrangement between the interstate commerce commission and the railway commission by which such a state of things can be remedied?


John Dowsley Reid: I may say to the hon. member that it is an impossibility to do more than we have been doing, during the last winter. The board of railway commissioners, and the several railway companies have been doing everything possible to remedy the situation. They have had special men in the United States looking up the cars. We have had our representative Mr. Lloyd Harris, doing his utmost with the American Government, I have personally sent message after message to Mr. McAdoo, urging him to assist _us in getting what we claim to be our just rights. So that the influence of this Government, of the railways and of the railway commission, has been exerted to the utmost to remedy the situation. As a result, as I said before, we have lately been able to reduce the number of cars held in the United States from twenty-five thousand to eleven thousand.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time, and concurred in.
Hon. J. D. REID thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 42, to amend the Department of Railways and Canals Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Civil Government-Department of Militia and Defence-salaries, $212,500.
Major General MiEWBURN: The amount of these estimates for the Department of Militia and Defence is so insignificant compared with the amount that we have just been discussing-$50,000,000-that it will not require very much explanation. It is my intention when, at -a very early date, the war estimates are brought before the House, to give a detailed statement of the war policy of the Government, including such information regarding our troops in France, England, and Canada as it is advisable to give from a public standpoint. I do not purpose, therefore, to make a full statement to-night in connection with these estimates, but I shall take advantage of the opportunity of doing so when the war estimates are brought down by the Prime Minister.
['I am perfectly willing\nto agree to that proposal.']
John Allister Currie: Will the minister please fix a date, say next Tuesday, for this debate?


Major General MEWBURN:: The Prime Minister told me yesterday that he hoped to bring down the war estimates to-morrowr, if that would suit the convenience of the House.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: When may we expect the fourth volume of the Auditor General's Report, containing details of the war expenditure?


Major General MEWBURN:: I thought it had been laid on the Table.


Mr. MURPHY:: May I suggest to the Minister of Militia, whom I am glad to see in the House this session for the first time, that he follow the practice that has been followed for the last few years of presenting to the House a detailed statement of the expenditure of money voted for war purposes? During two or three previous sessions-in fact, ever since the wyar began -a special publication has been issued and distributed among the members giving in detail the expenditure of the war appropriation. Without that information it is impossible to discuss intelligently either the expenditure that has been made or the appropriation of $500,000,000 that is asked for

this session. I therefore urge upon my hon. friend the necessity of submitting that information to the committee as soon as possible.
Major-General MEWBURN: The report of the Militia Council is in press now, but the purchases of the Militia Department were made through the war purchasing commission, whose xeport is soon to be laid on the Talble. I fancy that is what the hon. gentleman refers to.


Charles Murphy: No, not altogether. It is necessary to find what expenditure is made under war appropriation, for instance, whether the cost of certain commissions, of certain boards, of certain offices that have been established, relate to the war appropriation. My reason for pressing this request to-night is that upon searching through the Auditor General's report for information regarding this expenditure-information which would ordinarily be found in that report-I discovered that it was not there. It is impossible, therefore, to ascertain the character of the expenditure under this war appropriation unless this information be given. I have not in mind particular contracts or purchases made through the war purchasing commission, but other expenditures, information regarding which apparently is not available in any other quarter to which I and some of my friends on this side of the House have had access.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I would call the minister's attention to the fact that the only details ,we have as to war expenditure are to be found in the public accounts under war accounts. The details of the war expenditure by the Militia Department are given from 1st April, 1916, to 31st March, 1917. Further than that, we have absolutely no details as to the war expenditures and no way of finding them out, so that we are hardly in a position to vote any estimates until we have fuller information.


Mr. CARVELL:: I think I realise what my hon. friends are asking for. During the last three years there has been issued a memorandum which is supplementary to the report of the Auditor General. That memorandum, as I understand it, has not been issued this year, the reason being that practically everything that heretofore appeared in the memorandum will now appear in the report of the war purchasing commission. The Minister of Militia, therefore, is not able to give that information to-night. I would suggest that perhaps we might confine our discussion tonight to Civil Government, which is the
[iMr. iMurphy._l
item under discussion, and I am sure the minister, when the matter comes up on the next occasion, will be able to give the House all the necessary information.


Charles Murphy: d agree with the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) that to-night the discussion, on which we have not yet entered, should be confined tp the proposed appropriation immediately before the Committee. But might I also point out that a statement of the transactions carried out by the war purchasing commission will not give the House information as to what has been paid for salaries, for instance, for salaries in connection with the board of food control or in connection with the central appeal judge's office and matters of that kind which I understand are taken out en bloc of this war appropriation? It is item's of that kind, in regard to which it has been found difficult to get information.	.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is quite true, and the House is certainly entitled to all that information. That, of course, would not appear in the report of the war purchasing commission, which would give only the actual purchases. There will however be another way of getting at it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Minister of Militia will find no difficulty with his estimates, if, after discussion with his deputy minister, he gets that detailed statement for which, since the beginning of the war, we have been accustomed to ask. The affairs of the Militia Department have increased so much that the estimates which are before the House are not sufficiently explicit for hon. members. I may say to the minister that he will find no difficulty in having his estimates passed, because he has the good will of the House and has always, since the opening of the session, answered very willingly and generously the requests made to him. But to facilitate the work of the Committee, we certainly require this detailed statement, which the minister's predecessor used to distribute each time his estimates came up before the House. I agree that as regards Civil Government, this statement is not so much needed.


Major General MEWBURN:: I can assure the hon. member that that statement will -be forthcoming. It is probably due to ignorance on my part that it has not been distributed. As to the memorandum published last- year, all purchases of the Militia Department which have been made by the war purchasing commission will be included in its report, which is in process of preparation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When will it be ready?


Major General MEWBURN:: We have
every day been asking the war purchasing commission to expedite it. As regards salaries and expenses paid in connection with the tribunals under the Military Service Act, no money had been paid out by the Department of Militia and Defence in connection with the operation of that Act. Except as regards any military representation who may have attended the tribunals. The whole administration and operation of that Act has been in the Department of Justice, and the Minister of Justice has had full and absolute control of its administration. So far as the Militia Department is concerned, we have had nothing to do with the Military Service Act until such period as we have been notified that the individual man has been refused exemption, and he is a soldier when he is handed over to us.


Jacques Bureau: As the Minister of Public Works has suggested, if we are to consider anything this evening, it should be the salaries, and the only source of information is the Auditor General's Report. We have had the estimates of the other departments before us; we have not yet had the estimates of the Militia Department. I have, however, no objection to offer to that. I see a note I took the other night while we were putting through the estimates of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Naval Service. At that time a remark was addressed to the Minister of Militia by his predecessor. I am rather afraid to embarrass somebody else by keeping the promise I made to the ex-Minister of Militia that night. The note asks this question: Why should not the Deputy Minister of Militia receive the same salary as the Deputy Minister of Agriculture or the Deputy Minister of Naval Service?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Or the Deputy Minister of Justice?


Jacques Bureau: The Deputy Minister of Justice receives eight or nine thousand dollars.
Mr. LEMIEL'X: More than that.


Jacques Bureau: I do not want to make any remarks as I know I should embarrass the Deputy Minister of Militia who is present to-night, but I want to make a reservation for myself and ask the Minister of Militia's permission to come back on the subject later on, although we may not be discussing the question of salaries, so that
I may keep the promise I made to the former Minister of Militia and also follow the dictates of my heart. I want to impress upon the Minister of Militia that this is a true demand we are making. I know nothing about the operation of the Department of Militia, but I am told that the Deputy Minister of Militia is also vicepresident, or occupies a prominent position in the Militia Council, and I have been informed that this Militia Council holds meetings, if not daily, two or three times a week, and that it involves extra work. If I speak now, it is just to get a reservation and to ask the minister's permission to come back to this subject, as I have something else to add, and I am in a very peculiar position, having to make the statement before the deputy minister himself.
Major-General MEWBURN: Of course, the hon. member is free to ask any questions and I shall endeavour to answer them, but if he does not wish to ask them to-night, he will have another opportunity. What was
the question he wished to ask?
/


Jacques Bureau: I wish to make a plea in favour of an increase in salary to the deputy minister! The Deputy Minister of Immigration receives a salary of $6,000; the Deputy Minister of Naval Service receives a salary of $6,000; the Deputy Minister of Justice receives a salary of $10,000, and I understand that the largest and heaviest burden of administration in civil government falls upon the shoulders of the Minister of Militia and his deputy.
Major-General MEWBURN:	As regards
salaries of deputy ministers, I do not hesitate to say that in the short time I have been administering the Militia Department and, from the knowledge I have of some of the other departments, I think the deputy ministers are (very much underpaid for their services. I am a great believer in trying to get efficiency from a business standpoint, and I know that in private concerns you could not get a man for twenty or twenty-five thousand dollars a year to assume the same responsibilities and carry out the same work that are put upon the shoulders of deputy ministers. From my personal knowledge since I have been in the Militia Department and from my intimate connection with it for years past, I know that not only the deputy minister but some of the other officials have not worked by the clock but have worked until all hours of the night in order to cope with the burdens laid upon their shoulders.


Jacques Bureau: I may take that as an
intimation that my Tequest will be granted without any further remarks on my part?
Major-General MEWBURN:	I certainly
will be pleased to concur in that, if I can get it done.


Charles Murphy: Will the minister explain the increase in the salaries of these two officials. One of them is apparently in the first division.
Major-General MEWBURN: Yes, in subdivision A of the first division. There are three statutory increases of $100 each. Mr. Brown has gone up as chief accountant, and the other is Mr. Lewis, who appears here as assistant secretary of the militia council, with a salary of $2,600. He was formerly in subdivision B of the first division at the same salary.
Contingencies-Sundries, $ 11,000.
Mr. MoMASTER: What does this item include?
Major-General MEWBURN:	Telegraph
and telephone communications from different parts, cablegrams, etc. I have not the details here, but I can get them for my hon. friend if he desires.
Progress reported.



[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. F. B. Carvell (Minister of Public Works), Bill No. 40, to amend the Public Works Act, was read the second time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. F. B. Carvell (Minister of Public Works) moved the second reading of Bill No. 41, to amend Navigable Waters Protection Act. He said: I had intended to ask for the second reading of this Bill, but if my hon. friends think it is time to adjourn I will not press it.
Jacques Bureau: We do not object to giving the Bill its second reading provided it is distinctly understood that if we object to the principle of the Bill, we can discuss the principle in Committee.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. member can
discuss anything in Committee. I could not keep him from discussing it if I wanted to.


Jacques Bureau: The minister flatters me, hut I should like that distinctly understood, because the other day we had understood the Prime Minister to aquiesce in a [Major-General iMewburn.]
similar request, he objected to the principle of a Bill being discussed in Committee. If, therefore, it is distinctly understood that we can discuss the principle of this Bill in Committee, if we so desire, we shall have no objection to agreeing to the second reading.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am perfectly willing
to agree to that proposal.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Carvell the House adjourned at 11 p.mr
Wednesday, April 10, 1918.