['TEMPLEMAN, member for the electoral division of Comox-Atlin, introduced by the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister) and Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance).']
Hon.   WM@: TEMPLEMAN, member for the electoral division of Comox-Atlin, introduced by the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister) and Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance).



[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Secretary of State) moved that the House go into Committee on Thursday next to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient that there should be a department of the Civil Service of Canada to be called the Department of External Affairs, over which the Secretary of State of Canada shall preside, and that the Governor in Council may appoint an officer to be the deputy head of such department, at a salary of $5,000 per annum, and such other officers and clerks as may be requisite for the due administration of such department, at such salaries as, under the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908, are appropriate to the divisions and subdivisions of the service to which such officers and clerks may be assigned.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 84) respecting the Athabaska Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Turriff.
Bill (No. 85) respecting the British Columbia Southern Railway Company. - Mr. George Taylor.
Bill (No. 86) respecting the Cobalt Range Railway Company.-Mr. Hodgins.

Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER (North Toronto).: Before the orders of the day are called, I desire to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) if he can tell us when he expects to bring down the Budget?


Right Hon.   S@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance.) I cannot make an announcement at present, and some days must elapse before I can do so. There are some matters engaging my attention, which, though not more important, are more urgent.



SUPPLY-ESCAPE OF CONVICT BILL MINER.

['There is no point of order in that, and I did not hear the hon. member for North Simcoe utter any such language as that. Any man who, in this House, wants to safeguard the rights of the province of Quebec in a matter of this kind and to assure to that province the control of its important water-powers, for the reasons indicated by my hon. friend from North Simcoe, is entitled to the credit of the province, and if he displays some heat in advocating these rights he may rest assured that those who realize what the needs of our province are will be thankful for it. . I desire to refer for a moment to what was said by the hon. member for Chicoutimi and Saguenay (Mr. Girard), who stated that on forty-two different occasions, to his own knowledge, I had been a party to such legislation and approved of it. I was not aware that the hon. gentleman had followed so carefully my delinquencies in this House. Upon that score I have a very tranquil conscience, because, if I sinned forty-two times I sinned in company with my hon. friend.\nI am free to confess that what has been stated here to-night by one member of this committee, that in the past we have been a great deal too lax in matters of this kind, is well founded. It has been so for a long time and I think it is time to see to it that the rights of the provinces are safeguarded. There is the instance of the railway on the Island of Montreal. Upon what proof was this declared to be a railwav for the general advantage of Canada, confined as it is to the Island of Montreal and therefore falling under the jurisdiction of this parliament? I question very much indeed if it is to the advantage of the city of Montreal or of the province generally. Has there been any proof adduced that this projected company is a company in the general interest of Canada? That is the only clause in the whole charter that gives us any jurisdiction. Is there a member of this committee who will say that if there has been no proof of that, this parliament is not committing a rash act in incorporating this company? What proof, have we, Sir, that in view of the protest which was lodged before the Railway Committee by the province of Quebec, through its authorized attorney, who said that they did not wish to see this legislation passed, this company has not come here because it knew that the parliament at Quebec would not grant the privileges it is claiming for us? We are arrogating a jurisdiction to ourselves, and the point raised by my hon. friend from North Simcoe is a particularly interesting one for us in the province of Quebec. If we assume jurisdiction and give to this comnanv the power which is mentioned in clause 38 of expropriating water-powers for the development of electricity we will place\n\nthe province of Quebec, which has no coal and which has such a wealth of hydraulic power, in the most unfair position which will give rise to trouble later on. Under these circumstances, it seems to me that we should at least refer it hack to the committee in order that ample proof should be secured of the general interest which has been alleged by speakers in favour of this Bill, but of which no proof whatever has been given.']
Right Hon.   S@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR (New Westminster).: Three weeks ago, I brought to the attention
of this House certain matters in connection with the British Columbia penitentiary, matters of especially grave moment because of the fact that they involve an interference with the prerogative of pardon which, under our constitution, is the personal prerogative of His Excellency. I charged on that occasion that there had been serious defects in the connecting links between the penitentiary and the Department of Justice, that material information respecting transactions within the penitentiary had not been communicated to the department by the inspector whose duty it is to visit that institution and make periodical reports to the government. We had the promise on that occasion that the government would institute an investigation into the facts thus brought before the House; but, in connection with this promise, we had the embarrassing fact that the head of the department had volunteered a certificate of character to the person involved in these charges, that is, the inspector whose duty it was to have made reports which I charged -and I think substantiated that charge by evidence produced in this House-had not been made, and by that certificate of character so given the government had placed themselves in the embarrassing position of sharing in whatever condemnation might be subsequently found attached to the conduct of the inspector. The first certificate of character was given by no less a person than the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ayles-worth) when, in the following week, he answered a series of questions placed upon the Order Paper by my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen). The answers to these questions revealed that whereas there had been paid a series of visits to the convict known as Bill Miner, as to whom this discussion in the House had arisen, and these visits were recorded in the books of the penitentiary, no permission had been given by the department for these visits, and that they were directly contrary to the regulations of the Department of Justice, and therefore should have been reported by the inspector to the Department of Justice on the occasion of his first visit to the institution after they had been recorded in the book. I would like to recall that the facts before the House showed that the inspector visited the institution in July, 1907, that the escape took place in August, 1907; that all these visits were recorded on the books during several months prior to July, 1907, one of them so late as June of that year, and that none of these visits were reported to the Department of Justice here, as shown by the answers made by the Minister of Justice to the member for Portage la Prairie to the effect that the department had no knowledge of the matter and had given no permission for these visits.
It was also stated in this House, in con-

nection with this inquiry, that the reason certain detectives were permitted to visit Miner was that he was supposed to have taken certain bonds, the product of the hold-up near Mission in the year 1906. Now, in the answer made by the Minister of Justice in reply to the inquiry whether the department proposed to follow up that clue and find out whether there had been a recovery of those bonds subsequent to the escape of Miner, I would like to point out that nearly 18 months had elapsed, so that there would have been am ole time for these bonds to have reached their destination in Australia, and there would have been ample opportunity to inquire whether the officers had fulfilled their duty, and had pursued this subject by inquiries in Australia, or wherever else it might have been thought proper, to ascertain whether the bonds had been returned there, and so establishing a connection between the departure of Miner and the recovery of these bonds. The answer made by the department was that they had not made any inquiry, neither did they intend to pursue any inquiry in that direction. So much for the departmental side of this matter. But after the ventilation of the subject in this House, the public in British Columbia commenced to take an interest in it. I propose to read an extract from the Vancouver ' Province,' a most influential and independent newspaper published at Vancouver, a paper I may say of the highest respectability and responsibility, and which I am sure would not publish a paragraph of this kind except on the most unquestioned authority. I read from the Vancouver ' Daily Province ' of the 12th of February, this statement appearing in black type so as to emphasize it and add to its importance, and to show that it is not a mere casual paragraph brought in by a reporter but has received the attention of responsible persons in the office:
An official who is in a position to speak authoritatively on the subject of Bill Miner's escape from the penitentiary at New Westminster this morning made the following statement for publication:
At the time of the investigation into the escape made by Inspector Dawson I could have told him, had I been called upon to testify, that Bill Miner did not escape from prison bv crawling under the fence through the hole through which it was alleged he went. No man ever crawled through that hole for two good reasons. The first was that the hole was not large enough; the second, because the hole was made only for the purpose cf covering the letting out of Miner. The story of the loss of fifty thousand dollars worth of bonds or money by the Canadian Pacific Railway or any one else in the robbery, and that it had been cached by Miner, v as an invention in the interests of the robber himself. No one ever lost that sum; no binds were ever stolen. Miner's friends on the outside called on him and conducted fake Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.
negotiations for his so-called escape and the securing of the cached money. Certain persons made it possible for Miner to escape, apparently on the understanding that he would divide up on the booty. These facts can easily be proved if the government makes an investigation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a statement involving an arraignment of the Department of Justice, and is of a most serious nature, a statement so serious that I do not remember ever to have seen its parallel in the press of this country or of any other country, without an immediate inquiry being set on foot by the department indicted, in order, either to absolve the persons mentioned from complicity in the escape if they were innocent, or to punish the persons who were guilty of circulating so mischievous a story. I am surprised that nearly three weeks have elapsed since the publication of that indictment of the Department of Justice, without the slightest notice being paid by that department to the arraignment made by this official, who says that he was in a position to tell how this man left the penitentiary if he had been called by the inspector who was sent there and spent four months conducting this inquiry. But he was not called by the inspector, and was not given any opportunity to testify in this connection, and although his statement has been before the public for two weeks or more this House has been allowed to remain in ignorance whether or not the department of Justice have given anv attention to this information. But, Mr. Speaker, matters did not rest there. While the Department of Justice were seemingly oblivious to what the public might say about this, seemed to have lost any interest in Bill Miner, and had apparently no concern as to whether he escaped or was handed out, the public in British Columbia were not indifferent. The persons in British Columbia charged with interests much inferior in degree to those with which the department stands concerned, would not rest quiet under the indictment. One of these persons was the Canadian Pacific Railway detective, Bullick, who was mentioned in this House in connection with the transaction, and as to whom we were told by the Solicitor General that he hack been permitted to visit the institution because, as that hon. gentleman said, he desired, on behalf of the railway companv, who were prompted by the express company, to find out what became of these bonds. We find Bullick submitting to an interview in the ' Daily Province ' of February 18, and saying:
I never had an interview with Bill Miner at the penitentiary in New Westminster, hut I was present when Jake Terry interviewed the train robber there; I accompanied Terry to the penitentiary to see if he and Miner were acquainted, and though I was present

when the two men met I said nothing to Miner beyond correcting a statement he attributed to me in reference to the reported death of his sister. Warden Whyte was present at the time.
I certainly therefore never could have promised Bill Miner a pardon if he would surrender to the Canadian Pacifio Railway any bonds which he was credited with having stolen at the Whonnock hold-np. I never made any such promise to Miner or even discussed the subject with him notwithstanding any statement made to that effect by Miner to Instructor McKenzie of the penitentiary, and by him reported at the Dawson investigation into the escape of Miner.
This statement was made to-day by Mr. Robert E. Bullick, inspector of the special service department of the Canadian Pacific Railway in reference to the information given out in parliament yesterday by Hon. A. B. Aylesworth when questioned concerning the unsavoury escape of the train robber and three fellow-prisoners on August 8, 1907.
There never were any bonds stolen in the Whonnock hold-up by Bill Miner or any one else so far as I am aware, continued Mr. Bullick. The story of the theft of bonds was invented by Jake Terry, of Bellingham, a former pal of Miner's in San Quentin penitentiary. Terry spun the bond yarn to Mrs. Wellman, a sister of Miner's, who was living in Bellingham after the Whonnock hold-up, in the hope that he would be able to excite her cupidity and so learn from her the whereabouts of the robber who was then in hiding. Terry thought Mrs. Wellman would have some knowledge of her brother's location. Finally Terry while intoxicated gave the story to the Bellingham press in an attempt to substantiate the accounts he had been giving to Miner's sister. That was the origin of the bond fake.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am reading all this because the story is essential. You will observe there is a direct contradiction here between the statement made by the Solicitor General in this House that the reason this man was allowed to see Miner was that he wished to secure a trace of the bonds alleged to have been stolen, and the statement of the man himself, who comes forward and says that there never were any bonds, that he had no instructions from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was not authorized by the express company to act, and that the whole thing was a fake. But he proceeds now to a subject which does concern us, and as to which we have had no proper answer from the Department of Justice. He says:
The most peculiar circumstance in connection with the escape of Miner has not yet been brought up in parliament, and that is how it happened that when Miner got away his upper lip was adorned with a moustache and his hair was unclipped. Following the alleged escape, days elapsed before it became known that Miner was not close cropped and clean shaven-had the true description of the man been given out he would have been arrested as he was met not far from the mouth of the Fraser river by a policeman who recognized his features but was confounded at seeing such a growth of hair and moustache which he knew could not have been grown during the few days which had at that time elapsed since the escape.
It is suggested that perhaps the federal government hesitates about making any statement in this connection, as it would be merely furnishing evidence of the loose manner in which its penal institutions are managed.
Now completing the story, I find in the New Westminster 'Daily Columbian' which arrived in the mail to-day, a singular statement by Mr. D. D. Bourke, ex-warden of the penitentiary, a statement dealing with the report made to this House by the Minister of Justice and by the Solicitor General. I wish to call attention mainly to the concluding paragraph, but I think it is essential to the record, and lest any person should say that I had not read the full let ter, that I should read the whole of it although it is the concluding paragraph to which I wish to direct special attention. The letter proceeds:
The Vancouver ' World,' of the 23rd inst. has an editorial headed ' That Borden Telegram,' in which it states that the conduct of the bold wretch who tampered with the telegram committed a treasonable crime. He misled the state. Equally guilty of treason is the man who misleads the Crown and he who misleads a minister of the Crown misleads the Crown itself.
As my telegrams regarding the escape of Bill Miner have been discussed in the House and as they may be discussed again when the deferred item for British Columbia penitentiary is brought up, I think it advisable that the hon. the minister as well as the publio should be correctly informed in this matter before the discussion is resumed.
The minister is reported in ' Hansard ' (unrevised) of Feb. 11 as follows:
After leferring to my telegram of the 8th Aug. the minister says (page 971):
' But the extent of the message which then came, and which for the first time gave the slightest hint that Miner was one of those that had escaped, was a telegram which Mr. Bourke despatched on the 11th of August. When it reached Ottawa it was not addressed as it ought to have been, and as I understand Mr. Bourke says his original message was addressed, to the inspector, but it was addressed to Mr. Dawson individually. On receipt at Ottawa, instead of being delivered to me, or to Mr. Stewart, or to the department, it was repeated to Mr. Dawson at Kingston.'
Here are the facts as I know them.
On the 8th of Aug. Bill Miner and three other convicts escaped. Immediately I wired the department that four convicts had escaped. Seeing we had not recaptured these men I wired the department again next morning, 9th Aug., and gave the name of escaped convicts and asked permission to offer a reward. A child can understand even an hour's delay in such cases counts in the convict's favour. All day of the 9th I looked

anxiously for a reply but none came. Several days having passed and getting no reply from the inspectors I had given up hopes of the department taking any action when I noticed an item in the Vancouver 'Province' of the 15th stating that Chief Chamberlain had received instructions to offer $500 reward for Miner. As this was only an item I looked carefully over the Vancouver papers for a day or two to see if an official notice had been given, but there was none. I then went to Vancouver and asked the chief why he had not offered the reward, officially, as no one would venture his life with Miner on the information in the news item. The chief replied that he had no instructions to do so, and showed me the telegram from Col. Sherwood which simply stated the fact but gave no advice. A day or two later I had a telegram from Col. Sherwood saying Detective McLeod, of Vancouver, would call upon me in regard to the Miner case, and a few hours afterwards he with Chief Chamberlain and C.P.R. detective Bullick called on me. As Mr. McLeod assured me it was all right to allow the chief and Mr. Bullick to hear all I had to tell him, all three were present during the interview. As I am not aware of the reward being officially announced at any time, this interview was the first made here by the department of which I am aware for the recapture of Miner-about a fortnight after Bill Miner escaped.
Here is where it begins to be particularly interesting:
When Mr. Dawson began the inquiry some days afterwards he worked himself up to a passion because of the delay in getting my telegram of the 9th of August asking permission to offer a reward. He said I addressed the telegram to him instead of to 'The Inspectors.' That he was then at Dorchester and that the telegram was forwarded to Dorchester, that he had left Dorchester for Kingston before the telegram arrived there, and after arriving at Kingston he went to the country for some days and when he returned to Kingston and got the telegram several days had elapsed, and that had I addressed it ' The Inspectors,' Inspector Stewart would have got it at once and taken some action on it. I said I addressed it ' The Inspectors.' He then went to his papers and took therefrom a telegram such as I sent but addressed ' G. W. Dawson.' I still insisted that I addressed the telegram ' The Inspectors,' but he pretended not to believe me and charged me with bringing great trouble on the government. That evening I wrote the telegraph operator of this city.for a copy of the telegram which he sent me. It was addressed ' The Inspectors.' I handed it to Mr. Dawson. When I was in Ottawa a year later I called at the telegraph office there and asked for a copy but was told at the telegraph office that such papers are always destroyed after being held six months. As my telegram of the 8th was addressed ' The Inspectors ' and received all right, and as my telegram of the 9th was addressed all right to ' The Inspectors,' the only conclusion that can be drawn from Mr. Dawson's version is that it fell into some hands at Ottawa who saw, in thus falsifying it, a better chance for Miner to escape and as a consequence for my resignation.


Mr.  J. D.@: It would be interesting to know what action Mr. Dawson took to find out the guilty party. When I handed him the copy received from the operator, Mr. Wilson, and when he saw it was addressed ' The Inspectors ' he said: * What further action are you going to take about it ? ' I replied that I felt my share was done, as the message left Westminster all right.
It would only cost a trifle for Mr. Dawson to wire to Ottawa for a copy of that telegram, and settle the matter there and then. Indeed had I anticipated so much trouble arising over the matter or had I known Mr. Dawson as well then as I learned to know him during the course of the inquiry, I should have wired for a copy at my own expense.
I fear that unless this telegram transaction is cleared up satisfactorily a crime of greater magnitude than the escape of Bill Miner will stain the reputation of our fair Dominion.
(Sgd. ) D. D. BOtJKKE.
I submit that this statement, added to the facts brought out in our discussion of this matter three weeks ago, shows that there is urgent necessity for some action being promptly taken in reference to it and I think the government will be derelict in its duty if it leaves the inquiry of this matter in the hands of the inspector who was accused by Mr. Bourke in the first statement, which I read in this House and is again accused in the letter which I have just now read. That this government which has been paying so much attention lately to the matter of forged telegrams, which has held itself up to public applause for the horror it has expressed that any one should attempt to tamper with a telegram between its despatch and delivery, should sit silent and allow the charge to be made that a telegram addressed to the Department of Justice was forged, just as much as any other telegram was forged, somewhere between the departure of that telegram from New Westminster and its receipt in Ottawa by the changing of the address of the inspector, who, on his own statement, was a thousand miles away and could not possibly receive it until the lapse of several days and then the object for which the telegram had been sent here was defeated. I submit that this is a most serious matter and one which calls for more urgent attention by this government than has been given to it, as is sh*own by the fact that three weeks have elapsed since this charge was first made in this House and that the government has sat absolutely silent under it during that period.


Hon.  A. B.@: AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice.) Mr. Speaker, there is, in connection with this matter, one feature upon which I think we will all be agreed and that is that it is most unfortunate that a subject of the kind has to be made a matter of trial in the newspapers and that perhaps it is equally a misfortune when one

of the newspapers which engages in such a trial happens to be the personal or particular organ of any hon. gentleman in this House.


James Davis Taylor: I would like to correct the hon. Minister of Justice and to say that the newspaper with which I am connected has not engaged in this warfare except to publish a signed statement from a responsible citizen.


Mr. AYLESWORTH.: I think a very good illustration of the misfortune which I have referred to is furnished by this affair and by one, at least, of the incidents in connection with it. When the matter was first discussed, while in committee of supply on the 11th of February last, I gave as full and as frank a statement as I was able to give from memory of all that had occurred in connection with the events of now nearly two years ago. I understood the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) to express himself at that time as pleased with the fullness of the explanation that was given. A few days afterwards, however, a question was put upon the Order Paper designed-to cross examine shall I say-I will prefer to say designed to bring out more fully all possible facts in connection with this particular escape. To that question I gave as full an answer as, I venture to think the circusmtances of the case admit of, on the 17th of February last, and I have but to refer hon. gentlemen who desire any information in connection with this matter to the pages of ' Hansard ' at 1228 and 1229 in which they will find as precise and as complete a summary of the official file in this matter as it was possible for me to frame after going over that file myself from beginning to end for the purpose of giving the answer which is there set down. Now, that answer was given on the 17th of February ult.; it was telegraphed to the British Columbia newspapers and among others to which that answer purported to have been telegraphed was the newspaper with which the name of the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. D. Taylor) is connected.


James Davis Taylor: I will have again to correct


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Davis Taylor: I will have again to correct the Minister of Justice.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. member rises to a point of'order; he has the right to be heard.


James Davis Taylor: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have corrected the hon. minister and I notice he did not accept my correction. 1 understand the reason for that but I do not think the statement should be repeated by the minister
even under the disabilities. I would like to say now that this report


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Davis Taylor: I am in order. My point of order is that the minister says that the report was telegraphed to my newspaper. I have to say that that report was not telegraphed to my newspaper. My paper does not take the associated press telegrams and this despatch was copied from the Vancouver ' News-Advertiser,' which does take that service.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It is customary to accept an hon. member's statement.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The observation which I made Mr. Speaker, was that this answer given by me in the House, or the substance of this answer, was telegraphed to British Columbia and appeared in various newspapers there, among others in the newspaper with which the name of the hon. gentleman is connected. That statement is literally true and may be verified by any hon. member who cares to take the trouble to examine the files in the library and to refer to the issue of the ' Columbian' of the 18th of February last. Now, I may repeat what I said at the outset that in matters in which an hon. gentleman in this House takes a particular interest it is sometimes a misfortune that that same hon. gentleman should have a newspaper at his disposal. For this reason my answer to the question as to interviews of detectives with Miner, and in particular as to statements with regard to bonds which it was supposed Miner knew the hiding place of, v as very distinct and exact in saying that the first the department or any official of the department at Ottawa ever heard of even the existence of such bonds was when, after the escape of Miner and during the investigation of the circumstances of that escape held by Mr. Inspector Dawson, one of the witnesses, na'mely, Instructor Mackenzie had stated in evidence that Miner told him that a certain man named Bullick had come to the penitentiary to see him (Miner) in regard to the existence of those bends. That answer having been given to this House on the 17th of February, in the issue of the ' Columbian ' on the following day on the front page and under the heading : ' The department was unaware; Ayles-worth in Commons gives names of visitors to Bill Miner in captivity; no permission given; no records made of interview with Bullick and Terry; names registered;' there appears the statement that I gave to this House the name of chief constable Macintosh as the man who had given the evidence in question before Mr. Dawson and who had given to the officials of the department the only information on this sub-

ject which they had. I had mentioned in my answer in another connection altogether the name of Chief Constable Macintosh, but as to this particular point my answer is distinct and specific in giving the name not of Chief Constable Macintosh at all but of Instructor Mackenzie. Now, in each of the other newspapers in British Columbia the answer is correctly printed-


James Davis Taylor: I am sorry to have to say that the statement just made by the minister is not correct.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: That is not a point of order.


James Davis Taylor: Mr. Speaker


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Davis Taylor: I rise to this point of order: that the hon. minister is imputing dishonourable motives to me-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have not noticed that the minister has done so.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: In each of the other newspapers of British Columbia the answer is correctly given-


James Davis Taylor: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The telegram in every other newspaper read that the person who gave this evidence was instructor Mackenzie, as I said, but. by some misfortune, by some alteration let us suppose in the transmission of the telegram to this particular newspaper office in British Columbia, by some possible forging of the telegram shall I say-


James Davis Taylor: I rise to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: If the hon. member (Mr. Taylor) rises to a personal explanation he should be heard.


James Davis Taylor: I would like to ask whether it is in order for a minister of the Crown to charge or to insinuate that a member of this House has connived at the forging of the telegram.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman is allowed to give a personal explanation.


James Davis Taylor: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to state that the Minister of Justice is entirely wrong.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Mr.   J.@: I). TAYLOR. The minister says that this telegram originated in the ' Daily Mr. AYLESWORTH.
Columbian ' and as I have already informed the House it originated in the Vancouver ' News-Advertiser ' which takes the despatches which the ' Columbian ' does not and it was copied from the ' News-Advertiser ' by the ' Columbian ' word for word.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Of course, I am not able to enter into the secrets of the hon. gentleman's sanctum in British Columbia. I must naturally take things as I find them, and on the front page of this Daily ' Columbian ' of New Westminster of February 18, 1909, I see this remarkable evidence of the enterprise of that great organ of public opinion. I see that there is a telegraphic despatch from Ottawa direct to the Daily ' Columbian.'


James Davis Taylor: Mr. Speaker


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


James Davis Taylor: I ask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, whether the Minister of Justice, having been informed that he is wrong, is permitted to continue to insult me as he is doing ?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: In this paper


Some hon. MEMBERS: Take it back.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member (Mr. J. D. Taylor) is permitted to make a personal explanation. The minister is now referring to an article in a newspaper, which is quite a different matter.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I find on the face of this newspaper article, Mr. Speaker, no indication that it is copied from any other organ of public opinion, no credit given to the enterprise of the other newspaper, which may have been at the expense of having this message sent across the continent. But a despatch dated Ottawa, February 18, appears in the issue of the 'Columbia' of the same date. It appears as if it were a special despatch sent to that newspaper-not, it is true over any special or private wire, but an ordinary piece of telegraphic news due to the enterprise of that newspaper itself; and but for explanations which I understand have been given to the contrary, I certainly would have supposed, I certainly did suppose when I read that article that it was what it professed to be, and that it was truthfully purporting to give to its readers the understanding that that newspaper had a special correspondent at headquarters in Ottawa to whom it was indebted for this information. Be that as it may, however, that article came to be published in the Daily ' Columbian,' the point is precisely the same. Whether or not there was an error in telegraphing, whether or not there was something taken out of the telegram after it reached the Daily ' Columbian ' and

something else put in instead, whether or not that message was improved by someone, influenced by motives of misguided political zeal, however it was, this newspaper published the statement that the Minister of Justice was driven to say that Mr. Chief Constable Macintosh was the person who had conveyed that information to the department which the department ought to have known from the beginning. Nor is this all, Mr. Speaker, because side by side with the telegraphic despatch to which I have referred, in the adjoining column and under equally staring headlines, we have the result of another piece of enterprise on the part of this newspaper, in the form of interviews purporting to have been had on the day in question with Chief Constable Macintosh and with Mr. ex-warden Bourke. May you understand exactly, Mr. Speaker, the enterprise of this newspaper and the way in which public opinion is worked up on this great question in British Columbia. There is a telegraphic despatch, which, when it comes to be published in a newspaper, is unaccountably erroneous, and which attributes to Chief Constable Macintosh the giving of information to the department with which Chief Constable Macintosh had never any concern in the world. Immediately thereafter the industrious reporter sets out for Chief Constable Macintosh to interview him, and not unnaturally Chief Constable Macintosh gives the whole story an utter repudiation, saying that he had never testified anything of the kind. Then the newspaper tells you:-That is a sample of the kind of statement you get from your Minister of Justice, and accordingly a half column is built up of rosy phrases in which the Minister of Justice and his department are held up to the scorn of an outraged British Columbia, because statements of this notoriously untrue character are actually made by the Minister of Justice of Canada from his place in the House of Commons. Nor does the enterprise of this newspaper stop at this point. Not only have we the effect of an interview with Mr. Chief Constable Macintosh, but we have also the effect of an interview with Mr. ex-warden Bourke, who, according to the newspaper says:	' now the
public of British Columbia can see what reliance can be placed on the information which the Minister of Justice receives from his subordinates in regard to penitentiary matters in British Columbia.' And again the moral is pointed, and again the newspaper drives home to its readers the great truth that the whole management of public affairs under this administration is rotten to the core and ought to be changed; that no dependence whatever can be placed on the officials of the department. This is I a sample, this is an illustration; and upon [DOT] 58



[Stage Direction]
I
such foundations is built the whole edifice which the hon. gentleman has erected with regard to the escape of this convict Miner. No sooner had this newspaper published statements purporting to have been made by ex-warden Bourke as to what disclosures he could make if he saw fit than a letter was written to him, which appears on the pages of ' Hansard,' in which he was asked to say what statements he could make which he had not made at the time he was sworn to tell the truth and the whole truth in regard to this matter; and promptly there came by way of answer from Mr. Bourke this letter, written in his own hand,
New Westminster, B.C.,
Feb. 6, 1909.
Mr.  G. W.@: Dawson, Esq.,
Inspector, Ottawa.
Sir,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 30th nit., requesting information I may have regarding the escape of Bill Miner, that I have not already disclosed, and in reply I wish to say that, so far as my memory serves me, I gave you at the investigation and in my previous reports all the facts of which I was in possession.
Tours truly,


D. D. BOTJRKE.
[Stage Direction]
If Mr. Bourke did, as it was his sworn duty to do, give all the information he possessed in regard to this matter, at the time he was sworn to do so, in the fall of 1907, and while the facts were fresh within his recollection, there remains nothing new to be added, and the whole substamce of the information he was able to give, or that any other person connected with the penitentiary, inside or outside of it, who testified, was able to give, is contained in the answer to which I have already referred In that answer it was stated, as I said on the 11th of February in the Committee of this House, that through the improper direction of the telegram which Mr Bourke sent announcing the escape of Miner, there was a delay of at least 24 hours at this end of the line. That telegram, as it was received from the telegraph office at Ottawa, is upon the files of the department. It has not been interfered with in any degree since it left the custody of the company. That telegram is not addressed to the inspectors of penitentiaries, but to Mr. Dawson and to Mr. Dawson accordingly it was delivered. Mr. Dawson was not at the time in Ottawa and as a result of the telegram following him and not getting back to Ottawa till after it had been received by him and transmitted by him to his colleague in the inspectorship, there was that delay which I have mentioned at this end of the line. Now, it is said that Mr. Bourke states to some newspaper or other that when he despatched that telegram it was correctly addressed,

[Stage Direction]
that it was addressed by him to the inspectors of penitentiaries and not to Mr. Inspector Dawson by his personal name.
I cannot say as to that; Mr. Bourke's statement may be perfectly true, I am not in a position to contradict it, and I do not desire to be understood as casting the slightest doubt upon it. Unfortunately the alteration of telegrams in transmission seems to be too common, especially when British Columbia is concerned; and just as there was this error in the newspaper to which I have already referred, in getting the name of Mackenzie changed to Macintosh by some inadvertence in copying on the part of either the telegraph company or of some newspaper copyist, so there was a difference between the address of Mr. Bourke's telegram in this instance when the copy of it in Ottawa was delivered and the condition in which Mr. Bourke says that message was when he wrote it and delivered it to the telegraph company in British Columbia.
What possible blame can be attached to the officials of the department in that connection I am unable to fathom. I am not seeking to cast any blame in the matter upon Mr. Bourke. I have never made any attack in this matter upon him; on the contrary Mr. Bourke has been, as I think I pointed out previously in this House, dealt with at all events leniently on the part of the Department of Justice and of the government. Notwithstanding all that took place in that summer, Mr. Bourke was allowed to resign and received to the full his superannuation or retiring allowance calculated upon his full actual period of service. I cannot think that he has anything to complain of and hon. gentlemen will bear me out in the memory that when this matter was under discussion three weeks ago Mr. Bourke's own language was quoted that he had no complaint against either the government or the Minister of Justice but that his quarrel was with the penitentiary inspectors. Into that quarrel, if there be a quarrel or if Mr. Bourke fancies he has a quarrel, I have no desire to go, it does not strike me that it is a matter in which the public interest of this country is concerned, and except for the exigencies of newspapr warfare, I am not able to understand any principle upon which this matter is resumed from time to time on the floor of this House. Miner escaped. No person in this country can regret the fact of his escape more than I do. I fancy I regret it more than any other hon. member in this House. What is to be done about it? What can be done? Every exertion that I was able to think of was made at the time to capture the man. Only the other day one of the four men who escaped with him was recaptured and is now in cus-
Mr AYLESWORTH.: tody. At any moment, any day, Miner may be recaptured. Whether or not he ever will be I no more can tell than the hon. gentleman himself. But this I say and say without fear of successful contradiction that there was no stone left unturned by the inspectors of penitentiaries or by myself, to secure the recapture of that man from the moment we received the first intimation that he had escaped from the penitentiary.-
On the former occasion on which this matter was discussed, the hon. gentleman indulged in other things. I do not know if they have been repeated to-day but I wish to say while on my feet one word in regard to at least one of the statements then made for which the hon. gentleman promptly took me to task. I stated when on _my feet before, although I was speaking without any previous opportunity to refer to the files, and eighteen months after the event, that that was not the first escape that summer from the penitentiary of British Columbia. The hon. gentleman at once challenged me and no sooner had I taken my seat than he thought to put the Minister of Justice in a hole by referring to the official report which stated there were six escapes during the year from that penitentiary and that the other two were subsequent to those of Miner and his three companions. The explanation was simple. Of course the hon. gentleman was not aware of this and I have no doubt he was speaking in perfect good faith, but we take no account in our annual reports of escapes which have not been successful, of escapes which are followed by recapture before the end of the year when the report comes to be made. There had been escapes previous to this from the British Columbia penitentiary as I stated. I remembered the circumstances perfectly when I was speaking and I remember them still. I can give the hon. gentleman, if he wishes, the name of the convict; I can tell him all the circumstances of the escape and I can tell him that we recaptured that convict within forty-eight hours and therefore he did not appear in the report at all. But the circumstance was there, the fact was that when Bourke reported Miner's escape that was not the first escape that summer, and this second escape as it then was, coming so close upon the heels of the former escape, prepared me to believe just what was officially reported by the inspectors as the result of the investigation, that the discipline in the penitentiary at British Columbia had been too lax. Do not the facts which I laid before the House three weeks ago and which are spread upon ' Hansard ' demonstrate that? You have interviews taking place with convicts contrary to the regulations upon the sole responsibility of the warden or


Mr. E. L. BOEDEN (Halifax).: My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ayles-worth) began his remarks with a statement which must have been carefully considered, and which was designed-i submit to the judgment of every member of this House-to cast discredit upon the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. J. D. Taylor). I do not think that my hon. friend the Minister of Justice would have the courage himself to deny this. The purport of that statement was this:	That in the
British Columbia newspaper, published in the city of New Westminster, the answer given by the Minister of Justice on the 17th of February in this House, had been wrongly set forth, althougn it had been properly and correctly set forth in every other newspaper in British Columbia. Now, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he adheres to that statement or whether he withdraws it.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: My authority for the statement is not a personal examination, but a statement made to me that in every other British Columbia newspaper, the answer had appeared as in ' Hansard.'


Robert Laird Borden: I think it would have been more becoming the position of the Minister of Justice in this House, before he undertook to make a statement of that kind, obviously levelled at my hon. friend from New Westminster for the purpose of discrediting him, to have made a personal examination. I wish to inform the Minister of Justice that the statement he made in this House this afternoon in that respect is absolutely unfounded and unwarranted. I have under my hand the 'Daily News-Advertiser,' from which the paragraph was copied into the columns of the 'British Columbian,' as stated here this afternoon by the hon. member for New^ Westminster, and it will be seen that the inaccuracy to which attention has been called by the Minister of Justice (in the very fair manner that has characterized his remarks this afternoon) is to be found in the columns of the ' News-Advertiser ' exactly as my hon. friend from New Westminster declared. I will read it in order that there may be no mistake on the subject:
There was no record of Bullick or Terry's visits in the visitors' book, although there were records of all the others. The department first became aware that the visit of the detectives was to locate or secure information as to certain stolen bonds when, at the investigation conducted by Inspector Dawson, Chief Constable Macintosh said that Miner told him that Bullick said he (Miner) would be pardoned if he surrendered the Australian bonds. Macintosh said he repeated Miner's statement to the warden, who knew about it. Inspector Dawson wrote to Bullick, who re-

plied that the only time he had seen Miner was when he visited the penitentiary in the company of Terry, at which time the warden was present.
This is exactly the same inaccuracy of which the minister complains. I think that it is to be regretted that a gentleman holding the position in this House of the Minister of Justice should have ventured, without more care than the hon. gentleman seems to have taken, to make a statement designed, obviously and plainly designed, for the purpose of casting discredit upon an hon. member of this House. But these eccentricities on the part of the Minister of Justice are not uncommon. We heard him yesterday declaiming-though he said he had no right to declaim-against certain action of the Ontario government


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Order.


Robert Laird Borden: Very good. I might refer to that by illustration properly within the rules of this House. And I may remark, there is no hon. gentleman who transgresses that rule more frequently than the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier) himself. I may say, in this connection, that it is indeed a matter of surprise to us to find a Minister of Justice holding a portfolio in this government which has refused a fiat to a very large number of men who assert that they have a valid claim against this government in respect of its Post Office Department. It is a surprise to hon. gentlemen in this House who have listened to recent debates in which the Minister of Justice] expressed himself very strongly on this point.
But these are all matters by the way: the real point of this case has not been touched by the Minister of Justice, and every hon. member who has listened to him knows that the real point has not been touched by him. The point of the case is this; what explanation has the government, what explanation has the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth), what explanation has the Solicitor General (Mr. Bureau), for the fact that a convict was permitted to escape in broad daylight from one of the penitentiaries of this country, and up to this time that man has not been recaptured? What is the meaning of these rumours depending on evidence-if the statement of responsible men reported in the newspapers are to be regarded as evidence-that this man, at the time of his escape, had been permitted to have his hair grow to the ordinary length, like any citizen of this country, and liis moustache to grow as well, so that he would escape recognition as a convict.
Has my hon. friend the Minister of Justice touched upon that point this afternoon? Everv one knows he has almost carefully evaded it. I leave to any hon. gentleman in this House who reads the discussion Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
which took place on the 11th February, who examines the statements made then by the Minister of Justice, and the utterly inconsistent statements as they seem to me, of the Solicitor General, I ask hon. members of this House if they will say that up to the present time any true and reasonable explanation of this matter has been given? What is the meaning of it all? What is the meaning of the extraordinary apologetic attitude assumed in this House by the Minister of Justice towards this man Bourke? Why, he told us on a previous occasion that he had made a demand on this man- he had made a demand, with theatrical gesture and loud voice he said he had made a demand unon him that this information should be forthcoming; and when we came to examine that letter, why, Mr. Speaker, we saw that the Minister of Justice, when he addressed himself to Mr. Bourke, was roaring it as gently as any sucking dove. And this afternoon he has been at great pains indeed to assume a remarkably apologetic attitude towards Bourke. What does it all mean? This man has been charging, by direct implication, if not in express terms, and I am inclined to think in express terms as well, though I have not the context under my hand-this man has been charging conspiracy in connection with the escape of the convict Miner-let that be understood-and he has been charging that officials for whom the Minister of Justice is responsible in this House have connived in that escape. What does the Minister say? He says, will you please give to me, the Minister of Justice, any information that you have on this subject? And he stands here in the House this afternoon and regards the situation as absolutely solved to his satisfaction, because he has received a somewhat curt letter from Bourke informing him that he has no further information than that which has already been given. Why then did Bourke state on previous occasions, over his own signature, that he had such further information? Should 24 hours be lost before a committee of this House was appointed to bring that man Bourke before the committee and take his evidence on oath? Sir, that is not the attitude of the Minister of Justice. The attitude of the Minister of Justice is absolutely a departure from what we would expect of a gentleman whose management of a department in this important respect had been challenged in the public press over and over again. He beseeches the grace of Bourke, because he has made no attack upon Bourke in this House, and he flatters himself that Bourke has made no attack upon him. Bourke has made a direct attack upon the management of an institution for which the Minister of Justice is responsible Further, I say that when the Minister of Justice boasts in this House as to the treatment which he accorded to Bourke after that

escape had taken place, in superannuating him exactly as if the discipline in that penitentiary had been all that was required, treating him as if no escape had taken place-I say that when the Minister of Justice boasts of that, he boasts of something of which I think he has absolutely no reason to be proud. It is in my belief the bounden duty of the government to see what that man has to say on that subject under oath. It is true, he has given his evidence already. I have already stated in this House that I would not be inclined to give much credit to the assertions of a man who, having once given evidence on oath, declares afterwards that there are circumstances within his knowledge which would throw new light on this subject. But we cannot afford to have the administration of justice in this country thrown into contempt and disrepute. When we have reflections such as have been made by this man Bourke and by other men in British Columbia. indicating that there was some collusion or conspiracy, it seems to me the bounden duty of the government not to let the matter stand where it is. Instead of attempting to cast discredit upon an hon. member of this House who brings these matters to the attention of the government, I would think that the Minister of Justice should welcome the aid of any member of this House in trying to bring about a better condition of affairs than seems to exist in the administration of the penitentiaries.


Hon. J. BUREAU (Solicitor General).: I did not intend to take part in this debate, nor to sav anything more after the explanations of the Minister of Justice. But I see there is an inclination on the part of our hon. friends opposite to misinterpret his words, and to endeavour to impute to him motives which he has not. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition greatly surprises me when he says that this debate was brought up wholly for the purpose of drawing from the Department of Justice some explanation of the escape of Bill Miner. He says the Minister of Justice has not answered the questions put by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor), because he has not explained the escape of Bill Miner. Well, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition what more can the Department of Justice do, or what more can the Minister of Justice do, than to hold an investigation, to call the officers who were supposed to know anything of the circumstances of the escape, and examine them under oath, to take their evidence and come to a decision thereupon?


Robert Laird Borden: That is a fair question; will mv hon. friend permit me to answer it? Will he tell me, in the first place whether the circumstance with regard to the growth of this man's hair and moustache before his escape, had been investigated, and if it had not been investigated, does he not think in all fairness it should be investigated?


Jacques Bureau: Well, the leader of the opposition asks me a fair question. As he krows, I am not charged with the administration of the penitentiaries. But I was informed after the debate that took place on the Uth of February that the then warden of the penitentiary, as has been stated by the Minister of Justice, had certain weaknesses in regard to this matter, and I told him I was informed that at the time of the escape, the officers reported that Bill Miner's hair had not grown three-quarters of an inch-if I am not mistaken that is the answer I made.


Mr. CALVERT.: What about his moustache?


Jacques Bureau: About that I have no information. The leader of the opposition has accused the Minister of Justice of casting a slur upon one of the members of the opposition. Now, Mr. Speaker, my attention was called to the articles of the ' Daily Columbian' when the Minister of Justice cited these editorials of the 18th of February. I ask now, is there any man sitting in this House who reads newspapers, or any man outside of this House, when he sees a despatch in a daily paper of the importance of the ' Daily Columbian,' a paper whose importance is enhanced by the fact that a gentleman interested in it sits in this House-is there, I say, any man in this House or out of it who is going to write or telegraph to the editor of that paper, or to the manager, to find out whether a certain despatch is genuine, or whether it was copied from another newspaper. I submit in all fairness to the members of the opposition that when the Minister of Justice saw in that paper a report purporting to have been telegraphed from Ottawa, he was perfectly justifiable in thinking that the report had been telegraphed from Ottawa, had been telegraphed in the regular course of business, as happens in all newspaper offices which wish to keep their readers posted upon the proceedings of this House. This paper says in so many words that Chief Constable Macintosh was the man to whom. Miner reported that Detective Bullick had been at him and had offered him his liberty if he would give back the bonds. The report of the minister speaks of the instructor. Mackenzie, not only in one place but in different places. Here it is at page 1228 of 'Hansard':
During the investigation conducted by Inspector Dawson after Miner's escape and on '3th September, 1907, Instructor MacKenzie -tated in his evidence that after the interview with Bullick and Terry, Miner had told him that Bullick said Miner would be pardoned *f he would surrender to the Canadian Pacific

Railway Company certain Australian bonds which the company believed he (Miner) had taken from their express car on the occasion of the robbery at Mission. Mackenzie further deposed that he had reported Miner's statement to the warden, who said he knew about it. No record of the interview of Messrs. Builick and Terry with Miner is entered in the convicts' visitors book.
I submit that under the circumstances the hon. member for New Westminster should see that his readers are properly, rightly and correctly informed that they should know the truth about this deal. He cannot accuse the Minister of Justice before he writes a word to correct the state-ment^ which appeared in the ' Daily Columbian,' because, in justice to the Minister of Justice and to himself, that correction should be made.


James Davis Taylor: 1 wrote that word several days ago to Chief Constable Macintosh.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend may have written a letter but the paper does not speak about it. His private correspondence does not affect us very much in this transaction. We are more concerned in what the paper published. The matter was published in the newspaper and the correction ought to- be made in the newspaper. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) seems to make it a crime that, the Minister of Justice did not immediately send a constable or detective after Mr. Bourke and bring him down here that he might be brought before the bar of the House to answer any questions that any hon. member of the House might see fit to put to him. He makes it a reproach to the Minister of Justice that he wrote to Mr. Bourke: Will you please give me the information ? Mr. Speaker, I do not know that a superior, writing or talking to one who has been an officer of his, whether he may be still in the service or out of the service, has to bully him when asking anything of him. The leader of the opposition is not justified in finding fault with the Minister of Justice because he has written a civil letter. He also says that the Minister of Justice ignores the rules of the House that the Minister of Justice is trying to_ heap abuse on some body, that he his trying to get after the hon. member for New Westminster, that he his trying to get after the government of Ontario, and in the same breath finds fault because the Minister of Justice has written a polite letter and makes it a crime that is a crime.


Mr. HUGHES.: As I understand it the Minister of Justice stated, in very loud tones that he had demanded of Mr. Bourke an explanation and when the demand was brought down it was found to be a veritable sucking dove sort of letter.


Jacques Bureau: 


Jacques Bureau: Of course, it is only natural, I suppose, that my hon. friend the member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) never demanded what he got. We remember the whole history with regard to that hon. gentleman and we know that he got more than he demanded sometimes. When my hon. friend the Minister of Justice says that he demanded, the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton may endeavour to impart a meaning to his words by adopting the tone to which we have just listened. My hon. friend is a military man, he must be a good sport and if so will he in all fairness tell us what he wants the Minister of Justice to do ?


Samuel Hughes: I want the minister to be honest when he comes to this House and not say that he demanded something when he only asked for it in a very humble tone.


Jacques Bureau: I challenge my hon. friend to point out any dishonest statement made by the Minister of Justice. Here is a fair question and a fair question requires a fair answer. Show me any statement made by the Minister of Justice that is dishonest.


Mr. SPROULE.: I


Jacques Bureau: I am asking the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton. I will keep on my feet if he does not desire to answer my question.


Samuel Hughes: The statement that I spoke of in this connection is that the Minister of Justice stated that he had demanded of Mr. Bourke when he did not demand of Mr. Bourke, but very tamely and very humbly took his hat in his hand and asked Mr. Bourke to be good enough to give an explanation. Mr. Bourke seems to be master of the situation.


Jacques Bureau: If that is the only crime committed by the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice the country can be safely trusted to place a proper value upon the accusations of hon. gentlemen opposite. I see that the warrior spirit has invaded the other side of the House. The other night the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) wanted me to show him my burglars' tools with which I was to burglarize the country post office where the postmaster happened to keep a few cents in a tea cup and he declared that because I franked a few letters that I sent through the mail I was to be condemned. To-day he wants the Minister of Justice to walk up to Mr. Bourke pistols in hand and say ' your money or your life.' If that is the only charge against the Minister of Justice all well and good. The leader of the opposition ought not to be so bitter against the

Minister of Justice as he is. I ask now in all fairness what other steps could have been taken to recapture the convict Bill Miner whose escape we all regret ? Hon. gentlemen cannot say that we have been derelict in our duty in the Department of Justice. As soon as the news came action was taken to try to find the convict and bring him back. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) tried to show that there was a mistake in the telegrams. In his speech on the 11th February the Minister of Justice explained, as Mr. Bourke explained himself, in his letter, that the telegram had been sent to Mr. Dawson instead of being sent to ' The Inspectors,' that the telegram had gone to Dorchester, then to Kingston and then back to Ottawa, that Mr. Dawson had got it in Kingston and had sent it back to Mr. Stewart upon its receipt and that immediate action had been taken on the matter.
The leader of the opposition also states that in view of the rumours which are going around, the government ought to take immediate action. I do not think that my hon. friend is serious when he makes that statement. If we were to make an investigation, if we were to appoint a committee of the House upon every rumour that we hear we would be constantly sitting with a special committee investigating and trying matters. As my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) states we might as well have this House sitting as a committee on rumours because they would keep it busy.


Robert Laird Borden: I know my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) does not wish to misquote me, but my chief basis for the suggestion that there should be an inquiry was the statement that Mr. Bourke made over and over again in the press.


Jacques Bureau: How does my hon. friend want us to act after Mr. Bourke has been heard under oath ? Subsequently Mr. Bourke made statements in the newspapers. We ask Mr. Bourke to tell the government all he knows about it and he gives this information as it is his bounden duty. Here is a man that had performed his duty as acting warden in the penitentiary, and when we write him he says he has nothing further to disclose than that which he did disclose at the time of the inquiry made by the inspector. I should think that at the time of the escape and at the time of the inquiry made by the inspector the facts were vivid in Mr. Bourke's mind. He knew exactly what they were. He was then at the head of the penitentiary and when he came to give his evidence under oath I am satisfied that, the man being honest, as I believe he is, told the facts and I do not attach as much reliance upon any statement of fact which Mr. Bourke made eighteen months or two years after Bill Miner's escape as the lapse of time, might, under certain conditions, make him forget the facts and cause him to believe that they had another aspect than that which presented itself to his mind at the time of the occurrence. In view of all the circumstances, it is absolutely unfair to charge the department with negligence, or to charge that there was conspiracy between the government or any of the officials of the government in Ottawa, looking to the escape of Bill Miner. There is nothing m Bourke's statement, there is nothing even in the rumours that have been published, there is nothing anywhere to give ground for such an insinuation. The hon. gentleman read from a newspaper the statement that a man high in office knew that BUI Miner did not escape through the hole in the fence as alleged, but that the hole was put there as a blind. Well, if this matter is really brought up m parliament m the public interest why do these people not come forward and state exactly what they know to the Department of Justice P


Samuel Hughes: Why not bring them forward?


Jacques Bureau: Why is not the name of this gentleman high in office given?


Samuel Hughes: The paper will give it if you demand it.


Jacques Bureau: But the paper publishes a mere rumour.


Samuel Hughes: The paper is responsible to the Solicitor General and he can bring that paper up if he wants to.


Jacques Bureau: We cannot bring to account every newspaper that publishes a mere rumour. This newspaper says it is reported that some one high in authority knows a certain thing; it publishes a mere rumour and it takes that rumour as a basis for attacking the government. Now, what can you do in such a case? What means is there toi hold a newspaper responsible for such a publication? The department has done everything that it could do in this matter; the Minister of Justice has made a fair and full statement to the House as to all the circumstances, but notwithstanding, every now and then the hon. gentleman from Westminster produces the ' Daily Columbian ' to read certain statements and to base on them an attack upon the government. I submit to hon. gentlemen that such a proceeding is not fair play. I submit also that there is no warrant for saying that the Minister of Justice has endeavoured to cast any slur on the member for New Westminster. I submit further, for the consideration of the House, that

the action of the 'Daily Columbian' newspaper in this matter, using an incorrect statement about Chief Constable Macintosh and endeavouring by interviews based on that incorrect statement to stir up the feeling of the people of British Columbia, is intended to unwarrantably cast disrespect on the administration of justice and is not such conduct as one would expect from n journal which would be supposed to be devoted to the public; interest.
Mr. MARTIN BURRELL (Yale-Cariboo.) This being a question which has been much agitated in the province of British Columbia, and in view of the sarcastic remarks which have been made by hon. gentlemen on the government benches as to how public business is conducted in British Columbia, I think I should say a few words. I have not the>
honour or the advantage or the disadvantage whichever it may be of being a lawyer, and not having a trained legal mind, it may be that I am unable to see that it makes any material difference to the question at issue whether in a telegram of 700 words the word the name 'Macintosh' was incorrectly substituted for the name 'Mackenzie.' What has that got to do with the principle at stake? The Solicitor General has not denied the charge made by the leader of the opposition, that the Minister of Justice had attempted to discredit the hon. gentleman from New Westminster because of his connection with the newspaper which gave publicity to this matter. As the leader of the opposition clearly showed this despatch was printed in good faith word for word by the ' Columbian ' as it appeared in one of the leading newspapers in Vancouver. In view of tl'at fact, I do not think we have yet had an adequate retraction of the charge made against the hon. member (Mr. Taylor) by the Minister of Justice. Is it any great misfortune that a member of this House should be connected with a newspaper? I do not know what the affiliations of other hon. gentlemen may be but I dare say there are some on the other side of the House who are connected with the press. They are not to be blamed therefor, nor should there be criticism of this sort directed to the hon. gentleman who opened the debate. What point was the Minister of Justice trying to make against my hon. friend (Mr. J. D. Taylor) because he was connected with a newspaper and because he has succeeded in running it after an up-to-date fashion? If we are to believe the Solicitor General it would be the duty of the 'Columbian' to make no reference whatever to the escape of Bill MineT or to the management of the penitentiary What is a newspaper for if it is not to keep the public in touch with what is going on and what more interesting and important piece of news could the 'Columbian' publish than this very peculiar incident in connec-Mr. BUREAU.
tion with a great public institution situated in the city in which it is printed? The 'Columbian' simply did its duty in putting the public in the possession of the fullest information in regard to this whole affair, and that it did so reflects credit on the management of that newspaper. Now, although we have had explanations over and over again both by the Minister of Justice and by the Solicitor General, there are several matters which have not been cleared up. Inspector Dawson was apparently in New Westminster inspecting the penitentiary in June and July and it has been shown that he knew of five or six visits which had been paid to this convict Miner previous to that date and. it is apparent that he did not report them to the department. One would think that this was of sufficient importance to be reported by Mr. Dawson to his superiors. We have also the statement that in this letter of Bourke which has just been published, he says that Mr. Dawson saw an authentic copy of the telegram as it left New Westminster addressed to Inspector Dawson, and that has not been explained by the Solicitor General. Without going into the question in any crit ical way, I may say that what the people of British Columbia and what the people of Canada want to know is, whether this whole thing is not of sufficient importance to call for a thorough investigation in the interest of the administration of justice in Canada. I believe I am voicing the opinion of a great many members not only on this side of the House but also on the opposite side when I say that in view of the statement made by the Solicitor General in this House some time ago in connection with the bonds which were stolen and in view of the fact that there was no action by the department to see whether the bonds were accounted for in Australia, and when we have in addition the fact that a notorious criminal has escaped without being recaptured, there is sufficient to call for a strict inquiry. The capture of this convict was a credit to the police system of the country and his sentence strengthened the confidence of the public in the administration of justice in Canada, and, now that he has escaped, and in view of the discussions in the press, and in view of the elaborate statements made by the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice in the House, arid in view of the unrest in the public mind about the circumstances of the escape of this notorious criminal, is it not time that we should have an impartial inquiry not an inquiry at the hands of Inspector Dawson who is hopelessly mixed up in it, but a thorough inquiry conducted by some impartial tribunal. I believe that the Department of Justice will not justify itself in public opinion and that it will not promote in the eyes of the public the highest respect for the administration of justice

unless it causes this whole thing to be probed to the bottom.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Solicitor General defied any member on this side of the House to point to any inaccurate statement made by the Minister of Justice. Only a few minutes before, when it was drawn to the attention of the House, the Minister of Justice said distinctly that the mistake which appeared in the 'Columbian' was absent from the reports in all the other papers in British Columbia. That is shown to be inaccurate.


Jacques Bureau: Was it dishonest?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was not founded in fact, and that is sufficient to discredit a great deal of what the Solicitor General says. Then, the Minister of Justice says that when the department first received the report of the escape on the eighth day of the month, the names of the prisoners were not given, and that they got no information as to their names until the 12th; yet Mr. Bourke says he telegraphed the names on the following morning. There is a discrepancy there, and yet neither the Minister of Justice nor the Solicitor General desires to go any further either to verify or to refute that statement. Then, we have the facts of the prisoner's hair and moustache being allowed to grow, so that his identity could be hidden when he got out into the world, and no explanation is given of the reason for that. I thought that either the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General would have referred to that fact; but both of them, I was going to say purposely, avoided it. The country would like to know what was the cause of it, who was responsible for it, for what purpose it was allowed to be done. It was in violation of the rules of the prison. With all these rumours and more than rumours, and all this circumstantial evidence before the country, the impression is left on the public mind that there was some connivance between the department and this prisoner to account for his escape; and when the Department of Justice refuses to inquire into the matter any further, the country will come to the conclusion that they have something to hide which they are afraid will come to light The very pleading reference made by the Minister of Justice to Mr. Bourke was in itself very suggestive that he would like to keep the friendship of that eentleman. It was quite in contradistinction to the statement he made before in the House, that he had caused' an imperative demand to be made upon Mr. Bourke. There must be something behind all this. If there is, this House would like to know it. The apathy of the government and their opposition to any further inquiry will force on the public mind the impression that there is somethine behind which they desire to prevent coming
to light; otherwise they would take the first opportunity to have the fullest inquiry made before this House and the world in order to refute the many charges which are levelled against the Department of Justice.


Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP.: Mr. Speaker, I think no one can have listened to the debate this afternoon without feeling that the escape of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. J. D. Taylor) was about as easy as that of Bill Miner and apparently a great deal more regretted by the government. We are perhaps liable to lose sight of what is after all the main feature of this interesting and important case. I remember that a few years ago, under somewhat similar circumstances, charges were made against another department of this government. It was at first insinuated and then charged that the Department of Marine was not all that it should be; and I remember with what indignation hon. gentlemen opposite decried any reflection on that department from this side of the House, and how every one of them was prepared to raise his hands to Heaven and swear that a more immaculate department than the Department of Marine and Fisheries had never existed. And yet as time went on investigation was made into that department first in part, by a committee of this House, afterwards by the Civil Service Commission and still further by Mr. Justice Cassels, and it would be cruel to point out all the derelicts that now lie stranded along the course of those investigations. Charges are now made against another department of this government, and an opportunitv to investigate them is refused. Every member of the House, on whatever side he mav sit, will, I think, feel that it is a pity that, whenever the suspicion is expressed that any department of this government is not properly conducted, the supporters of the government should refuse an investigation into that department. But even when we have had suspicions of other departments, I think everybody, not only in this House, but in the country has had the feeling that there was one department on which we could implicitly rely, and that was the Department of Justice. I ask if any greater misfortune could befall any country than to have the administration of justice befouled; and it is almost as bad to have a susnicion in the minds of any number of people that that department is badly administered. Now, there are certain facts in this case which are beyond all dispute. Nobody disputes the fact that Bill Miner escaped. Nobody disputes the fact that he received remarkable treatment while in the penitentiary. The rules of the penitentiary forbade certain interviews. These were wilfully and deliberately ignored by the officials of the penitentiary, none of whom apparently have been punished for that. Miner was


Mr. G. H. COWAN (Vancouver City).: I agree with the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) in regarding the administration of justice as of far greater importance to this country than any partisan advantage to either of the two great parties of Canada, and therefore I can enter into this discussion for a moment, I think, without imputing any sinister or improper motive to the members of the government-just for a moment. As I understand it, since the investigation that took place, very important and material evidence has come to light. It has become known that certain visits were made to Bill Miner in the cell, in violation of the rules of the penitentiary. I understand that that fact was not reported by the person who made the investigation. I understand that that material fact was not reported, that Inspector Dawson did not report to the Minister of Justice or the Department of Justice that he himself had been derelict in his duty and had failed to advise the department that although he knew improper and illegal visits had been made to Miner, he had kept that knowledge locked up in his own breast. I understand further that this same Inspector Dawson, to whom had been deputed the sacred task and duty of preserving intact and pure the administration of justice in this matter, is directly contradicted when he says he received a telegram addressed to him, G. W. Dawson. It is also a new and unreported fact that this Bill Miner was allowed to grow his whiskers and his hair. The Solicitor General says, as if he had made an actual measurement of the man's whiskers, that they were not longer than three-quarters of an inch. I do not think the administration of justice is dependent on whether these whiskers

were allowed to grow three-quarters of an inch, an inch or a foot, they were allowed to grow contrary to the penitentiary regulations of Canada. If I understand the Department of Justice aright, that fact was not brought to the attention of the department. In the light of all this new evidence, of all these material facts discovered since the investigation made by the man against whom all circumstantial evidence points as the man who was derelict in his duty, since this investigation was made by the culprit in the case, according to the circumstantial evidence in the case, surely no government in Canada will dare to ignore these important and material facts freshly discovered. Surely no man impressed with the importance of preserving pure and undefiled the administration of justice in Canada will dare to say:	We
will not accord an investigation. If we are reduced in Canada to the condition that men, fearful of their partisan advantage, fearful of the exposure of their own officers, fearful of I know not what else, refuse to permit an inquiry, then the administration of justice in the United States, at which we have been in the habit of pointing the finger of scorn, is away and above our own, our own which will set free a man convicted of the most serious crime in the calendar, a crime which has no parallel in the criminal annals of this country. I cannot believe that the government of Canada, impressed with the great obligation that is upon them, will dare in the light of these new facts to sit quiescent and refuse an investigation.


Samuel Hughes: But for the evident attempt of the Minister of Justice to place the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. J. D. Taylor) in an improper light before the House, I would not have uttered a word to-day. The offence of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. J. D. Taylor) is that he has unearthed the very suspicious circumstances connected with the escape of this man, Bill Miner, and forsooth, because the hon. member's paper chanced in copying from another paper to get the name of Macintosh instead of Mackenzie, we have the tirade against our friend which we have just heard. What is the object of all this bluster? Is it to so intimidate our friend from New Westminster that he will sit quietly in his seat like a good little boy the rest of the session and not dare to further seek to expose the gentlemen who have had charge of the management of this institution and of this particular case? The statements made by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. J. D. Taylor) were that Bill Miner's moustache was allowed to grow. It transpired that this was the case. Might I ask that the Minister of Justice follow this matter up to see by whose authority the order was given
which allowed this poor man, whose eyes were affected to grow his moustache? Is it or is it not true that the electric light in his cell so affected the nerves of the brain of the poor fellow that he could not sleep, and that after inquiry an order was given that Bill Miner's hair should be allowed to grow? We have it on the authority of the Solicitor General that it was at the time of his escape three-quarters of an inch long.


Jacques Bureau: I said less than that.


Samuel Hughes: Is it true that the orders of the Justice Department were deliberately violated in allowing this man to go from the inner inclosure into the brick yard where life prisoners axe never allowed? Is it true that poor Bill Miner's feet got sore walking around on the hard floor of the inner inclosure, and that by some authority he was allowed into the brickyard where his feet might rest on mother earth and bis corns might not cause him sleepless nights? Is it true that all these things followed the sercet interviews of these detectives? Is it or is it not true that immediately after the escape of Bill Miner the deputy warden who was acting as warden because the warden unfortunately was ill, wired the Department of Justice that four prisoners had escaped? Is it true, or is it not true, that the very following morning Bourke again wired the department that four prisoners-naming Miner among them -had escaped, and asking authority to offer a reward for their recapture?-this telegram addressed, not as the Minister of Justice has said, to one of the inspectors by name, but, according to Bourke's solemn statement to the Inspectors. If these facts be true, and if they have been produced subsequent to the inquiry, then if the Minister of Justice is anxious to allay public feeling, and if he dare cross the path of this man Bourke, there is only one way to proceed, and that is to order an investigation. We have all seen in the advertisements the contrasted pictures, ' Before taking ' and ' After taking.' We had a picture of the Minister of Justice standing in the House telling us that he had demanded, instantly demanded, of this man Bourke to produce his evidence. We have the other picture now of the minister standing hat in hand and saying: Please, Mr. Bourke, will you give us whatever data you have in connection with this affair that have not been brought out. The case strikes the public as very strange and very suspicious. The public want to know how it happens that Bourke is the master of the situation. Another point on which the Minister of Justice is in error, in addition to those pointed out by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) is this: he endeavoured to make a point against my hon.

friend from New Westminster (Mr. J. D Taylor) by saying that escapes had occurred that year previous to Bill Miner's. The records do not show it. And the minister explains his mistake by saying that recaptures were not reported. Well, let us see. I have the minister's report before me, and at page 2 1 find a statement that, in 1904-1905, there were three escapes and, at the foot is a note stating that one of [DOT] those who escaped was recaptured. In 1905, two prisoners escaped and it is stated that both were recaptured. The minister talks a little too fast, and not by his own book. A trifling mistake in a name-between Macintosh and McKenzie, both good Scotch names,-was not sufficient to justify the Minister of Justice in reading the Riot Act, as he has done, to the member for New Westminster. If the Minister of Justice considers his own personal and political credit, if he values the administration of justice in this country and has any desire to satisfy an honest public, and if he is not under the thumb of this man Bourke- I say that advisedly, if he is not under the thumb of this man Bourke-then, to my mind, there is only one course open to him, and that is to bring these parties before a committee of this House and have a full and fair inquiry so that these rumours may be set at rest and the truth may be made known.


Mr. A. S. GOODEVE (Kootenay).: Answering the hon. member from New Westminster (Mr. J. D. Taylor) the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) seemed to make much of the fact that the escape was investigated by Mr. Dawson the inspector of penitentiaries. At the time Mr. Dawson was appointed to make this investigation, Mr. Bourke was the superintendent of the prison at New Westminster, and it was under Mr. Bourke, as superintendent, that the prisoners had escaped. After the investigation had been made and after-according to the Minister of Justice-Mr. Dawson hail reported that there was no blame attached to the superintendent of the prison, we find that the superintendent was superannuated. And the Minister of Justice, referring to this superannuation made very much of the point that, notwithstanding the fact that he had been negligent of his duty and had openly violated the rules of held, Mr. Dawson was Mr. Bourke's superior annuated at the full allowance for his term of service, and the minister seemed to put that forward as a reason why no complaint should be made by the superintendent of the prison. But when the investigation was held Mr. Dawson was Mr. Bourke's superior officer, and he, Mr. Bourke, had reason to believe that if the explanation he gave was satisfactory to Mr. Dawson he would be maintained in his position and it was only Mr. HUGHES.
after he had been superannuated at lesser salary than he thought he was entitled to that he made the various statements that had been published from time to time. That is most important. The Minister of Justice writes, not demanding anything from Mr. Bourke, but, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) has said, in a somewhat pleading strain, asking Mr. Bourke if he had stated all the facts in the investigation prior to his superannuation. And Mr. Bourke, as has been pointed out, rather curtly replies that he had done so. But, in his signed statement in the newspapers of the province, Mr. Bourke has stated that, if asked to do so before an independent commission appointed to investigate this question, he could tell many things that he had not told previously. And the minister makes a complaint in regard to this; he pleads that it is very unfair on the part of a man treated so well by the government to make statements of this kind. But the real question is that raised, by the leader of the opposition: These statements are either true or not true; if true, they call for an investigation, and Mr. Bourke is still a servant of the people in that he is in receipt of pay as a superannuated servant; if not true, he should declare before an independent tribunal that these statements are not correct so that the Department of Justice may be free from suspicion. It has been truly said that the whole government of our country hangs on the purity of our administration of justice. If we fail in that, all our government fails. This is not a small matter, and I am surprised that the head of the Justice Department, should, on a question of this kind, declare that lie has given all the information necessary and that he sees no cause for further investigation. I do not intend to go further into this subject, but I think the two points, the real points at issue, are those raised by the leader of the opposition, and that this House should demand a full investigation by an independent authority into the escape of this prisoner.


Right Hon.   S@: My hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. J. D. Taylor) is a new member of this House, and perhaps he will not take it amiss from me, who have had more experience than he in parliamentary practice, if I tell him that, in view of the discussion he wished to introduce and the information he wished to elicit, it would have been preferable if he had followed the usual practice when a matter of this kind is to be brought under discussion, and had notified the parties interested of his intention, so that they might have been prepared with the documents to meet any statements that he might make. As I understand, he did not take that pre-

caution, and therefore the discussion cannot be as complete as it would be otherwise. Had we had notice of his intention, we could have had documents at hand to meet the views he presented to the House.
I may say that a good deal of matter has been brought into this discussion* which seems to me absolutely irrelevant to the question. The question which interests the country-and the only question in which the country is interested-is, whether there has been any connivance on the part of anybody in the escape of Miner. No more dangerous criminal, I think, was ever in the clutches of Canadian justice.
It was a fact for which we took some credit that when one of these American desperadoes came to Canada, thinking to play with impunity in this country the pranks he had been playing on the other side of the line, he was arrested, tried and convicted. It was a shock when we heard, and we heard it with a good deal of shame also, that he had subsequently been allowed to escape from the penitentiary. If the discussion had been confined to these facts I would have more sympathy than I now have with the manner in which it has been brought to the attention of the House. I think a good deal of the matter brought forward has-been irrelevant. I agree with the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) that it is not of much importance that, in despatches which are sent to British Columbia newspapers, the name Macintosh had been substituted for the name Mackenzie. That in itself would be of no consequence, but it is of some consequence in this matter. I would say to my hon. friend from New Westminster that since he is the responsible editor of the paper in which the mistake occurred, and if he intended to bring the matter before the House, it would have been perhaps better and more in accordance with the courtesy, with the etiquette and the amenity of public life, if he had taken the opportunity of correcting that mistake. Telegrams, in transmission from the sender to the receiver, may get distorted, we have had evidences of that before; but I think it is due to the person who has been misrepresented that the editor should take the opportunity of correcting the error. In this case my hon. fiiend did not choose to do so, and so I say the substitution of the name Macintosh was not without some importance in relation to the matter under discussion, because the fact that the name Macintosh was inro-duced in this telegram gave to the newspaper an opportunity of going to see Mr. Mackenzie and getting from him what I cannot characterize otherwise than a tirade against the Department of Justice. Therefore it would have been better, in the interest of the administration of justice generally, and in the interest of truth, if the
error had been corrected there. It was not corrected.


George Eulas Foster: What was the date?


Wilfrid Laurier: 18th of February. My hon. friend, in the course of his observations, tried to cast a slur upon the investigation which took place-at all events I assume that was his intention, from the statement he made later on. He wanted to give the impression, an impression which seems to prevail on .the other side of the House, according to the speeches we have heard this afternoon, that the investigation which has taken place had not been as full and as complete as it might have been. He read from a newspaper-I am sorry I could not hear very well what he read, but I understood him to read from an interview in which some one stated that if he had been called upon he would have shown that Bill Miner had not escaped through a wall, and that he would have shown how he had escaped. Now, Sir, I ask my hon. friend, and I ask the House generally, what importance or what reliance can be attached to such a statement as that? Hon. gentlemen have tried to show that the investigation which took place at Dawson into the manner in which Miner had escaped, was not as complete as it might have been, because a certain man had stated that if he had been called upon he could have thrown light upon the manner of the escape. But if I understood my hon. friend aright, the extract which he read did not give the name of that man. Am I right?


James Davis Taylor: It said a high official, without naming him.


Wilfrid Laurier: Well, how are we to know who this high official was? It is contended that there should be a new investigation. On this point I express no oninion, the matter is new to me. But it is not possible to come to a conclusion on a vague statement of that kind. If a newspaper says that somebody is able to give certain information, surely nobody would pretend that such a statement is a sufficient basis for a further inquiry. Now I appeal to hon. members on both sides of this House whether it is advantageous to the administration of justice, advantageous to the administration of any other department of the government, that we should have these slurs cast from one side of the House or the other; I say that at least we should have some responsible name put forward as a basis for any further investigation. If we are shown any reason to suppose that the investigation was not as complete as it possibly could be, that further facts might be discovered to show how this man escaped, then I would be willing to go very far in order to find that out. But it is not possible for any reasonable man to come to any other conclusion than that we have ob-

tained the whole truth in regard to this matter, so far as it can be obtained. I wish we had more information. So far as I can see, the administration of justice in that respect was loose, and the department has, I understand, taken the precaution to put it in better hands. I do not know what mistake has been made, but I am ready to agree with the hon. member for New Westminster that the administration of the penitentiary was not what it should be, it was carried on in a manner that called for correction, and it has since been corrected. But so far as I can see, I put it to the good sense of the House whether any case has been made for another investigation). I think that charges most unfair have been made against the minister himself, who is a painstaking official, and a credit to the administration of justice in Canada, and who could have nothing but a stern desire to meet any deficiency that was found to exist in the administration of the penitentiaries under his charge.


George Eulas Foster: The Prime Minister has very cooly and dispassionately discussed the question for a brief period, and I suppose that we may with equal coolness and dispassionateness discuss what the Prime Minister has said. He commenced by lecturing a new member. New members do not know the order of the debate as well as older members, and they ought to be excused for not adhering strictly to its forms. So I think the Prime Minister might have excused the member without parading the offence. It is right that when you are going to bring up an important matter, the minister who is in charge of the department affected should be informed of it, with a view of eliciting the utmost information. My hon. friend from New Westminster, a new member, forgot that; but I have known even older members to forget it and to bring up matters without notice. Of course it is not absolutely a rule of the House, it is a courtesy which is generally observed, because it ends by forwarding the purpose had in view. So much with reference to the lecture which was read to the member for New Westminster. Then the Prime Minister deplored irrelevant matter having been introduced into this discussion. It was deplorable, there is no doubt about that. But who is the man that introduced that irrelevant matter? The man who introduced it, and added all the acerbity that has been imported into this debate, sits exactly behind the Prime Minister. Here is my hon. friend from New Westminster, why should he have been reproached by a Minister of Justice with having undue relations with a newspaper, and using it-well, to say the least, somewhat dishonestly. No other inference could be taken from the words of the Minister of Justice. It is certainly no disgrace, it is no dishonour, and I do not think it is any Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
great disadvantage to a man to represent in this House his constituency and at the same time be the editor, or proprietor, or owner of a newspaper. But the gravamen of the charge that was made by the Minister of Justice, made with malice aforethought, was that this hon. gentleman having a newspaper here, indited a telegraphic despatch to that newspaper intended to and which actually did misrepresent the Minister of Justice, and that, on this basis of misrepresentation, the newspaper published interviews and comments which were derogatory to the Minister of Justice and to the management of his department. I ask the Prime Minister if he can get any other meaning from the words that the Minister of Justice used? There is no use in labouring that point. That is actually what the Minister of Justice said, and his statement was as plain as a pikestaff, that this was wrong in that paper whilst in other papers it was correct.


Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR.: In all other
newspapers?


George Eulas Foster: Whether he said all newspapers in the province or not I will not say but he said that in the other newspapers the despatch was correct. When the Minister of Justice, instead of adhering closely and dispassionately to the facts of the case, starts out to try to injure a member who, in the course of his duty, brings up the matter, when he does this on a wrong basis of facts and, when as he afterwards acknowledged, he had not himself taken the precaution to verify these facts, he' did something that he was not justified in doing. That is where the trouble arose in this debate. The Minister of Justice is prone to do that sort of thing. Yesterday furnished an example, other days have furnished other examples and it would be well for the department and more in keeping with its traditions if the Minister of Justice would leave a little of his petty partisanship to one side and treat his political opponents with more fairness. It was a shock and a shame, said the Prime Minister, to learn that Bill Miner had escaped as it was with joy and pride that they learned that Canadian officers and Canadian courts had been instrumental in catching such a noted desperado and afterwards, by the machinery of the law, in landing him in prison for life. The position of matters was well defined. The Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister were glad that Bill Miner the desperado, had been landed within the penitentiary at New Westminster. The Minister of Justice knew that Bill Miner, a noted desperado, was in the penitentiary, he knew that the discipline was bad in the penitentiary, he knew that just previously to his receiving certain information one, two, three prisoners had escaped therefrom.
1853 MARCH 2, 1909 1854	
All this he knew when he received, on the 8th day of August, notice that four prisoners had escaped out of the New Westminster penitentiary. The Minister of Justice, with all that pre-added knowledge and consciousness, did not take enough interest in the matter to immediately inquire about the names and the circumstances. Four days elapse and still he had not inquired. What is the mildest name that one could give to inaction of that kind ? I think that there was an initial negligence and a lack of that proper promptness which should characterize the department under such circumstances as those. Now, we go a little further. The Prime Minister says that my hon. friend should have corrected his mistake. My hon. friend, the member for New Westminster, was in Ottawa city. The telegram went to the paper in British Columbia. On the 18th it was published in that paper. My hon. friend did not see that paper again until certainly a week and maybe more had passed. He had no data for correcting the mistake at least until the paper came within his hands. I do not know how many days after the 18th it did come. I do not know the date of the publishing of the paper but the probabilities are that he would not see this paper until four, five, six or seven days after his telegram appeared. Then, my hon. friend says that he communicated with the man himself, Mr. Macintosh, and told him that it was a mistake. It might have been quick and prompt if the man and the newspaper had been on the same street. It was absolutely impossible to make it either quick or prompt with half a continent intervening between the two. Now, the Prime Minister says that we have nothing upon which to base a renewed investigation. Why? Is there any good reason why, if there is a scintilla of new evidence, it should not be followed up? Circumstances that have been detailed here to-day in reference to the bonds, the lax discipline, the visits against the various rules of the department, the fact that these visits were known to the inspector of the department, and that they did not come, by way of a report from that inspector to the department, calls for an investigation. This is a fact, if I understand the facts correctly. I will leave myself to be corrected with regard to that but that is the way I understand it. Am I wrong in that? Mr. BUREAU. I do not know if I understand my hon. friend. Does he mean to say that the inspector was aware of the visits before he held the investigation in New Westminster? The inspector only learned of these things after he had held the investigation, as I am informed. Mr. FOSTER. That is the only point about which I was uncertain and that is	why I made the inquiry. Then, as I understand it, these visits are recorded in the books at the penitentiary. Mr. BUREAU. Some of them are in the book, as was stated by the minister in his answer which appeared in ' Hansard ' on the 17th of February. All those that are entered are mentioned there. I am informed that four are entered and one is not. Mr. FOSTER. Some of the entries of visits refer to visits to Bill Miner? Mr. BUREAU. Yes. Mr. FOSTER. Then, as I understand it, the inspector was there and if he inspected anything he would inspect the books. If he had inspected the books he would have found the record of these visits, he would have made some inquiry about them and he would have reported that inquiry back to the department. But, those visits were not reported by the inspector. These then are the facts. The escaped prisoner has not been taken. And now there come up two pieces of evidence. Reference has been made to the name of an official of high authority, who has been quoted by a newspaper as having definite information, which, if he had been aksed for it, would have thrown a very different light upon this question. The man's name is not given, but the paper referred to is the 'Province,' which is, I understand, a responsible and very reputaDie paper. Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I do not understand that there is any name given in the newspaper. Mr. FOSTER. I did not say that the name is there; I stated that the statement appears in the newspaper and that the newspaper stated that he was a high official. Does not the Prime Minister think that something to go upon especially in a case like this? Is the minister of the department to take no cognizance of that at all by way of a communication with the newspaper publisher asking him for the name of that high official? As it stands it is a blot and an asipersion upon the name of that particular penitentiary. A statement made in a. reputable newspaper that a high official is in a position to give further evidence and make further disclosures, is a thing that the Department of Justice should follow up. The Department of Justice says it will not do sq because it cannot take cognizance of an anonymous statement, but if the Department of Justice wants to follow it up X have no doubt a method can be found to do so. More than that, Mr. Bourke is your own official; he was there at the time of the escape; it was he and the late departed warden who allowed the rules to be transgressed; he is cognizant of these negotiations if any went

on, and his latest statement is -that he is able to give information which will put a very different light upon this matter. We are not inclined to make a partisan question of the administration of the Department of Justice or the discipline in one of our great penitentiaries. My hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) did not start out in that way. He was fallen foul of by the Minister of Justice, who in most excited language and stentorian tones belaboured the member for New Westminster for bringing the matter up at all. It is that which added the spice of bitterness to this debate and but for that there would have been nothing partisan about it. We will forgive the Minister of Justice-it is his failing perhaps more than his fault-but desiring as we do on both sides of the House that the matter should be cleared up, is there not good ground now for further investigation? If the idea goes abroad that prisoners may escape from our penitentiaries that is bad enough; but, if the idea goes abroad that they can escape by connivance that is worse, and if in addition there is a suspicion in the public mind that that connivance was built upon financial or moneyed interest that makes it still worse. It seems to me it is necessary to pursue this investigation in view of the added evidence. Bring Mr. Bourke before a competent examining authority and get from him the new evidence he has or make him show he has not got it. Get, if possible, the high official who is said to have communicated with the 'Province' newspaper and let us, as far as we possibly can, have the matter set at rest. It is of so much importance and means so much for the good name of our administration of justice in Canada that in my opinion it cannot be left where it is.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou).: The discussion this afternoon must have struck any one who listened to it with any degree of care as one of those peculiar occasions which sometimes, during the last three or four years, have developed in this parliament when gentlemen on the other side have started discussions based upon mere newspaper rumour. I am afraid that the Minister of Justice rather stirred up hon gentlemen on the other side by his references to the unreliability of the telegrams which are published in certain British Columbia newspapers, and hence we have had all kinds of forebodings and all kinds of suggestions about wrong-doing and the necessity for an investigation into this and into that. But let us look at the question calmly. Bill Miner escaped from the British Columbia penitentiary in August, 1907, the man in charge of the penitentiary being the deputy warden, the warden being ill at the time. There is some question as to the non-delivery of a telegram which was Mr. POSTER.
addressed to Inspector Dawson at Ottawa, and some hon. gentlemen have endeavoured to cast so much suspicion on Inspector Dawson, that you would think Inspector Dawson was in British Columbia conspiring for the escape of Miner. At all events, owing to a peculiarity about these British Columbia telegrams, there was a non-delivery of the message announcing that Miner had escaped. But as soon as Mr. Dawson did receive the information he proceeded to British Columbia, held an investigation into the facts; an investigation similar in all respects to that which was held by every Minister of Justice when the Conservatives were in power and when they also had escapes from the penitentiaries. I am reminded by the Minister of Justice that under the Penitentiary Act which has been on the statute book for a great number of years, the inspector was the official who alone could conduct an investigation into the matter. That investigation was held, and as a result of it the inspector recommended that the deputy warden who was in charge of the penitentiary at the time should be allowed to retire and that the guard should be retired. The government accepted these recommendations. Now, the hon. gentleman from New Westminster has on two occasions precipitated discussion with regard to this matter without the slightest reason. You would think to have heard these hon. gentlemen opposite this afternoon that some one of them had moved for the papers and had them brought down and that the official record of all the proceedings had been placed upon the table of the House, so that every hon. member, and the country, and the newspapers might at least know what had been done in the matter. But my hon. friend from New Westminster has not done that.


James Davis Taylor: Will the hon. gentleman permit me to say that I moved for these papers and the motion was carried about two weeks ago.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then my hon. friend, in the style of so many other members on that side of the House, proceeded to discuss the subject before the papers were brought down and without knowing the facts. Had he only waited until the official documents in regard to this matter were laid on the table of this House and he in common with every other member of the House had an opportunity to read them, then it would have been possible for us to give the matter the serious and practical consideration that it deserves.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Do those papers change the facts as stated by the Minister of Justice?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend was one of the gentlemen who applauded most vociferously when his hon.

friends talked about an investigation. Like him, I have no knowledge of what the papers contain, but I am prepared to wait till they come down before I take the responsibility of saying what should be done. My hon. friend the Solicitor General informs me that there is no record of the motion which my hon. friend from New Westminster states he made. But he can take that matter up at another time.


James Davis Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise to order. I have made the statement that a motion of mine was carried in this House, and the hon. gentleman quotes the Solicitor General as flatly contradicting me. My statement is perfectly correct, and the Minister of Justice made an address to this House on the motion.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: For the purpose of my argument it is of no importance whatever whether the hon. gentleman made the motion or not, because if he did, lie should have paid some deference to the intelligence of the members of this House and waited till the pacers should be brought down before discussing the question, so that every hon. member should know what he was discussing.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Retract.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Allow me to rule on the point of order that has been taken. I do not think it is well taken. There is a difference of opinion as to whether or not a certain motion is on the records of the House. I do not think the personal word of the hon. member for New Westminster was called in question.
Mr. -R. L. BORDEN. Might I ask the hon. gentleman whether he did not understand, as I understood, the Minister of Justice this afternoon to state that every scrap of information upon the files of the department with respect to this matter had been embodied in the answer which he gave on the 17th of February?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I did not so understand the Minister of Justice. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition knows very well that the answer which the Minister of Justice gave could not by any possibility cover in detail the evidence that was given in the investigation or the details of the report made by the inspector who was the official investigator of this matter.


Robert Laird Borden: I only speak of what he said.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We are in this position, that the Department of Justice is in possession of papers which can fully and clearly inform this House and the country of every step taken in this matter up to the time when the investigation was completed and the report was made; and we have the hon. member for New Westminster precipitating this discussion prematurely. We 59
have hon. gentlemen stating that whiskers and hair were allowed to grow on the prisoner, and that many other things occurred. All these things were investigated by the inspector. Then we have my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup), whose particular function is at all times to make facetious speeches about imaginary refusals to grant investigations, dropping into the old song when there was no refusal, and talking about the honour of the Minister of Justice being in question, when he knew that none of the hon. members of this House who have spoken on this subject have ventured to suggest that my hon. friend the Minister of Justice was in any way connected with or had any previous knowledge of this escape. I submit, under these circumstances, that this whole discussion is premature. If the hon. member for New Westminster has moved for these papers, this House should wait until they are brought down. If hon. gentlemen opposite then think there .are reasons why there should be a fuller investigation, and place those reasons before the House in a proper way, I am sure that the Minister of Justice will follow his duty, as he probably more than any other member of the bar in this country knows how to follow it; because no matter what hon. gentlemen opposite may say about the partisanship of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, none of them can question the high position he attained at the bar of this country or the position he has held for many years as the leader of the bar of the whole Dominion of Cauada. I repeat that if my hon. friend the Minister of Justice had not said something about British Columbia and the frequent occurrence of mistakes in telegrams, I do not think we would have had this discussion this afternoon. These repeated occurrences of errors in telegrams to and from British Columbia are rather unfortunate. Some of my hon. friends from British Columbia, perhaps my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. J. D. Taylor) might put a motion on the Order Paper asking that this House should direct an investigation into the telegraphic service to and from British Columbia not only in regard to the telegrams which are sent with reference to reports to inspectors of penitentiaries, but also in regard to telegrams which are sent to and from leaders of political parties on the eve of an election with a view to obtaining political support.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


CANADIAN LIVERPOOL AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House went again into committee on Bill (No. 44) to incorporate the Canadian, Liver-
[Stage Direction]
pool and Western Kailway Company.-Mr. Girard.
On section 2.
Mr. NANTEL.: (Translation.) ' I move that section of the Bill be struck out. There is nothing before us which would warrant parliament in inserting it.
It should be entirely left out.


Mr. TUKCOTTE (Quebec).: (Translation.) I would like to hear on what grounds the hon. gentleman can rest his proposal ?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) I have given them to the committee the other day.


Gustave Adolphe Turcotte: I do not see any harm in going over them again.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) The other day I said in Committee of the Whole, that this committee had no evidence that this was a work for the general advantage of Canada, and that it was not sufficient to make such a statement in order to confer jurisdiction upon this parliament. In fact, we have nothing but the statement embodied in section 2, to the effect, that this work is for the general advantage of Canada, although we have no evidence to warrant it. In my opinion, the promoters of this Bill should have produced sworn declarations stating their purpose and the means at their disposal for the carrying out of this work, but they utterly neglected to do so. Moreover, I contend that even if it is implied by the whole Bill barring this section that the incorporation of this company is really for the general advantage of Canada, such a section would be entirely useless. But, I hold the opinion that we must not add this section, for the mere purpose of conferring jurisdiction upon this House.


Gustave Adolphe Turcotte: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I am at a loss to understand why this section should be struck out. The mere fact of this Bill being before the House, after having been sent to the Railway Gommittee, and of its asking that civil and legal rights be conferred upon a railway, is a prima facie evidence that this parliament is entitled to legislate upon this matter. It is incumbent upon those who oppose this section, to show that the whole Bill or some part of it does not come within the province of parliament. However, I believe that it is in the public interest and conducive to the proper management of the affairs of the Dominion that such a clause be inserted in all the bills.
The hon. member for Terrebonne, is apparently of the belief that this is a new clause inserted in charters incorporating companies. On the contrary, it is the usual clause, and whoever is familiar with judicial matters is perfectly aware of it. There is no need for its justification. The Brit- [DOT] Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.
ish North America Act, distinctly states that whatever is outside the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial legislature, falls within the scope of the powers of the Dominion parliament. It is incumbent on the opponents of this clause to show that the Bill deals with a matter exclusively within the scope of the powers of the legislature. If that is not shown, jurisdiction is implied. It has been stated that no proof had been given, that such an enterprise was for the advantage of Canada as a whole. Such evidence has not been asked for by any one. The law does not require it. The clauses inserted in the Bill are in themselves sufficient evidence that it falls within the scope of the federal author-ityf Were similar clauses inserted in a Bill submitted to the Quebec legislature, there would be sufficient ground for warranting its cancellation.
Let us take, for instance, clause 13, which reads as follows :
13. Subject to the provisions of sections 361, 362 and 363 of The Railway Act, the Company may, for any of the purposes specified in the said section 361, enter into agreements with the Transcontinental Railway Company, The Grand Trunk Kailway Company, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the Canadian Northern Quebec Railway Company, or any of them.
To my mind, that power of entering into agreements with railway companies which are under the control of the Dominion government, implies that of establishing connections between those various railroads and gives parliament jurisdiction.
It is alleged that this company asked authority to build and run a railway wholly within the limits of the province of Quebec. My answer is that it is not solely the territory covered by the railway which should be considered, when the question of jurisdiction is to be decided. It is necessary, besides, that the powers applied for by the company should be such as the legislature has authority to grant. Whenever the powers, rights or privileges dealt with are not exclusively under the control of a legislature, the Bill falls within the scope of federal authority.
There is no need for my quoting any further from the Bill, since all its clauses are known to hon. members, who have made a study of it, as for instance, that relative to navigation and commerce. How could the Quebec legislature be called upon to legislate on such questions ?
After carefully studying this Bill, I am bound to say that it does not concern some vital interests of the province of Quebec only, but that, considering the territory it runs through and the powers which the company requests this parliament to grant, the work may be stated to be for the general advantage of the Dominion. Nor shall I stop at that : I say that this

parliament has not only the right, but has for its duty to grant to the company the act of incorporation which they have applied for, and that it is in the interest of Canada that we should not be debarred from passing such legislation.
It would be a very dangerous precedent for us, as representatives of the people of this Dominion to assume an attitude of indifference towards such legislation, to refuse dealing with it and refer it back to the legislature of Quebec, it would amount to stating that all the clauses in this Bill are within the exclusive scope of provincial legislature. The discussion which has been carried on just now, has an interest far exceeding that of the mere incorporation of a railway company. It is a principle which we are about to lay down. I wonder whether our parliament is going cheerfully and deliberately to proclaim its lack of powers, without even having gone into the clauses of the Bill submitted to us, for it is a fact that we have reached the second clause only, out of a total of thirteen. Should some of the following sections deal exclusively with provincial matters, nothing prevents us from cancelling them or inserting a proviso safeguarding the rights of the legislature. In following a different course, we would, to my mind, be evading our duty and aiming a slur, as it were, at this parliament. As I said a moment ago, it would be creating a dangerous precedent, and I hope the House will not take such a responsibility.


Mr. MONK (Jacques-Oartier).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, if there is any slur aimed at any one, it is to be laid down to those who are anxious to infringe on provincial rights. Were the argument of the hon. member (Mr. Turcotte,) to be accepted, we might at any time, in connection with undertakings entirely under the scope of the provincial legislation, interfere with their business and assume all the_ rights belonging to them under the constitution.
The hon. member seems to think that our parliament has only to declare an undertaking to be for the general advantage of Canada, to authorize our assuming, on no other grounds but that declaration, control over legislation appertaining to the provinces.	_
We have had many interpretations of those rather puzzling words inserted in the British North America Act, whereby we are enabled to declare a work to be for the general advantage of Canada. That construtcion of the words has on many occasions enabled us to invade provincial rights. However, I have never heard of any court finding that we were entitled to make such a statement without proof. I was not present at the meetings of the Railway Committee when this Bill was under consideration, but I believe that one of the strongest arguments brought forward
59i
against its acceptance was to the effect that no evidence had been adduced to show that such legislation was of interest to Canada as a whole; and it seemS to me that the position taken by the member for Terrebonne, in whose opinion proof should be furnished beforehand as to the character of the undertaking, in order to give us jurisdiction, cannot be controverted. The mere reading of the Bill shows that this railway is a purely provincial concern.
I listened carefully to the arguments of the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Turcotte). He has not denied the fact. The whole territory through which this railway is destined to run is situated within the bounds of the province of Quebec If such be the case, it comes within the definite clause of the constitution which vests the full control of such an undertaking in the provincial legislature. Therefore, I say that before interfering in provincial matters, before infringing on provincial rights, we should have been perfectly well satisfied that such undertaking concerns Canada as a whole.
What evidence has the hon. member brought forward to show that such work is for the general advantage of Canada? He quoted a section of the Bill wherein the company asks for authority to enter into arrangements with companies incorporated by the Dominion parliament, such as the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Canadian Northern, the Canadian Pacific Railway, and other railway companies which are under our control. He has drawn the conclusion that this railway-essentially a provincial concern-must be of interest to Canada as a whole. I do not think such an argument will appeal very strongly to hon. members.
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, we have for some years past, dealt too highly with applications of this kind. If, as stated by the hon. member (Mr. Turcotte), that Bill affects some vital interests of the province of Quebec, if that railway is wholly within the bounds of that province, what right have we to legislate and to grant incorporation to such a company? What right have we to extend our jurisdiction over it when there is not a single argument to show that such jurisdiction is ours? Evidence as to that should be supplied in the first place, and I think it would be wise to refer back the Bill to the committee, with a view to obtaining such evidence.


Mr. GIRARD (Chicoutimi and Saguenay).: (Translation). Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I shall state a few facts for the information of the hon. member from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), who has just contended with great force that the Bill under consideration, if passed, would be an infringement on provincial rights, as it tends to grant to a private

company authority to build a railway through a territory situated wholly within one province. While maintaining strongly that contention, he nevertheless acknowledged that in days bygone the Dominion government had, under similar circumstances, created many precedents. In this connection I may be allowed to submit a list of Dominion charters exactly similar to this, numbering forty-two, which have been granted during the last parliament from 1904 to 1908, and consequently with the co-operation and approval of my hon. friend, who was then a member of this House and of the Railway Committee as well. Of these forty-two charters, there is one for an undertaking of an exclusive provincial charter, authorizing the construction of a railway twelve miles in length, from Brandon, Manitoba, to a point on the Grand Trunk Pacific; said charter having been renewed by this House only a few days ago. The motive which actuated parliament in granting this charter, and the only one stated, is that the proposed road will be a connecting link between two roads incorporated under Dominion laws, and that in consequence the Dominion parliament alone is in a position to grant the required authority.
The argument brought forward by the hon. member for Quebec (Mr. Turcotte) to the effect that provincial legislatures have not the power to authorize a private company to enter into agreements, under circumstances such as these, with companies created by Dominion charters, that argument has been unhesitatingly accepted in the past by this parliament, -whenever the powers applied for in the present Bill have been sought.
Let us suppose that the Dominion parliament should have in the past, as it is requested to do to-day under similar circumstances, refused to grant such applications, the promoters would have been obliged to apply to the provincial legislatures in order to obtain such charters as these legislatures are in a position to grant, that is to say very incomplete; then, they would have been obliged to come back to this parliament in order to get these charters ratified, extended and completed. All of which would necessitate a heavy expenditure and cause delays which are always injurious to undertakings of such great utility in the public interest. The mode of procedure adopted by the Dominion parliament in the past, and which we are still following is more businesslike, more rational and does not in any way interfere with provincial rights.
My hon. friend from Terrebonne (Mr. Nantel), contended that the good faith of the promoters had not been established before the committee; he went so far as to rebuke them for not having laid before that committee affidavits setting forth the truth of their statements. Let me tell him that.


Joseph Girard: before the Railway Committee, complete plans have been filed showing the location of the proposed railway. A long and animated debate ensued, which ended in a vote whereby the committee, by a majority of 30, declared itself favourable to the Bill. Will my hon. friend undertake to say that this majority took that stand without realizing its responsibility, and have erred in their appreciation of the fact. I cannot believe his contention to be such. Considering that the House, as a rule, stands by the conclusions of the various committees, my hon. friend should not attempt to induce it to go back on the decision given by the Railway Committee approving that Bill.
How could a provincial charter grant to the promoters of this Bill the powers which they are seeking?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What powers?


Joseph Girard: Among others the following: To start a line from any point along the Grand Trunk Pacific, incorporated under the Dominion Act; to cross and enter into arrangements with the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian Northern, the Quebec and Montmorency, all incorporated under the Dominion Act; also to establish lines of steamships between Canadian ports over waters under the control of the Dominion parliament, and foreign ports. All will admit that this is an absolute impossibility. It then becomes necessary to apply to the Dominion parliament. That is, no doubt, the reason why my hon. friend during the last parliament, voted in favour of forty-two charters exactly similar to those I have just mentioned.
Of course, I do not contend that my hon. friend (Mr. Monk), in that speech which he has just made, was trying to satisfy the committee that he had committed the same unfortunate mistake forty-two times in succession, that is, every time he voted in favour of the Bills referred to. I prefer believing that he spoke oblivious of the past; otherwise, I would be forced to admit that forty-two times in succession he erred in a lamentable way. From what I know of my hon. friend I am sure he would be averse to going back on his past career in parliament; I prefer believing that he was joking a moment ago.
The Bill as amended by the Railway Committee and reported to the House, affords ample _ protection to provincial rights; and there is no justification for the plea made on behalf of these rights. I think it better to close my eyes to what is going on behind the curtains. It has been insinuated that no evidence had been submitted as to the responsibility and good faith on the promoters; my hon. friend from Terrebonne would even have gone so far as to require affidavits establishing those facts. Had my hon. friend been an old parliamentarian, he would not have shown himself so exacting;

186fffor he would have known that it is not usual here to compel people to make public their private affairs, either in the shape of inventories or other similar statements. The Railway Committee in this connection has acted in exactly the same way as they had done on previous occasions, that is to say, they have accepted as evidence of the good faith and financial responsibility of the promoters, statements made before them in that respect
I trust, therefore, that all opposition to the Bill on that ground will cease and that my hon. friend will withdraw his motion.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE (North Simcoe).: This Bill involves a question of provincial rights and has caused great discussion and loss of time in this House. It appears, as near as I can understand, that a few men can get together, chip in a few dollars, and having raised $300 or $400, they can come here and ask for a Bill giving them greater powers even than the provinces have. This is an omnibus Bill. In the first place, it is a railway charter, and I see no particular reason why, so far as that is concerned, the Bill should not pass. But there is added also a shipping clause, and this is added in order to have some argument to carry through the most dangerous clause in the Bill, namely, the water-power clause, under which the company may develop power and dispose of electrical energy. I think it is time that this House took a stand on this question, and, when gentlemen come here and ask for Bills of this character, we should compel them to separate the various powers asked for and then consider, straight and fair, each one as a separate Bill on its merits. Why is this water-power and electric light and power clause incorporated in a railway charter, seeing that it is recognized that these matters appertain to the province ? The reason, I take it, is that there is no expropriation power for these companies under provincial legislation. They come to this parliament for these expropriation powers, for the purpose of seizing water-powers which are now or will soon be, valuable. This is the most dangerous thing that can be asked. Why ? Because we give them power to invade private rights and even to seize and expropriate provincial properties. If I understand this Bill aright, it empowers these gentlemen to seize every water-power in the province of Quebec from Lake St. John to Montreal. Even though a water-power may be twenty miles away from the track and owned by a private individual, they can take it from the owner by expropriation. Even jf the province of Quebec owns a water-power fifty miles away from the railway, there is nothing to prevent the company seizing it and using it for their own purposes. It is not even provided that the railway must be
built before these powers of expropriation can be exercised by this company. I had an evidence of the apparent power behind this Bill in the Railway Committee. I realized for the first time what it was to have a lobby there in support of a Bill. I had been told before I came to this House that when a dangerous Bill was to be put through there was a strong lobby, and it was generally composed of members from the province of Quebec. I did not belie ye it until I saw the lobby behind this Bill with my own eyes. We saw some of these gentlemen from Quebec strenuously forwarding this Bill which takes away the right of their own province, rights which the province, through its representatives before the Railway Committee asked us not to interfere with by passing this Bill. I, as a representative from the province of Ontario, feel keenly on this subject, because the rights of my own province have been violated on a number of occasions by Bills of this kind. It is said that one of the most valuable undeveloped water-powers in Ontario has been expropriated-in fact, it took three or four railway charters from this House to cover all the available powers on a certain river in Ontario-in this way. It is high time when gentlemen ask for such powers as are proposed to be given under this Bill, that they should be called upon to give evidence of good faith. And, further, if representatives of the province of Quebec come here laying violent hands on the rights and property of their own province, they cannot expect the representatives of other provinces to have much sympathy for them when rights of even a more delicate character are in danger. They are establishing a dangerous principle. Every member of this House, no matter on which side he may be, should stand up for the rights of his province and of other provinces in matters of this kind. There is nothing very great at stake in this Bill. The promoters do not tell us: 'We have $3,000,000 or $4,000,000 in the bank ready to go on with this work.' It is purely a speculative paper charter. And when these gentlemen ask us to give them power to expropriate provincial water-powers and properties, they are going beyond the mark. The province of Quebec has no coal; in that respect, it is in the same position as the province of Ontario. In a few years, the wood will be gone. Coal will always be a high-priced article in the province of Quebec. How are you going to turn the wheels of your factories? How are your intelligent hard-working population, the best class of artisans in the world, to get employment in the province of Quebec, if you are going to give away your water-powers and tie them up in monopolies in this fashion ? It is clear that this Bill involves a very dangerous principle

and this House should reject it. Not only can they seize water-powers even from the province itself, but they can go into any city and deliver power.


Mr. B. M. MACDONALD.: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. A. Currie) tell me under what section that power is given?


John Allister Currie: Under section 10, as I understand it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am not interested in the Bill, but I wish to understand the hon. member (Mr. J. A. Currie).


John Allister Currie: That point came up before the Railway Committee, and the promoters of the Bill said they would accept an amendment. But what was the amendment? It was that they were not to be allowed to deliver power in any municipality without the consent of that municipality. Well and good. But what happens when we come to apply the powers given? They can pass a line through a municipality, and, though that municipality may have a power of its own, or may be taking power from a private corporation, they can compel the municipality or that private corporation to give up that power to them by unjust competition and by lowering the rates. We have an example in the province of Ontario, where the rights of the people in a city have been given away direct by aldermen refusing even to vote according to the will of the people on power questions.


Mr. RIVET.: Name it.


John Allister Currie: The city of Hamilton, if you want one; the city of Brantford, if you want another. The people of those cities voted by overwhelming majorities in favour of accepting provinicial power and the aldermen would not carry out the will of the people.


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: These are Ontario municipalities.


John Allister Currie: I do not wish to have Quebec municipalities placed in the same awkward position as some of those in Ontario have been placed in by any action of this parliament. Let the province of Quebec deal with its own questions of water-power and electricity. Let us deal with this as a railway matter and strike out the power clauses. It is bad enough for hon. members to ask us to swallow the pill; why do they call upon us to swallow the box? If the promoter of this Bill will withdraw the power clauses, there will he no difficulty in the adoption of the measure.


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: As a member of this House from the province of Quebec, to which my hon. friend (Mr. J. A. Currie) has just referred, in terms Mr. J. A. CURRIE.
which, I hope, he will not dare to repeat in our own province-


Mr. LENNOX.: What terms does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Rivet) refer to?


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: I protest most energetically against the language that has been used by the hon. member towards the members from the province of Quebec, who understand their duties as well-I will not say even better-than the hon. gentleman himself does I say, as a member from that province, that I resent the language which has been used to qualify the conduct of Quebec members on the committee. The hon. gentleman says that after coming to this parliament he has had an opportunity of observing that the Quebec members were, to use his own words, purely and simply lobbyists, taking charge of whatever piece of legislation might come before the committee, and doing the work which ought to be performed by the promoters themselves in pushing those Bills through the committee and afterwards through the House.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I say there is not the least foundation, there is not the least excuse, for the language the hon. gentleman has used to-night. Every one of the members of my province resent that language, and feel it their duty, through my humble voice, to make a most energetic and formal protest against it. As members of the Railway Committee, hon. gentlemen coming from the province of Quebec, as well as from the other provinces, understand that there is only one thing to do when a Bill is brought before the Railway Committee, and that is to study the Bill upon its merits, and if they find it based upon a just and sound principle, to support it irrespective of every other consideration. The hon. member has just hinted, in fact he has plainly intimated, that other considerations than those of public interest actuate the members from the province of Quebec in studying any piece of legislation that comes before the Railway Committee and the House. Well, I can only repeat that there is not the least ground for such an accusation as the hon. member has seen fit to make tonight.
Now, coming to the Bill which is before us, I, as a member of the Railway Committee, took some part in the consideration of this legislation when the Bill came before the committee for the first time. I thought that it was one that fell properly within the jurisdiction of this parliament, not only because in clause 2 the works of the company are declared to be for the general advantage of Canada, but because many other provisions of the Bill bring it within the jurisdiction of this parliament. Irrespective of any other consideration, looking at the object of the Bill from a public standpoint, I said to myself, as every other member of

the committee should say to himself, that it was my duty to support it and to see that it was adopted by the committee and by the House. Now I will not go over the arguments, which have been pretty well set forth by members who have previously spoken. But I can say that I feel at perfect liberty to vote for the Bill for the reasons which have been given by my hon. friend from Quebec, and by my hon. friend from St. Johns. Finally, I desire to say once more that the members of my province resent the imputation made by the hon. member, which was altogether unfounded, and I protest against such language, not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of all the members of the Railway Committee coming from the province of Quebec.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the evidence that the hon. gentleman thinks would warrant us in saying that this is a work for the general advantage of Canada?


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: The 8th clause of the Bill provides for the building of a line which is to be connected with other lines under the jurisdiction of this parliament. Under clause 13 of the Bill, the promoters of the company ask for power to enter into agreements with the Transcontinental Railway Company, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, the Grand Trunk Railway Company, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the Canadian Northern Quebec Railway Company, or any of them. All these companies have been created by this parliament, and it is obvious that the promoters of this Bill require authority from this parliament to enter into agreements with these other companies, because their line starts from a point on one of them, the Transcontinental Railway. There are other clauses which justify the promoters coming before this parliament for incorporation. It seems to me that the opposition which is offered to the Bill is not inspired by motives of public interest. We know very well what hon. gentlemen think when they talk about provincial autonomy.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In reference to what the hon. gentleman says, I am not so touchy about dealing with this subject as he appears to be. I would say that the last statement the hon. gentleman made was entirely unwarranted, when he insinuates that any member of this House is actuated by other than public motives. However, I do not care what he says about it, because it does not make any difference. I would point out that section 8 of the Railway Act is ample security, for all they want to get in a provincial charter. They have in the Railway Act that section which provides that the jurisdiction of the Railway Commissioners shall apply for all necessary purposes, and even to provincial railways which connect with Dominion railways.
That is why I asked the hon. gentleman where was the evidence which would warrant us in deciding the question of fact. Now I am not like other gentlemen in the Railway Committee, who assume at once, whenever a charter is asked for in this House, that the work is for the general advantage of Canada. By the way we have been acting for the last few years we have got that principle turned upside down. We keep on deciding without any evidence whatever that the work is for the general advantage of Canada, whereas before we have any constitutional right to incorporate a company, the onus is on the promoters to present us with the evidence. We keep on in the Railway Committee, that is the majority of us, and I do not belong to the majority, deciding without a tittle of evidence that the work is for the general advantage of Canada. No other tribunal would decide any such thing, the onus being upon the applicants to convince us as a parliamentary committee that there is an exceptional reason why a certain matter cannot be dealt with under the clause of the British Noith America Act which gives the provinces jurisdiction, forgetting, and wilfully forgetting, apparently, that under the British North America Act railways are primarily within the jurisdiction of the provinces.
It is only when we have evidence before us which is substantial, which is convincing, that a provincial charter will not serve the purpose sought for that we have the right to decide that the work should have Dominion incorporation and be declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. I did it in the last parliament, and again I am going to enter my protest against this sort of thing. We are shirking our duty; we are undertaking to decide a fact to be in the affirmative without any evidence of it. Hon. gentlemen seem to confuse the questions of power and duty. Over and over again it is said in the Railway Committee, and sometimes in this House, that we have the power, if we declare this work to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, to incorporate a company. Nobody says we have not the power, but the question is: Have we exercised the power properly and judicially in making that declaration, and have we the evidence to wararnt us in deciding that question? In this case there is not a particle of evidence to warrant us in coming to that conclusion and without evidence to show that this is a work that cannot be properly dealt with by the province of Quebec we should not sanction this incorporation. I care not which province may be concerned. I cannot help it if hon. gentlemen from the province of Quebec are going to get angry because this happens to come from their province. They must not do that and expect us to sympathize with them. We say the same thing with regard to protecting any other province in the

Dominion. We are consistent at all events upon this question. Whether this comes from Quebec or any other province the fact is the same, that if there is no evidence to warrant us in coming to such a conclusion as would justify us with any sort of a judicial mind in deciding that it is a work for the general advantage of Canada I am not prepared to vote for the Bill.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is one thing that I would like to be enlightened upon and that is how the language used this evening by my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) has insulted the members from the province of Quebec. The hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Rivet) takes the position that any one claiming for the province of Quebec the right to control its own railways, the right to legislate where it has exclusive jurisdiction and the right to control its own water-powers is insulting the members from the province of Quebec.


Jacques Bureau: That is not what the hon. member for Hochelaga says at all.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes, I do not see that my hon. friend from North Simcoe in taking the position that a member for the province of Quebec


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: I rise to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have the floor.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: The hon. gentleman has put words in my mouth that I never uttered.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is what I understood from the hon. gentleman, and that is what most hon. gentlemen on this side of the House understood. Hon. gentlemen, in order to repeat to-morrow in the press, the old story that the members of the opposition in this House from the province of Ontario have declared their enmity to the province of Quebec


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is to protest against that


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: I rise to a point of order, and ask permission to correct the statement made by the hon. gentleman.


Haughton Lennox: That is not a point of order.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Pardon me.


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: The hon. gentleman says that I have protested against the language used by the hon. member for North Simcoe because we are opposed to the position which hon. gentlemen opposite have taken.
I protested asainst the language which he Mr. LANCASTER.
used because he charged members from the province of Quebec with being lobbyists.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is no point of order in that, and I did not hear the hon. member for North Simcoe utter any such language as that. Any man who, in this House, wants to safeguard the rights of the province of Quebec in a matter of this kind and to assure to that province the control of its important water-powers, for the reasons indicated by my hon. friend from North Simcoe, is entitled to the credit of the province, and if he displays some heat in advocating these rights he may rest assured that those who realize what the needs of our province are will be thankful for it. . I desire to refer for a moment to what was said by the hon. member for Chicoutimi and Saguenay (Mr. Girard), who stated that on forty-two different occasions, to his own knowledge, I had been a party to such legislation and approved of it. I was not aware that the hon. gentleman had followed so carefully my delinquencies in this House. Upon that score I have a very tranquil conscience, because, if I sinned forty-two times I sinned in company with my hon. friend.
I am free to confess that what has been stated here to-night by one member of this committee, that in the past we have been a great deal too lax in matters of this kind, is well founded. It has been so for a long time and I think it is time to see to it that the rights of the provinces are safeguarded. There is the instance of the railway on the Island of Montreal. Upon what proof was this declared to be a railwav for the general advantage of Canada, confined as it is to the Island of Montreal and therefore falling under the jurisdiction of this parliament? I question very much indeed if it is to the advantage of the city of Montreal or of the province generally. Has there been any proof adduced that this projected company is a company in the general interest of Canada? That is the only clause in the whole charter that gives us any jurisdiction. Is there a member of this committee who will say that if there has been no proof of that, this parliament is not committing a rash act in incorporating this company? What proof, have we, Sir, that in view of the protest which was lodged before the Railway Committee by the province of Quebec, through its authorized attorney, who said that they did not wish to see this legislation passed, this company has not come here because it knew that the parliament at Quebec would not grant the privileges it is claiming for us? We are arrogating a jurisdiction to ourselves, and the point raised by my hon. friend from North Simcoe is a particularly interesting one for us in the province of Quebec. If we assume jurisdiction and give to this comnanv the power which is mentioned in clause 38 of expropriating water-powers for the development of electricity we will place

the province of Quebec, which has no coal and which has such a wealth of hydraulic power, in the most unfair position which will give rise to trouble later on. Under these circumstances, it seems to me that we should at least refer it hack to the committee in order that ample proof should be secured of the general interest which has been alleged by speakers in favour of this Bill, but of which no proof whatever has been given.



[Stage Direction]
The hour for private Bills having expired, the House resumed debate on the motion to go into Committee of Supply.
['No.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn the motion of Hon. Mr. Fisher, House adjourned at 12.05 a.m. Wednesday.', '\nWednesday, March 3, 1909.']
Mr. J. W. MADDIN (South Cape Breton).: Mr. Speaker, before coming to this House as a representative I had a full recognition of the great differences dividing the political parties on matters of policy and such like, but I had to wait until today to find that an important matter such as the escape of a life sentenced desperado like Bill Miner would be a subject upon which the political parties in this country would differ. This matter is of too great significance to be dealt lightly with, and in view of its great importance I submit that the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. D. Taylor) who initiated the debate is not open to the censure visited on him by gentlemen opposite. I find in a recent edition of the Ottawa ' Free Press,' an organ of this government the following:



[Stage Direction]
The conditions at the British Columbia penitentiary, which have been the subject of parliamentary comment within the past month should be investigated either by ft committee. of the House of Commons or by a judicial commission. That there is something radically wroag in that institution is proven not merely by the rumours and counter-rumours in circulation respecting the escape of Bill Miner and his accomplices, but also oy the fact that the past wees has seen a repetition of the jail breaking as a result of which two convicts got away, one of whom is still at large. That such a thing could happen after the experience with Miner, and especially after the re-organization of the penitentiary staff, shows that there is still need for more reforms.
Discipline is the first essential in a successful penitentiary, but discipline seems to be a much lacking commodity at New Westminster. The record of the past few years, including the escape of Miner, an insurrection or two among the conviots, several suicides, the practical dismissal of the former deputy warden and his replacement by a hospital steward, as well as the self-confessed trafficking in tobacco and other luxuries be tween the guards and the convicts-fill this certainly justifies a searching investigation The government has everything to gain and nothing to lose by a full and impartial investigation and we trust that the Minister of Justice urill soon see his way to ordering such an investigation.
I deplore, Mr. Speaker, that the conditions which in this country surround a question such as we are discussing, differ so greatly from those which would obtain in Great Britain. In the mother country, if an imputation went abroad that anything was wrong in the administration of justice all political parties would put their heads together and a full and thorough investigation had. And when, in his speech this afternoon the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) expressed surprise that Bill Miner has escaped in August, 1907, and that not until this late date was the matter brought up in the House of Commons, perhaps the explanation of that is that the members of the administration now in power in Canada do not relish full and proper criticism of their departments, and when it is borne in mind that until last October there was a solid phalanx of government supporters from British Columbia it is not surprising that the matter has not been brought to the attention of parliament until the present day. It is certainly not the custom with this government to allow its supporters to bring up for discussion matters which are calculated to embarrass or to annoy them. The Department of Justice is the most important department of government. We can afford mal-administra-tion in other departments; we are less than 7,000,000 of people occupying a country which can bountifully supply a population of one hundred millions; we are rich in natural resources and the appropriation of even hundreds of square miles of coal areas without adequate compensation to the country, and the exploitation of our forest resources by friends of the government, and the uncompensated depletion of our fisheries to supply the markets of the United States' cities are not so grievous after all because we have still enough left and to spare for our own supply. But, when it comes to the Department of Justice, that bulwark which stands between the citizens of Canada and all attacks on their liberties and rights, that department should be as Caesar's wife above suspicion. It is the duty of the Justice Department to investigate in the fullest manner anything that is calculated to reflect upon its administration, and even though the cloud hanging over it be but the size of a man's hand, it is incumbent on that department to endeavour to dispel it. Whether it be based on idle rumour or whether it be based on common gossip there is no doubt that suspicion has seized hold of the mind of the people with regard to the escape of the convict Bill Miner. The facts are briefly these: In 1906 the Canadian Pacific Railway as common carriers took charge of £50,000 of bonds to convey across this continent. The train
[Stage Direction]
was held up at Mission Station on the Canadian Pacific Railway and was looted, and rumour had it that these £50,000 of bonds were stolen. Subsequently another train robbery took place and afterwards Bill Miner and his accomplices were arrested. It was to the credit of the administration of justice in Canada that he was tried, sentenced to a life term and incarcerated in the penitentiary at New Westminster. Now, rumour further says that the detectives of the Canadian Pacific Railway discovered that Bill Miner was the man who appropriated these £50,000 of bonds in 1906, and reasoning as ordinary men would they said: If we can approach this life term convict and get him to surrender these bonds or tell where they are concealed we will have accomplished a meritorious act. And so, one of the Canadian Pacific Railway detectives visited the penitentiary as also did a detective from the United States, and an ex fellon was taken in with Mr. Bullick and Bill Miner was interviewed in the penitentiary. Now, rumour further has it that when the proposition was put to Miner he answered: If I were out of here I could locate the bonds, and so arrangements were quietly made by which he left the penitentiary. It is further said that before his alleged escape his hair and hi3 moustache were allowed to grow, and while the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General have told the House that his hair did not exceed three-quarter inches in length, there appears to be no positive statement from these hon. gentlemen with regard to the moustache. At all events the statement is made that Miner was enabled to step without the penitentiary and to hand over these bonds to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) paid the Minister of Justice a flattering compliment; he spoke in glowing terms of the high position held by that hon. gentleman at the Bar, and I have pleasure in agreeing with everything that has been said as to the legal attainments of the distinguished gentleman whq is Minister of Justice. But Sir, the Minister of Justice paid small credit to that intelligence when, after telling us how he investigated the matter, he asked us: What more could I do? I submit that the ordinary business man, with the facts as rumour and gossip have placed them before the country, to take no more reliable source, would have worked on the conclusion back to Bill Miner. He would have found whether or not it was a fact that £50,000 of bonds were transported across this continent, whether these bonds had been stolen in transmission, and whether they had been restored. If these facts had been established, and if the telegram which Mr. Bourke said he sent to Mr. Dawson as inspector was changed, it is to be borne in mind that it came to Ottawa over ' Mr. MADDIN.
the wires of the Canadian Pacific Railway Coippa-ny, and if it was the object of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to compass the discharge of this man from the penitentiary in consideration of the return to them of the bonds, it would easily be a part of the scheme that any telegram sent to the Department of Justice over their wires would be intercepted.
Some hon. members have found fault with the hon. member who initiated this discussion this afternoon. That hon. member read from the Vancouver 'Province,' a paper which he said was independent and was published by reliable people, an imputation in heavy black type on the editorial page against the Department of Justice. I submit that an act of so grave a character as is involved in this case, which is nothing more or less in substance than an effort to usurp the pardoning power of the Crown, is something to be reprobated by both sides of this House. I regret that it is not viewed in that light by the members of the government, and that the Minister of Justice does not take it upon himself to investigate this matter to the fullest extent. As the party organ in Ottawa says, he has nothing to lose by doing so. If I drew the attention of the Postmaster General to a charge of dishonest conduct amongst the officials of the post office in Ottawa, and I told him that it came from a reliable source which I was not in a position to divulge, and if he took the matter up and discovered that something was wrong, it would be no reproach upon him or his administration. But if he hesitated or refused to investigate the matter, then I would say it was a reproach upon him- that he became a party to it. The Minister of Justice has pointed out that in all cases except those of capital offences, when pardon was sought, it was granted on the advice of the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice is a man above reproach, and I would not for one moment connect his name with this so-called conspiracy; but I do wish to point out that unless he takes the matter up and investigates it, there will be a lack of confidence in his department. The hon. minister pointed out that in the Brothier case this pardoning power was exercised by the Governor General on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice. Seemingly this could not be compassed by those who wished to get Bill Miner outside, and the conspiracy which is talked about did not extend to the heads of the department at Ottawa, but was fully worked among the officials of the penitentiary at New Westminster, with the result that Miner was permitted to escape.
Now, the path of duty in this case is quite clear. It becomes the duty of the Minister of Justice, under all the circumstances, to institute proceedings, to find out to what extent there is truth in the

statement that those bonds were stolen and that they have been restored, and if it be a fact that those bonds were stolen by Miner and restored by him, I think there is such a case of circumstantial evidence to submit to any jury that they would not be slow in finding that there was a conspiracy between the officials of the penitentiary and the friends of Miner on the outside.
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton).: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) on the very eloquent manner in which he has presented his views to the House. My hon. friend is not without experience in the courts of this country or without knowledge of what is evidence and what is not evidence. My hon. friend speaks as if there had been no investigation of this matter at all. If the circumstances of the case, as presented from both sides of the House, had been without investigation up to this time, we would all say at once that certainly there should be an investigation. I do not know the terms of the Penitentiary Act in respect to discipline or in respect to investigations into matters of this kind; but it has been stated to-day by gentlemen who know, that that Act provides for an investigation in cases of this kind by the inspector. If that be the case, I take for granted that an investigation of such a character has taken place in this instance; and, if so, it has the same force as an investigation before a judge, because the officer is constituted a judge in such cases by the Act. Therefore it is no light matter to set aside as of no consequence the findings of that official. If my hon. friend would reverse the order of things and would say that gentlemen on the opposition side were content with what had been done by the inspector, and the Minister of Justice were coming here and asking for the consent of this House to a re-opening of the investigation, I can well imagine the storm with which he would be met, particularly by my hon. friend from South Cape Breton, to produce the evidence on which he based his request. Where is the evidence in this case? The opposition in this House is led by a distinguished lawyer, and there are a good many other lawyers in the opposition, and they speak with great flippancy of evidence. Where is the evidence? There are rumours in newspapers; are they evidence? If the hon. gentleman presented himself before any judge of this country to ask for a new trial of a case that had been tried, and the judge asked him, where is your new evidence, and my hon. friend would say, I have not a word of new evidence, but a certain newspaper publishes rumous that a certain official in a certain place said that if he were questioned he would tell something; would any judge or court allow the case to be re-opened? The judge would certainly tell him that he had no grounds on which to base any such application, and it would be summarily refused. That is the position here. An investigation has been held, every man who had anything to do with the penitentiary has been examined and there is not a particle of evidence, as far as appears here-there may be when the papers are brought down-that will connect Bourke or any other official of the penitentiary with aiding and abetting this man in his escape. But so far there is no such evidence, and I think it only fair to conclude that a proper investigation has taken place, and we must conclude that a proper decision has been reached, that nothing wrong has been found against the management of that penitentiary, except what has already been corrected by the suspension or dismissal of the acting warden and by the dismissal of some officials of the penitentiary.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What does the hon. member say about the well-established fact that the inspector who made the investigation is himself accused of having allowed surreptitious visits to be made to this man?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The superintendent or warden of the penitentiary has been examined on oath and we must assume he was properly examined, that every fact that could be elicited from him and every thing he knew was declared before the officer of the law who heard that evidence. He has been asked since the appearance of this newspaper story whether he had anything further to say. Does it make any difference what style of language was used in asking him if he had anything further to declare to his country in respect to the escape of these men? His reply was read here this afternoon, that he had nothing further to say. My answer to my hon. friend is that when a man declares upon his oath that he has fully and freely disclosed everything he knows about a certain fact, and he is asked afterwards, if there is anything in the rumours abroad that he has anything further to say and in reply to that inquiry he says: No, there is no truth in it, I have told you already on oath all I know of this matter, therefore it is quite unnecessary, in my judgment, to call upon him to give any further evidence


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Minister of Justice in answer to questions stated that surreptitious visits had been made with the consent of this very inspector to Miner before he escaped. Does it not occur to my hon. friend that this was not the right kind of inspector to pass judgment ?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I know of no evidence to that effect.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Minister of Justice said that.


Mr. GRAHAM.: Did he say that ?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I did not understand that there was any alleged conspiracy between the officer who held the inquiry and any person in connection with the investigation. If there is I will ask my hon. friend to produce it or an evidence of it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not produce it in the shape of using the word 'conspiracy.' I pointed out that the Minister of Justice said in answer to questions that a number of visits had been made improperly and that they should only be made with the consent of the inspector.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The Minister of Justice did not make the statement attributed to him, and if the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) will look at ' Hansard,' page 1227, where the whole statement of facts from the Justice Department is contained, he will find a direct denial of that statement.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is that to-day's ' Hansard ' printed already ? I heard the Minister of Justice say it to-day.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He did not make the statement to-day either.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have followed the answers of the Minister of Justice with a great deal of care and I am satisfied the position I took here is perfectly clear, that nothing of a wrong character has been brought home to the official who held the investigation. There was nothing that would disqualify him in my judgment or that should disqualify him in the judgment of this House or render him not a proper tribunal to try the charges in connection with that institution. Had there been, I certainly would not place any weight or base any argument on the investigation which he held. But I submit again that this investigation having been held there is nothing here presented that would justify us in asking the case to be reopened and a new trial to be held-and I submit that this investigation is more important than many a new trial would be.
I fully agree with the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) that it is a deplorable fact that party strife or squabbles should take place in this House or anywhere over the administration of justice. We are all proud of the administration of justice in Canada, we are proud of the respect which our people have for the law. It is one of our proud boasts, and


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am sure no person should attempt to make cheap political capital out of this matter even if a mistake had been made in connection with the administration of justice. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken said that the blame if blame there be does not come within a thousand miles of the Department of Justice or the learned gentleman who is to-day at the head of that department. That is the statement he has made. But supposing there was something wrong, there is tiot contention that the Department of Justice is in the slightest way implicated. It is said that officials of the penitentiary in British Columbia should not be called upon to do anything towards the capture of this individual. Miner, until they had instructions from Ottawa. I think that is a very unfair assumption to make, and it is dangerous to have a report go abroad from this House, that all we expect officials to do is to sit down and do nothing until directed from Ottawa. I take it that very much the same relationship exists between the Minister of Justice and the officials of the penitentiary as exist between the Attorney General of a province and the jailer or sheriff of a county. What would you think of a jailer or sheriff of. any county in Ontario who would sit down and twirl his thumbs if a prisoner es caped from a jail until he heard from the Utorney General of Ontario or got his directions ? We have a right to suppose that every penitentiary is well equipped with officers and that they have men to act in emergencies. Why should there be any necessity for communicating with Ottawa in order to capture this man? There were officers on the spot whose duty it was to take immediate action, and the officials of the penitentiary had at their beck and call all the resources of the government of British Columbia, who are interested equally with the government of Canada in the administration of justice. Therefore there is no point in saying that some time may have elapsed between the sending of the telegram and its receipt here. I submit there is not a particle of evidence upon which to base a further inquiry. We on the government side, as far as I know, have nothing to conceal. If any gentleman has evidence of a reliable and substantial character to lay before the government or the Minister of Justice, let us have it.
And, after that is done, if the Minister of Justice will not act upon it, there is some ground for fault finding. But, until that is done, I submit, an investigation having been held, the department is satisfied, and the Hr use, I think, should be satisfied, too, that everything has been done to ferret out the truth, and this question should not be made a means of gaining party advantage. The hdn. member for South Cape Breton
l

(Mr. Maddin) declared that this should not be made a party question. He is a fairly regular attendant in this House, and knows how the party spirit was imported into the question. He knows that this was made a party question by his friend from New Westminster (Mr. J. D. Taylor) when the Solicitor General (Mr. Bureau) was putting his estimates through this House ten or twelve days ago. The hon. member from New Westminster knows that it is not a difficult matter to stir up party feeling in a body such as this House where the party lines are clearly marked. It is said that in the west there is a breezy honesty and sense of fair play. I am glad to know it. But I must say that I have not discovered any extreme measure of it in the hon. gentleman who has been bringing up this question from day to day. It is a well-known principle of British justice that no man may be attacked in our courts without giving him some notice of what is to be charged against him. I can tell my hon. friend from New Westminster that it is not fair to attack a man without giving him intimation so that he may have an opportunity to answer. We are told that the administration of justice outside this House must be extremely pure. I do not know that there is one kind of justice outside this House and another inside this House. I submit that if the reputation of a man is valuable outside this House, it is equally worthy of defence here. I submit also that if a man would be laughed out of court for presenting a case based upon an old newspaper and on a humdrum story and using this means to taking away the reputation of another man, he should be all the more laughed out of this House when he attacks the reputation of a minister of the Crown and a department of government on such evidence. The hon. member for South Cape Breton said that if a matter of this kind arose in England in connection with the Department of Justice, hon. gentlemen on both sides would get together and quiet1 inquire into the matter. We have strong men on both sides of this House. We have a competent lawyer leading the opposition, and we have a competent Minister of Justice. There should be no difficulty, according to the rule laid down by my hon. friend, for these two gentlemen to get together and quietly discuss this matter and find out if there is anything to investigate. I am sure that if the leader of the opposition would, in this quiet way, convince the Minister of Justice that there was something wrong, there would be no difficulty in getting an inquiry. But I submit, without impugning the motives of any person, that this would not suit the purpose at all. This could not get flaring headlines in the papers of Nova Scotia; we could not have the Jekyll and Hyde act in the newspapers and in this House if this quiet way were adopted. It suits the purpose very much better to carry
on the talk that we have heard. We have not been allowed to wait even until the papers come down. If the papers were down and we had the facts before us, possibly it would be [found that there was nothing to talk about. The great thing is to make a great hullabaloo about the matter and work up a lot of newspaper notoriety, get the matter before the public regardless of considerations of fairness; and hoping it will have some injurious effect upon the administration of justice and upon this government generally. My hon. friend from South Cape Breton knows very well the trick of the jury lawyer who tells his story to the judge: 'I want to prove so and so; I want to get in such and such evidence.' He knows that the judge will tell him that he cannot get in that evidence, but his object in telling the story is that the jury may hear it, and, no matter whether the judge admits it or not, the story will have more or less effect upon the minds of the men in the jury box. That is the scheme of these gentlemen-to get this story before the public right or wrong,- truth or falsehood does not make so much difference, so long as the story may have some effect on the jury and make a little cheap political capital.


Mr. GLEN CAMPBELL (Dauphin).: Unfortunately I am not a lawyer, as are many of the gentlemen who have discussed this question, but, as this is a question relating to the west, I may be forgiven if I say a few words upon it. I shall not take up time in discussing the legal points involved. But, in fairness to the hon. member from New Westminster, I take exception publicly to the usage that the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. D. Taylor) received at the hands of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth). The Minister of Justice arraigned the hon. member for New Westminster on the strength of some articles that appeared in a paper published in British Columbia. The hon. member for New Westminster rose in his place and corrected the minister, yet the Minister of Justice did not have the'justice to acknowledge

'decency' is the word suggested by a friend beside me, did not have the decency to acknowledge-the fact that he had made a mistake. An apology was due from the Minister of Justice to my hon. friend from New Westminster. But the minister did not offer it. I hope the hon. minister will think again, and, later on, will tender to the hon. member for New Westminster the apology he owes him. The right hon. First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) took it upon himself also to reprimand the hon. member for New Westminster. It was a reprimand worded as such a reprimand can be worded by only one man in this House-the Prime Minister himself-in the most courteous terms possible. It showed the steel hand in the

velvet glove. But even such a reprimand was not due from the First Minister of the great Dominion to a new member of this House. The First Minister accused the hon. member of discourtesy to one of the ministers in not officially notifying him that this discussion would be brought up. He left the impression that a rule of the House had been broken by my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Taylor). I want to tell him and to tell this House through you, that no rule of this House was broken, there is no rule of ^ that _ kind. If the First Minister wants to shield himself by any supposed rule of that kind, let him amend the rules of the House and provide that when a discussion of this kind comes on notification must be given. There was no notification necessary, because the last few weeks this matter has been a live question in the House. It was brought before the Solicitor General on the 11th of JFebru-ary last, and he showed on that occasion that there was one Bureau at least in the government of Canada where one could apply for information and not get it. Therefore I say the question is not new, it was something that the Department of Justice already had in hand. A motion had been passed by this House at the instance of the hon. member for New Westminster, calling for the papers pertaining to this inquiry to be laid on the table. That motion was passed over two weeks ago, and yet the Solicitor General to-night stated, through the mouth of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) that there was no motion for papers. Why, Sir, he cannot be attending to his business, because it is his duty as Solicitor General to prepare those papers when they are asked for by the House.
I was somewhat surprised to hear the defence which the hon. member for Pictou made of the Minister of Justice. He told this House that the Minister of Justice was the greatest lawyer in Canada, the finest lawyer in Canada. Well, Sir, if beclouding the real facts of the case by a display of verbosity constitutes a great lawyer, then I want to tell the hon. member for Pictou that I absolutely agree with him; but if that is the duty of the greatest and finest lawyer in Canada, I have only to say that thanks be, I am only an old farmer. The hon. member for Pictou found fault with the members on this side of the House discussing this great issue before the papers that were called for had been brought down. I suppose he acts on the old axiom that the exception proves the rule, and therefore he went to work to discuss the question himself. But in his discussion of the question he showed, I think, in the opinion, not only of the members on this side of the House, but in the opinion of the members on the other side, that if any man in the House had no right to get up and discuss this question it was the hon. mem-Mr. CAMPBELL.
ber for Pictou himself, because he showed absolute ignorance of it. Let me point out to that hon. gentleman that in future when he desires to, discuss a question that is brought up in this House, it would be well for him to be in his place looking after the interests of his constituents, instead of running round the country doing all the mischief he can. The very fact that the hon. member for Pictou was called upon to deliver the speech he did to-night shows conclusively that he was called in as a forlorn hope. He has always been called upon as the leader of a forlorn hope, in committees and everywhere else, the last two sessions.
I hope this House will take his remarks at their true value, and take that particular matter into its consideration.
I do not intend to speak at length on this question, as it is one relating to a criminal matter that is foreign to me. My only object in rising is to pour oil on the troubled waters. The facts, as I understand them, are these: This man Miner was captured, tried and sentenced to the penitentiary for life, for one of the gravest crimes that had ever been perpetrated in Canada. After being incarcerated for a certain length of time, he escaped. An investigation was held, and as a result of that investigation, one of the minor officials was fired, or perhaps I should say suspended, for since then he has been taken back to work. Another man, as the hon. member for Pictou improperly said, was suspended, or was asked to send in his resignation. I said ' improperly,' and I use the word advisedly. This man was not asked to send in his resignation, he sent it in of his own accord. He asks for superannuation and gets it. Nobody has been punished, among the officials of the penitentiary at New Westminster, for inefficiency and neglect of duty. Nobody in this country, whether Liberal or Conservative, doubts for one moment but that some one was to blame. If any member of this House, in the conduct of his private business, finds an employee to blame, he punishes that individual. It is up to the government, it is up to the Department of Justice, to punish some one in regard to this matter, because the worst criminal that Canada has had in the clutches of the law for the last decade, has escaped, and nobody has been punished. The government supporters are handing put boquets to every official who could be biamed. The man who -was in charge, this man Bourke, was allowed to resign and got his full pension; the government did for him all that it could do to any man who had performed his duty with the utmost fidelity.	_	_
Now what are we asking on this side of the House, and what every decent man in Canada ought to be asking is: that the truth shall be made known. An investigation was held and held by an official who

is the object of a certain degree of public suspicion, who held the investigation himself, who tried his own case and who was practically his own judge and jury. That investigation has resulted in nothing, looking at it from the standpoint of justice. Certain things have come out since. There are rumours possibly but there never was smoke without fire. Certain rumours have come out. There is more perhaps than mere rumour. The deputy warden, who was allowed to retire and who was superannuated as if he were the finest official in the service of the government, has come out in different papers over his own name with a specific statement, amounting almost to a charge, to the effect that if he were brought before an impartial tribunal he would give evidence which has never been adduced and would do something to clear the atmosphere in this regard. It has been proved that the hole in or under the wall, through which this man Miner was supposed to have escaped, would not have accommodated a man of his size, and that it was absolutely impossible for him to have made his escape in that way. It has come out further that this man Miner has been permitted against the law, that is administered by the Minister of Justice, to grow a moustache-somebody said whiskers-and also hair to the length of three-quarters of an inch in a limited time. Three-quarters of an inch is a respectable growth of hair particularly on the top of the head, and I will submit to the judgment of the hon. Solicitor General upon that point.


Jacques Bureau: What about the Minister of Justice?


Glenlyon Campbell: I would tell my hon. friend that in my youth I was taught to respect gray hairs and even if the gray hairs are not on the top of the head I still have to respect the hon. Minister of Justice, and therefore I shall not refer to them. But those are facts that have been brought out since this so-called investigation was held. On this side of the House we take no exception to what was brought out at that previous investigation, but what we say is that the points that I have brought forward were not disclosed at that investigation and that all western Canada, and British Columbia particularly, believes that there was some collusion or that the intervention of influential corporations or parties, led to the letting out of this man Miner. These points have been brought' out, but they were not brought out at the investigation, and we ask the government to give us an investigation, or some kind of independent tribunal, that' will go into these matters and see whether or not there is any truth in them. On behalf of the government themselves I appeal to them to adopt this course. I want to tell the right hon.
Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that the suspicion is all over Canada to-day that there is something crooked in this matter, and on behalf of the Canadian people and also on behalf of the great Liberal party, it is up to him to insist on having a free, independent tribunal that will bring Bourke before them and will not only bring Bourke before them but will bring one of these three convicts who escaped along with Miner and who has since been recaptured, as I heard it stated in the House, and who will give evidence to show how he got out and whether there was any collusion. We only ask it in the spirit of fair play. We only ask it to clear and not to damn the fair name of the Minister of Justice. We want the minister to have his name as clean as it ought to be and as I believe it would be did he give us this investigation. I have here, sir, if it will be any benefit' to the House, a picture of Bill Miner. I understood the other night that the Solicitor General said that about a month ago they had news of the whereabouts of Bill Miner? Am I right?


Jacques Bureau: I beg your pardon.


Glenlyon Campbell: I understood the Solicitor General, on the 11th February, sitting on the front benches, to say that he had news of the whereabouts of Bill Miner and expected to get him in a few days. Has he anything further in reference to that to communicate to the House?


Jacques Bureau: I said I was informed that it was expected that they would capture him.


Glenlyon Campbell: In closing I just want' to make this appeal, and I want to make it to the right hon. First Minister. We are not speaking here to-night, we have not done so to-day or upon any other occasion when the matter came up, for partisan purposes. We are all Canadians, whether we be Liberals or Conservatives. There is a blot of suspicion on the fair name of Canada, with reference to the administration of justice. It is a little matter, a matter of very little moment with regard to the question of expense, it would not cost much to appoint a committee, or whatever you like to call it, an independent tribunal, who will investigate, who will bring this man Bourke, who will bring this prisoner who was taken the other day before them, get from them whatever information can be got and clear up this business for ever and a day. It is only justice that we are asking.
Motion .agreed to and House went into Committee of Supply.
Trent canal-Construction, $1,000,000.


Mr. WALLACE.: As I understand it the appropriation for the work on the Holland river is included in this vote for the Trent

canal, although the former work has nothing to do with the Trent canal at all. 1 do not think those two votes should be put in a lump sum, but at all events we should have some information as to how much it is intended to expend on the Holland river.


George Perry Graham: In including these twu votes in the one appropriation we are following the precedent of last year. We will spend about $200,000 on the Holland division. I have stated that it would cost $600,000 but I believe that it will cost much more than that before it is completed.


John Allister Currie: I do not want to delay the passing of the estimates, but this is going to be a contentious matter and as there are several returns on the Order Paper with respect to it which have not yet been disposed of I would ask that this vote be deferred.


George Perry Graham: I do not think there is any return asked for, but there is a question on the Order Paper with regard to it.


John Allister Currie: And it was asked that that question should be put in the form of a return.
' Mr. GRAHAM. Perhaps I can give the information now.


Thomas George Wallace: I have asked for the following information by question number 8 on the Order Paper.
1.	How much money was spent on the Newmarket canal on the Holland river, before 31st March, 1908?
2.	How much money was spent in April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December of 1908?
3.	What contracts were let since 31st of March, 1908, and the amount of such contracts ?
4.	Were tenders asked for?
5.	Who are the contractors?


John Allister Currie: The Minister had ample time to answer this question before, but he asked for his convenience that it should be put in the form of a motion for a return and now he says he can give the information right away.


George Perry Graham: I did not ask that the question should be put in the form of a return.


Mr. SAM. SHARPE.: There is a deeper principle than that involved. Here is an appropriation for $1,000,000 in which two independent and separate works are included. The Holland river is -30 miles away from the Trent canal, and yet we are asked to allow this vote to slide through without obtaining detailed information. We would not be doing our duty to* our constituents if wei did not learn how much is to be expended on the Holland river and Mr. WALLACE
how much on the Trent canal and where the work is to be done. If this vote goes through the Minister can spend the whole cne million dollars on the Holland river if he wishes to and not one cent on the Trent canal. It is a reasonable request to ask that this item should stand until we get the information which will enable us to discuss it in an intelligent way.


George Eulas Foster: While my hon. friends here are directly interested in this matter I have a general interest in it, and early in the session I asked for the complete papers as I wanted if possible to find out whatever in the world set this Holland river work going at first and what were the representations that ever induced a sane department to undertake to build the Newmarket canal. I have not obtained that information, and if the government is going to spend a lot of money on that work we ought to know something about it. The minister will make more progress if he allows this vote to stand till we get full information.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I do not know whether I can give any information as to the manner in which this work came to be undertaken, but I can at least disclaim any right to the honour that the hon. member for North Ontario sought to do me the other evening when he said it was the custom in that part of the country to couple my name with this work. That was a piece of new s to me, as I imagine it was to everybody who heard it. I think it was a compliment. I should be very proud indeed to have my name connected with any public work in the constituency of North York which the people of that constituency took an interest in or that was for the welfare of the community. But I do not want to sail under false colours. I do not claim any credit for this undertaking; I have never done so, either in this House or out of it, for the simple reason that I had nothing whatever to, do with it, and have no right to take any credit for it. I entered this house, as hon. gentlemen mostly know, in the fall of 1905. At that time there had been a vote of $100,000 passed by this parliament in the previous session. I have always understood that the way in which that vote came to be passed was that a very numerous and very important delegation of the principal men of the county of North York came to Ottawa during the spring of 1905 and made representations to the government and to the Minister of Railways and Canals, as the result of which it was determined to undertake this work.
I have lying before me a list of names of some of those who came specially from North York at that time for the purpose of urging their views upon the government. In that list are such well known names as those of Mr. T. H. Lennox, M.P.P., the pre-

sent member for North York in the legislature of Ontario; Mr. F. W. Daville, who has since then been made sheriff of the county of York; Mr. T. H. Brunton, a well known member of the Conservative party, I think at that time and probably still president of the association for the riding; Mr. Archibald McCallum, who was at that time I think reeve of the township of King, who was the gentleman I had the honour of opposing at the by-election in the fall of 1905, a man of the highest standing in the community, and a man whom I need not Bay I hold personally in the highest esteem and respect; Mr. A. McMurchy, a member of the township council of King and also a leading Conservative of the county; and I might go on to give other names simply to show that there was absolutely nothing political, and not the slighest thought of politics, in the matter. This was literally the body of the county of North York, whatever that might be worth, and it was just as much a Conservative undertaking as it was a Liberal undertaking. Everybody in North York knows that, and I should welcome the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. S. Sharpe) if he would now or at any time pay a visit to the riding of North York, and make any attack upon this undertaking or upon the men who initiated it and believed that it was for the good of Canada. I certainly should not ask for any better assistance towards that waning of political influence which the hon. gentleman attributed to me when he was addressing this committee last week, and which he said was due to the fact that I had originated or advocated this scheme. Let that political influence continue to wane if my hon. friend's efforts to identify me with it has anything to do with accelerating it towards the vanishing point. I can only assure him that the more opposition he will offer to the construction of that canal, in that locality, the more he will feed the popularity of the man who has the honour to represent that constituency at the present time. That of course is but natural. I suppose that whenever any public work is desired in any locality, the men who live there, and who think it will be for the benefit of the business centres of the locality, unitedly and generally, favour it, with regard to political considerations. I think that the hon. member for North Ontario would not object to the construction of the public building in his own home town of Uxbridge, for which there is a vote in the estimates. I think he would be very glad to take it, and I am quite sure that the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) has on more than one occasion in this House urged the building of a branch of this very Newmarket canal up to the village or town of Bradford, a few miles to one side in his constituency. The very deputation which came here orig-60


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
mating this scheme and urging it upon the government contained representatives of his constituents-I know nothing of their politics-from the town of Bradford and the township of West Gwillimbury; and because they thought they would be served by the construction of the branch which the hon. member from South Simcoe has advocated in this House, they were in favour of this work and united in urging it on the government of that day. But without any reference to what the origin of this work was, the question before this committee is whether or not public money should be voted towards carrying it on, and I want to address myself very briefly to that question. Some $200,000 or $300,000, I suppose, has already been put into the work. Now, if no more money is to be voted for it, it stands uncompleted and the country loses the money that has been put into it. I fully admit that if the work will be absolutely valueless, if it was abject folly to have undertaken it, the best thing we can do is to abandon it, notwithstanding what has been done by the people who came here clamouring for it, and by the people here who were weak enough to yield to that clamour and to undertake the work for them. It was not this parliament, it was not your humble servant who now addresses you, who had anything to do with it. It was our predecessors, and I am by no means prepared to say that they made any kind of mistake in doing what they did. A good deal of fun has been poked at this enterprise by the newspapers. I have not the slightest objection to that. I have enjoyed as much as anybody a great many cartoons that I have seen about it in which I figure. I do not any the less enjoy a good joke because it is at my expense, and I have no objection to the cartoonists exercising their art with me as a subject if they think it of any consequence to do so. But if it comes to be a serious question in this House, and if hon. gentlemen here seriously present for consideration to the committee the contention that this canal, when it is finished to Newmarket, will not have water wherewith to float any boat or be of any practical service to this country, that is another story altogether ; and it is seriously that I want to say a few words with reference to this undertaking, assuming that any one who criticises it or thinks it cannot become a valuable means of transportation to Newmarket and to the adjoining villages, is dealing with the subject in equal seriousness.
This is no question of law, it is not one upon which I am in the least degree competent to form an opinion for myself. If it were a legal question and I had any strong view about the law of the matter I would be prepared to back that view at any rate as far as the Privy Council, before I would come to the conclusion that I had been

[Stage Direction]
wrong. It is not that kind of a question. Being a purely engineering problem, I am not competent to deal with it, but I am prepared to place exactly the same confidence in the opinion of a distinguished engineer, that I am egotistical enough, if you like, to say I would place in my own opinion if it were a matter of law. I have known the gentleman who is now the deputy minister and chief engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals since he and I were boys side by side on the shores of the Bay of Quinte. I have seen him rise higher and higher in his chosen profession until to-day I believe there is no man in the Dominion of Canada who stands higher as an engineer than he; and having in his engineering opinion as absolute confidence as I honestly think he would have in my opinion upon a purely legal question, I am prepared to rest my satisfaction with the proposition to construct this work upon his opinion as a matter of engineering, that there is ample water supply for all the working purposes of that canal when it has been constructed.
John Allister Currie: When was that opinion given?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Mr. Butler's opinion has been given to me in private conversation on more than one occasion. I have asked him if he had any doubt about it, but he says he has none upon the information he has received of the surveys. I am not competent to go into the figures or test at all the correctness of his view.


John Allister Currie: When was that opinion given, and was it put on paper?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: As recently as this afternoon. I asked him this afternoon if there was any question about it in his mind. It was never put on paper to me, he and I are too well acquainted to deal with each other on the footing of a piece of paper. I rest my confidence in the practicability of this work upon the opinion of the gentleman to whom I have referred. If other members of the House have not the same confidence in him, that is a matter in regard to which each must form his own opinion.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Was the opinion of the deputy minister based on personal inspection or on the reports of other engineers?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: My hon. friend will have to obtain that information from the department. I am not able to tell him whether Mr. Butler has made a personal inspection or not. I asked him on the subject as an old friend, and as the man in charge of that department of the public service, and because of these repeated gibes or jokes about the great waterless canal that the country was building. I am of course, discussing it altogether on the Mr. AYLESWORTH.
supposition that this is not an impracticable work, not a work that will have no water wherewith to float a barge after the canal is completed. If I am wrong in that supposition I quite agree with hon. gentlemen that the work should be stopped. No one will propose seriously to construct a ditch to serve as a canal that will have no water after it is finished. It seems to me we ought seriously to consider whether or not this undertaking, supposing it to be practicable, is for the benefit of the country to the extent of the amount of money that will be put into it. As to that, let me remind hon. gentlemen who represent that part of the country-I think I see pretty nearly all of them opposite me, I think I have the honour to occupy an oasis of fertile territory surrounded by a vast desert of Conservative, shall I sav of unfertile country-let me remind these gentlemen who represent that part of Ontario, of the departed glories of Holland Landing and Holland river. Long before I had any acquaintance with that part of Ontario, Holland Landing received its name. How did it get it? How else than that it had its wharf, its landing place, and was the port for Lake Simcoe? In the old days before the advent of railways, barges and scows, I do not know of what draught, but vessels of some kind or other, were continually brought up the Holland river as far as Holland Landing. They used the landing for commercial purposes of transport, and although that village has now the air very much of a deserted village, I admit, it shows, in the buildings which still remain and the works or their remnants along the river, evidence of the prosperity that once visited it when it was literally one of the lake ports of Ontario. If traffic by water was possible, as it undoubtedly was a hundred years ago or fifty years ago, prior to the construction of railways, if it were profitable to navigate the river from Lake Simcoe as far as Holland Landing, why would that navigation not be profitable again if the silt and sand which in course of time has filled up that stream below Holland Landing is removed? The first half of the work which this vote proposes to provide for was the cleaning out of the natural bed, the straightening of it in places and the making of that river once more navigable as far to the south of Lake Simcoe or Cook's bay as Holland Landing. That was the head of navigation naturally and up that far boats could now go if there was a dredging and deepening of the natural stream and all the better if there were a straightening of the river where it was too winding- in its course. That is the first branch of the work that was undertaken in section 1, I think, of the Newmarket or Holland River division of this canal. And no one, I say, could successfully contend that there is not ample water for navigation purposes in that part of the stream.

What is the condition above it? Newmarket is the principal town in the constituen cy, and has a population, I suppose, of 4,000 or 5,000 people. It is some three miles- possibly not more than two and one-half miles by direct route-further up the natur al stream than Holland Landing. The stream would not be navigable for any economical purpose any further up than Holland Landing so long as it remains in a state of nature. At Newmarket there is already a dam thrown across the stream, and a pond in consequence created. I do not know how many feet in depth that pond may be, but the dam, I should say, from personal observation, must be twenty-five or thirty feet high. I suppose there is at least that volume of water behind it, covering perhaps some eight or ten'acres in the present pond, and this, without any attempt at conservation, storage or utilizing to best advantage the water which by nature will come to that water-course or stream. I am not pretending to argue whether or not it is practicable, I only know that any one who passes up and down alonv the railway or drives about Newmarket can see these things for himself. And, if engineers, having made their survey, report to us, and if the deputy minister and chief engin eer of the department, upon his responsibility as head officer of that department tells us that it is in his judgment a practicable work, I am content, I am prepared to take the responsibility of voting public money for the doing of this work upon his confidence that it is a perfectly practicable scheme. The building of this canal from Holland Landing to Newmarket is, of course, not a dredging operation, it is the ordinary construction of a canal, which will replace the natural stream which now runs from Newmarket to Holland Landing. As to the commercial value of the work when it is comnleted, I entertain no kind of doubt. Newmarket is to-day as great a business centre as many of the towns along the line of any of our canals, a larger place than many of the towns on the St. Lawrence canals, than many of the towns along the line of the Trent canal, than many of the towns along the line of the Welland canal, a place of at least equal importance, I should sav with the county town of Lincoln, with which the hon. member (Mr. Lancaster) from that constituency is well acquainted. The Welland canal, of course, a great national undertaking for through traffic between the lakes, is not to be compared to something of local concern such as this either in the expenditure it involves to the country or in its importance to the country once it comes to be constructed. But my contention with regard to this canal is simply this, that just as anv other public work into which you might 601
put an equal amount of mone" is for the benefit of that locality primarily, so this public work, once it is completed, will be very greatlv to the benefit of the riding of North York and the adjoining riding of South Simcoe. The Holland river is the boundary between the township of East Gwillimbury which belongs to North York and West Gwillimbury, which belongs to South Simcoe, and each of these townships and the locality generally will reap the advantage of this canal when it comes to be completed. With regard to the advantage of it to the people there, I venture to say to the hon. gentlemen who are criticising it, hon. gentlemen representing the adjoining constituencies, that there are, in the riding of North York at all events, no two opinions. I have not at any time made the construction of this canal a political question in that constituency. It would be idle for me to attempt to do so because the people there know equally well with myself-in fact, much better than I do-how that work came to be initiated. They have heard and seen in the newspapers periodical attacks upon this work, attacks to which, I have always thought, the city of Toronto contributed, possibly, more than any other portion of the province. Although Newmarket, as compared with the city of Toronto, is a small place, it is not without the usual local jealousy. There is already, and has been for years, an agitation in the north end of the county of York for separation, a desire to set up a separate county for themselves, with Newmarket as the county town. There have been continual attacks, I may say. from the public platform upon this undertaking on the part of members of this House from the city of Toronto. The hon member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) it seemed to me, could scarcely make a platform speech without denouncing the horrible outrage of this waste of public money in the Newmarket canal. That is good politics for me in North York, I am willing to admit, but other than in that sense, there are no politics about it. On the public platform, on nomination day, last October, my opponent referred to my course during the last parliament as representing North York and asked what I had done for the constituency. He did not pretend to say: This man has brought us the canal. If he had done so, I suppose, he would have answered his own question. In that connection, upon that occasion, I said from the hustings that, while I had had nothing to do with it, and had never, so far as I was aware, asked for one dollar of expenditure in North York, I thought that those who attacked the expenditure upon this canal could be found, in every instance, among the ranks of our political opponents, and that those who defend it were, perhaps necessarily, upon the side of those who were

making the expenditure. But it was only in that sense that the question, so far as I nan see, had the least element of political significance in it. I remain entirely of this [DOT]opinion. That work never was of political significance, it was simply a piece of local work which the people of the locality, without regard to politics, united in wanting, and, so far as I know, unite in wanting still And, exactly as the inhabitants of any other town in the province would like to see public money expended in their midst, so the people of North York would be very much dissatisfied, I am sure, if anything were done to interfere with the completion of this work.


Mr. WM. WEIGHT (Muskoka).: I think the Hon Minister of Justice (Mr. Ayles-worth) intended to leave the impression with the newer members of this House that the last parliament had been unanimous in voting a sum of money for this canal. I wish to say that the members on this side, when this was originally introduced, objected just as strongly as they do to-night, and that just as strong exception was taken by the members acquainted with the locality as on the present occasion.
Now we are told that the people from that riding, of both political stripes, came down here and petitioned the government to spend a sum of money on this canal in North York. Now I do not suppose there is any riding in Canada that will raise a strong objection to half a million of money being spent therein, whether it serves a useful purpose or otherwise; the people derive an immediate benefit from the expenditure. Now with regard to the canal itself, I took strong objection to it when the scheme was first proposed. A great deal was said with regard to the water supply. I thought then, and I think now, that it is of very little importance, because the canal will be just as useful dry as it will be wet. There is nothing to sail up or down it, so it is no concern of this parliament whether there is ever a drop of water to supply the canal or not. Now we are told there are institutions in North York that will benefit by this canal. I am somewhat familiar with the situation, and with some of the people there, and I know of no institution that will benefit to any appreciable extent, with the exception of one or two particular pets of this government. I believe there was another enterprise which was carried on a few years ago down on the Holland Flats, catching frogs. But I believe that enterprise has lapsed somewhat of late, and if this canal is constructed it will perhaps revive it. I do not know of any other good purpose that will be served by building the canal. Perhaps down in lower stretches towards Lake Sim-eoe, it may be partitioned off and the farmers along there may utilize it for rais-Mr. AYLESWORTH.
ing ducks or geese. Perhaps the upper stretches might be used for sheep pens, or pig pens, where the land is a little dryer. But I do not know of anything else that can be done with it.
Now, Sir, I take exception to the amount of money that is being sunk in an enterprise of this kind. I want to remind the minister, and I want to remind this committee, that it will not be only the original amount of money we put into it that this country will have to furnish, but there will be large sums required annually for the upkeep of this useless enterprise. The gates on the locks will rust on their hinges, and will have to be renewed from time to time. A large number of employees will have to be paid annually. We are loading upon the country, not [DOT] only the original sum, but an additional large sum yearly to keep up the appearance. In the riding I represent we have a good deal of navigation, and we have vainly appealed for the last two or three years to this government for some works that are badly needed there. Last year a small estimate was put through for a little wharf, 1 think somewhere about $4,000, but this year that is cut out altogether; on account of hard times the government can't afford to go on with it. I want to say here, realizing what I am saying, that in the town of Gravenhurst, where this little grant was made for a wharf, there will be as much navigation in one year as there will be on this Holland river enterprise for all time to come. Now I want to put this thought particularly before the minister, that if this $200,000 or thereabouts that he proposes to put into that canal next summer, were spread over those northern waters where they need accommodation very badly, and where there is a number of steamers to land, he would be doins? a great deal of good to that northern country, opening up and developing it. But down there where there is nothing and never can be anything for a steamboat to do, this money will be wasted. I feel strongly on this matter, and I would ask the minister carefully to consider it. I want to say that when this vote was first introduced it was distinctly destined for this canal, and was not coupled up with any Trent Valley matter whatever. I do not know of any reason why the minister should mix up the Holland Eiver canal with the Trent Valley canal, unless it is to put us in the position that if we object to the one we should have to object to the other. I do not object to going on with the Trent Valley canal. I am not much enamoured with the enterprise, but it has been accepted by both sides of the House and it was commenced a great many years ago when the prospects were more promising than they are to-day. In any event, both sides of the House are committed to the Trent Valley project, and we must carry it through. But we are not commit-

ted to this Holland river enterprise, at least on the_ opposition side of the House. We have objected to it from the first, and I think the minister ought to deal with the two enterprises separately. Now the Minister of Justice thinks there is only one opinion in North York with regard to the enterprise. I heartily concur with him. I have talked with people in North York, and I have yet to find a single individual, man, woman or child, who thinks this enterprise will be of any use in North York outside the temporary expenditure of money in its construction. I think the minister would fail to find a single ratepayer in North York who would say, over his own signature, that this work will be of any benefit to the people after it is built. I will not say any more on the question at present. This matter will come up again, as the minister is going to make an announcement upon it, and I reserve any further remarks until then.


Haughton Lennox: I wish to call the attention of the committee to the fact that the Minister of Justice has not given the history of this transaction exactly as it occurred. He was good enough to introduce my name, and that is one reason why I wish to say a word or two. I happened to be here at the time when this project was first broached in the House. Let me inform the committee that it originated in a meeting at Newmarket, at which Sir Wm. Mulock was present as the representative of that riding, the riding of North York, and that Sir Wm. Mulock was then an active promoter of the scheme. That all originated before the meeting of that deputation to which the hon. gentleman referred to-night. The enterprise, so far as I can ascertain by the records, was virtually originated by Sir Wm. Mulock. Sir Wm. Mulock was the father of the scheme, and made it a stepping stone in the election which was then pending. I made that charge on the 17th of February, and it was not denied. I referred to it as an election scheme. Sir Wm. Mulock had brought forward this scheme of deepening the creek between Newmarket and the Holland river, and expending a large sum of money. I referred to an article which appeared in the ' Witness,' and I said:
Let me read a word or two from the Bradford ' Witness,' which is a paper not altogether published in the interest of my hon. friend, but published in the riding lie formerly represented.
The article is dated February 9 and it is headed ' The Trent Valley canal extension
Our readers will remember that a public meeting was held in Newmarket last September to consider the advisability of steps being taken to deepen the east branch of the Holland river via Holland Landing, Newmarket and Aurora and the west branch to
Fchomberg, in order to make these waters available for commercial purposes in connection with the Trent Valley canal system which Bill shortly be continued to Lake Simcoe. Sir Wm. Mulock, the Hon. E. J. Davis, Mayor Kane, of Newmarket

Another good supporter of my hon. friend. -Mayor Daville, of Aurora, spoke in favour of the scheme

' Scheme ' is the very word.
-and a large committee was appointed to promote this great undertaking.


Samuel Hughes: Was the Postmaster General (Sir Wm. Mulock) present at that meeting ?


Haughton Lennox: He was the ohief spokesman in favour of this scheme to promote the general interest and prosperity of Canada through his own riding and through his own supporters. The hon. gentleman (Sir Wm. Mulock) seems to have been the ohief person on that occasion, as we would naturally ex pect him to be.
Since that meeting government engineers have made careful survey of the territory

Mark you, my hon. friend, the Minister of Justice tells us to-night that this scheme originated in a deputation coming down and waiting upon Sir William Mulock in the city of Ottawa, but I will point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that Sir William Mulock on this occasion, invites me to attend with the deputation.
It would need to be careful if it favours the putting through of this canal.
The Minister of Justice seemed to think that I used to be in favour of this scheme. I thank God I never was.
-and, although no official report has yet been made, it is pretty well understood that the engineers will report favourably upon the matter.
They have their instructions, in other words, I need not take up much time over the intervening part. I appreciate that it might be said that this newspaper item may not be correct. Surely it cannot be that the engineers were actually on the ground surveying it before the deputation came down at all. Let us see as to that. Turning over a few pages I find this:


Haughton Lennox: The hon. gentleman is very funny.
That was referring to Sir William Mulock.
He tries to get away from the point. Does the hon. gentleman deny, as is stated in the paper, that he was present at the meeting and spoke in favour of the scheme? I read it, not only in the paper but I read it in other papers, amongst them the Newmarket 'Era,' 1 think.
The Newmarket ' Era ' was a liberal paper.
While I was travelling on the train I met a gentleman who had just come from the meeting. I know it was discussed broadcast

throughout the last general election, and 1 am calling attention to it here because I think it does not become a cabinet minister, on the ove of an election, to make promises to the electors which may influence their votes.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: An abstract declaration of principle may be a very good thing. I attended the meeting in question, I addressed myself to the meeting as other citizens did, and I was saying what I am saying now, that the district would be advantaged by the construction of such a work, but the question of its cost and the question of its feasibility were matters entirely in the future, and the determination of the work must depend upon these considerations. That is ray view to-day. I hope the result of the inquiry will show that the work is feasible, and that the prices come within a reasonable figure or as reasonable as will commend itself to support at the hands of this House.


Haughton Lennox: Is it a fact that engineers or surveyors were put on?
Sir William Mulock does not evidently want to answer that question because he says:
When we come to discuss that question, the way it happened to come up at that time will be made clear.
I assert here and now that the way that the matter happened to come up was that Kane Bros., the most influential men in the riding of Sir William Mulock, wanted it to promote their own industry, and that they were the originators of this scheme. Continuing Sir Wm. Mulock said:
It grew out of the decision of the Railway Commission seriously affecting a great enterprise in our district. The people were seriously intending to move away because of the railway freight rates. The matter came up in that way, and the people of our district were extremely uneasv lest this large enterprise should move away on account of the iates of freight charged by the Grand Trunk Railway Company on the commodities used and exported by that enterprise.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. gentleman has not answered me, but probably he will tell me now ?


William Mulock: About the engineers?


Haughton Lennox: Yes.


William Mulock: The engineers have been in the field ever since, and I think they are in the field yet.
Mr. LENNOX I do not want to prolong this matter; if the hon. gentleman will tell me now, that is an end of it-what large enterprise was it that was about to leave?


William Mulock: Messrs. Kane & Sons.


Haughton Lennox: Of Newmarket?


William Mulock: Of Newmarket.


Haughton Lennox: Yes, the gentleman who is named in this paper as the promoter of this scheme.


William Mulock: He is one of the firm.


Haughton Lennox: By what authority were these engineers sent into the field?


Haughton Lennox: 


William Mulock: By the authority of the Minister of Railways.
So we have it established as clear as anything can be established that this transaction originated in the way that it is here described. Then we go on and discuss the matter and Sir William Mulock tells me that a deputation is coming down within three or four days from the riding of North York; he understands that some of my own constituents will be here with that deputation and he invites me to attend it. I did go and listen as he had invited me. He said that I would be convinced, but I was not convinced, and I am not convinced yet. I think I will not be convinced as the time goes on because it has demonstrated more and more the utter uselessness and absurdity of the scheme. The Minister of Justice thought it was worth while to refer to the personnel of that deputation. I cannot say that I am surprised at the Minister of Justice. I have been here since 1905 when he came in and I am not a bit surprised that he thought it magnificent argument to put up, that T. Herbert Lennox, representative of the riding, at the request of people who wanted money expended in the riding, came down as one of the deputation. Where have we drifted since then? What was the amount that was said to be the total expenditure for the scheme ? I understood from some members of the deputation that it was then said that it would cost $350,000. What is it to cost now ? I do not know whether it was for the purpose of influencing votes during the last election, but it was reported during the election that there was going to be $.3,500,000 expended upon the work. The Minister of Justice has thought fit to refer to the fact that I have advocated the digging of a trench from the Holland river proper up to the railway station at Bradford. In that he is entirely mistaken. My constituents at Bradford have felt that inasmuch as the government carried away the wharf which they should have built in South Simcoe and put it across on the other side of the river so that they have to cross the river in order to get to the wharf which should serve them on Holland river, they were entitled to have a cutting made up to the railway station and they sent in a petition in regard to the matter. As representative of that riding I had the honour to present that petition, as I shall be happy to accede to any proper request which my constituents make to me. The hon. gentlemen will not find that I have advocated the scheme further than to represent the wishes of my constituents in that regard. But, there is a thousand miles of difference between that scheme of cutting a trench up to the railway station, if it can be done for a moderate expenditure, and this mad-cap scheme of

spending one million dollars or two million dollars for a cutting which has already demonstrated itself as an absolutely indefensible scheme. Last summer in going through _ that county * two or three times a week in the dry season-and I want to say that it was a particularly dry season last year and could not be taken as a fair average-but in going through that district last year I never could detect that any water was escaping beyond the pond or dam in the village of Newmarket. In other words, all the water of that stream appeared to be evaporating from the surface of the pond, and scores of people passing up and down noticed the same fact. This is an absolutely indefensible expenditure of public money and notwithstanding the fact that so much money has been squandered already on it I believe it would be wise at this point to stop.


George Perry Graham: The request of my hon friend to allow the item to stand until the return is brought down is a fair one and I
am ready to accept it.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Will the min ister divide the appropriation so that we will know the expenditure on the different parts- of the work?


George Perry Graham: I will tell my hon. friend approximately what will be expended on each.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: It is not what
the minister purposes doing but what he will do when he gets the item through that we would like to know.


George Perry Graham: I hope my hon. friend does not mean that insinuation.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I did not intend to reflect on the minister and I do not want factious opposition to the item, but we surely should have that information.


George Perry Graham: I told my hon. friend the other night how the expenditure was to be divided, but I will make it more explicit when the vote comes up again. I also gave the reasons why the two were considered the one scheme.


John Allister Currie: If there are any engineers' reports in connection with this scheme I would ask the minister to bring them down. I would also ask him to bring down any information in possession of the department with regard to the levels, the tonnage which originates in that section, the rainfall of the area drained by this enormous river and so on.


George Perry Graham: I placed that information on the table some time ago.


John Allister Currie: We would also like to know the depth of these artesian wells.


Haughton Lennox: And how much the pump cost. -


John Allister Currie: It is important to know if any engineer of standing has made a report as to the utility or the feasibility of this canal. We have heard that engineers were going to report but we have never got the concrete fact. If the minister has any written reports he should bring them down.


George Perry Graham: I have them here tonight but we are going on to consider another item.


Samuel Hughes: Has the minister taken
into consideration the question of lighting these waterways. On the Scugog river from Sturgeon Lake to Lindsay there is a great deal of traffic and the river is not always properly lighted. A good part of it could be lighted by electricity but I am informed that possibly it could be lighted more cheaply by acetylene gas.


George Perry Graham: When the work on the canal is completed the question of the proper method of lighting it will have to be considered.


George Eulas Foster: Would the minister bring down the report of the deputy minister upon which the Minister of Justice this evening justified the proceedings? I would also like to have a difference made between the feasibility of the mechanical construction and the utility of the work, as well as the commercial data upon which the department concluded it was wise to spend this money.


George Perry Graham: I do not know if we have all that information. I have the report made by Mr. Walsh, a prominent engineer in 1906, and I have a later report by Mr. Grant one of the best men in Canada. I have no written report from my deputy or chief engineer. The statement of the deputy was based on what the engineers have reported to him.


George Eulas Foster: It would have very great
weight with this House if the substance of the information which was communicated to the Minister of Justice were communicated to us who are to criticise and to vote for this expenditure. The Minister of Justice to-night argued on what he said was the information given to him by the engineer whom*, he lauded so highly, and I am not saying anything against the laudation.


George Perry Graham: The information made to the Minister of Justice was practically the contents of these reports of engineers in whose judgment the chief engineer has confidence.


George Eulas Foster: Then the Minister of
Justice as usual was wrong.


George Perry Graham: I am explaining what occurred. I have both these reports here to-night.


George Eulas Foster: It was not, then, the report of the deputy minister, but the report of these engineers. The Minister of Justice represented that it was the report of the deputy minister.


George Perry Graham: The deputy minister based what he said on the reports of these two men. The report of Mr. Wash was what this House acted on, I suppose. He endorsed the scheme before Mr. Butler was chief engineer.


John Allister Currie: The hon. minister will note the unfairness of the argument of the Minister of Justice, who informed the House that he was willing to stand by the report of one of the ablest engineers in the country, that is, the deputy, Mr. Butler, and that that gentleman had reported to him that everything connected with this canal was satisfactory, virtually leaving the inference that the chief engineer had made the report on his own knowledge after having looked over the work. I think it is up. to the Minister of Justice to square himself with the House after trying to shoulder any responsibility for this canal and its non-success on an engineer of such standing as the deputy minister. If I were an engineer, I would not tolerate it for one minute unless I had made the report.
Welland canal-electrio lighting and power plant, $8,000.


Mr. J. D. REID.: What does it cost to operate this electric plant?


George Perry Graham: This work is not quite completed yet, and it is difficult to tell just what the cost is. All the locks except No. 27 are now operated by electricity.


John Dowsley Reid: What I want to see is how the cost compares with the cost on the Cornwall canal.


George Perry Graham: I will try to get that for my hon. friend. I think it is very much less.


George Eulas Foster: Does this $8,000 finish the work?


George Perry Graham: Yes.
To widen canal near Welland, $10,000.


George Eulas Foster: What is being done there?


George Perry Graham: The work that was undertaken was quite a large work. It was to enlarge and widen the canal-really to make a basin. There has been expended on it up to date about $47,000. The total estimated cost is $87,000.
Port Colborne improvements, $65,000.


George Eulas Foster: We would like to have an explanation of where we are going to.


George Perry Graham: This work has been under way since 1900. A number of tenders were received, and the contract was made with Mr. GRAHAM.
Messrs. Hogan & McDonald. We are trying to make a clear navigation of 20 feet depth.


George Eulas Foster: What have we now at Port Colborne?


George Perry Graham: We have 20 feet of navigation right up to the piers.


John Dowsley Reid: Is the elevator completed?


George Perry Graham: Yes, and we put 350,000 bushels through it last season as a test, and it worked very satisfactorily.


Haughton Lennox: During the election?


George Perry Graham: No. We wanted to try it before the season of navigation closed. The vessel was the ' Midland Prince.'


Samuel Hughes: What is the capacity of the elevator?	.


George Perry Graham: The storage capacity now is 800,000 bushels. It has foundations for 2,000,000 bushels.


John Dowsley Reid: The ' Midland Prince ' came down two or three weeks before the election. I would like to know why there was not more grain put through that elevator last fall. As I understand, it was built in order that the freight rates from Fort William and Port Arthur to Montreal might be reduced. Do the minister and his department believe that it will be operated from this out, and if so to what extent, and will it result in cheapening freight rates? I opposed the building of the elevator at Port Colborne; I have always believed that the better plan would be to deepen the Welland canal so as to permit vessels to come through to Kingston or Prescott. That would materially cheapen freight rates from Fort William to Montreal. What does the minister expect to happen in the coming year on account of the elevator being ready?


George Perry Graham: That is a large order. I do not know just what is going to happen, I hope the elevator will be busy. It has been suggested, and this is perhaps worth considering, that we ought not to be content with waiting to see what it will do but should engage some person on commission or otherwise, to induce shipments via that elevator and see if we cannot have a large volume of grain pass through it this year. The elevator is ready for business and experts say it is one of the best equipped on the continent for its size and capable of doing its work. I have been considering for some time whether it would be better just to say to the public: The elevator is there, go on and use it, or to send some person representing that elevator perhaps to the board of trade at Winnipeg to induce them to ship grain by that route and give it a

full test. I would be glad of an expression of opinion on this point.


Samuel Hughes: Does not the minister think that shippers will soon realize if the elevator is any use ?


Mr. GEAHAM.: There is a difference of opinion on that. Some say the elevator will not be used unless we send some one to induce shippers to send grain through it.


Samuel Hughes: Will the country be responsible for the contract ?


Duncan Graham: Oh no, if we sent a man west we might give him a certain commission for every bushel of grain he sent that way.


Samuel Hughes: Why should you rival other routes ?


Duncan Graham: We built the elevator to be of some use and want to impress the public with its usefulness. I think if the public would use it one year they might be convinced of its usefulness. I agree that we could, with a larger Welland canal, rival the transportation system of any country for grain to the sea-board.


Samuel Hughes: We were told it was something like Castoria, that the children cried for it.


Mr. LALOE.: The building of the elevator at Port Colborne seems to me to be a useful piece of work. Large boats that are unable to pass through the canal with a full cargo can unload part of their cargo at Port Colborne and so pass on to Montreal, but it would seem to me that to make the system practicable there should also be an elevator at Port Dalhousie so that the boats could take on their full cargoes there. The opinion in Port Colborne of men who are well qualified to speak is that the elevator is badly located, and that good judgment was not used in its erection. Many items under the Welland canal are very familiar to me, because during the last general election in that county our good friend the member for that county (Mr. German) issued a circular letter to his constituents in which he took credit for all the expenditures included here upon the Welland canal in addition to post offices and armouries in Welland town and Niagara Falls. I notice one item here widening the canal near Welland, $40,000. In the circular letter it was stated that one of the reasons why Mr. German should be returned was that he had succeeded in getting the government to spend $40,000 in widening the canal at this particular point for the use of a steel plant located there. The expenditures may be wise, I am not criticising them, but I think the elevator scheme is a good one if it is properly carried out, although the opinion there is that the elevator is not well located.


John Dowsley Reid: Although that elevator was built with the expectation that it would really complete the system between Fort William and Montreal, and that vessels would then be able to carry the grain between these two cities at a minimum cost, still I do not believe it would have that effect. I still believe that the whole solution of the question of the transportation of grain between Fort William and Montreal is to deepen the Welland canal. But we have the elevator now at Port Colborne and it will take years to deepen the Welland canal. I think every thing should be done in order that the grain from the Northwest provinces should go through via Montreal, and in addition to that any grain that we can bring from the western states via the St. Lawrence route. If the government collects charges at the elevator of any large amount it will certainly prevent grain going through that elevator and the result will be that the elevator will stand there doing nothing. I would suggest that the elevator be made practically a part of the Welland canal system and that grain should be put through that elevator at cost price. In other words, if a vessel comes there with a cargo of grain the actual cost of unloading the grain and putting it into other vessels for transportation to Montreal is all that should be charged. I could name a number of vessel owners in Canada, one of them the St. Lawrence and Chicago Forwarding Company of Toronto, which has several large vessels carrying between 200,000 and 300,000 bushels. These large vessels can go to Port Colborne and the company have several other vessels which could carry the grain from Port Colborne to Montreal. If they could put it through the Port Colborne elevator at the cost price of elevating and putting it back into their own vessels, I think it would encourage the carriage of grain from Fort William to Montreal. I would suggest that the elevator be made practically a part of the Welland canal system and that you should say to the St. Lawrence and Chicago Forwarding Company, or to the Montreal Transportation Company: If you will bring the vessels to Port Colborne and load into the smaller vessels there for transport to Montreal, we will put the grain through the elevator for just what it costs us to do the work. In this way, you will encourage bringing the grain down the St. Lawrence, instead of allowing it to go by Buffalo. These large vessels have to go to Buffalo, unless they come to Midland and send the grain by rail; if it goes by water it must go by Buffalo. I do not say finally that this would be advisable, but, I believe that it would be a good policy to pursue, to make the proposition to these transportation companies of which I have spoken.


John Allister Currie: I heartily endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid). From my knowledge of this business, I have no hesitation in saying that the minister will not be disappointed so far as the elevator is concerned, for there is sufficient work of this character coming to fill all the available channels. Anybody conversant with the traffic on the great lakes knows that the additional vessel room required every year, even for mooring, for loading and unloading, amounts to virtually three-quarters of a mile. The tonnage is growing at a rate quite unknown to those who are not familiar with this business. When it comes to the last week in the fall, every port on Georgian bay and Lake Huron is congested and vessels have to be moored three and four deep and await unloading. I am heartily in accord with any expenditure that will give to this tonnage, which is growing and bound to grow like a snowball in larger percentage each year, the accommodation that it requires. I would like the minister to give me information, the next time his estimates are before us, as to the policy of the government in expenditure on these harbours and canals. Whether the expenditure is to be confined to the harbours named by the commission appointed some years ago by the government. That commission narrowed down the expenditures at the east end of the great lakes to three harbours-Parry Sound, Midland and Port Col-borne. To my mind, these gentlemen, who were not experts on transportation on the great lakes, did a great injustice to other harbours, altogether apart from the fact that if the government built piers and spent all the money they could on all the harbours, they could not keep pace with the growth of that traffic. I think that any one who takes a thoughtful interest in the welfare of the west will say that every one of these expenditures made for the accommodation of this traffic will take care of itself and will yield benefit to the country at large. Consider, for instance, the enormous terminals being built at Fort William. Up to a few years ago, you had only the Canadian Pacific Railway there. Within the last four or five years great terminals have been arranged by the Canadian Northern. In two or three years you will have the terminals of the Grand Trunk Pacific-three transcontinental lines bearing the wheat down to Port Arthur and Fort William. About $5,000,000 has been spent on harbour facilities to put the grain into the vessels. But how are you taking' care of the lower end of the spout? That is a matter the government will have to consider. The engineer of the department has given this subject a great deal of thought, and the reports of the department call attention to the question involved. I would urge the minister to con-Mr. J. D. REID.
sider the advisability of putting in the supplementary estimates items necessary for other points. The estimates this year had been cut down to Parry Sound, Midland and Port Colborne. Parry Sound has virtually ceased, in a sense, to be a great centre for a railway. It is true it has a fine harbour. But the Grand Trunk owns Parry Sound, and it owns Midland also, and I understand that their policy is to send the traffic by way of Midland. Let some of the other places have a chance to develop as terminals as well as these places. The government have done a great deal, but not more than this enormous trade demands. The traffic of the northwest and the United States is tending our way. Our port of Montreal to-day is a greater port for grain shipments than New York. That is something to be proud Qf. We must make every effort to perfect every link in this chain of communication. Let us deal with things as they exist. Let us not go into airy schemes and theories which may work out eight or ten years from now, through the building of a railway to Hudson bay or something of that kind, but let us take this up as a practical, existing business question and deal with it in that spirit. I had not intended to make these remarks, but I have every sympathy with the minister and the department, and I hope that when we next consider these estimates I shall be given the information which I have asked for.


John Dowsley Reid: Has the minister ever asked the Dominion Marine Association what they would suggest as to the working of this elevator? It seems to me that if he were to ask them how grain could be brought to this elevator and so to the St. Lawrence route, they would be able to make some suggestions that would be of value.


George Perry Graham: The suggestion of my hon. friend I will take up in a more thorough way, to see what these companies suggest.


William Wright: Is railway connection provided with this elevator at Port Colborne?


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend will look at the next item to be taken up, he will see that I am asking $21,000 to provide connection with the Grand Trunk sidings.


John Allister Currie: Is it intended to keep that switch so that any railway may use it? We are building it ourselves, and will let any railroad use it that wants to.


Mr. G. V. WHITE.: Has the minister estimated the cost of deepening the Welland canal system, and also of deepening the whole St. Lawrence system?


George Perry Graham: In the next item I am asking for a small amount to go on and

complete the surveys commenced last year, so that we could make an estimate of what the new canal will cost.
Surveys, $10,000.


George Perry Graham: We have been for some little time engaged in surveying the route, an alternative route, and trying to get what the hon. member for Renfrew (Mr. White) asks for, an estimate of what it would cost to deepen the Welland canal or build a new one.


John Allister Currie: I would ask the minister to consider that in the Welland canal he will have to cut 12 to 14 miles of living rock, and when vou come to consider the great cost of moving that rock, which runs up to about $2.50 per cubic yard at the very least, as compared with moving clay at 8 cents, he should well consider the alternative route, in view of the modern engineering science.
Sault Ste. Marie canal-construction, $50,-
000.


George Perry Graham: The value of the work done there up to November 30 was $166,347. The tender was given to C. S. Boone, of Toronto, the lowest tenderer, for deepening and widening the channel at the upper end. It is under construction now. This is all above the locks.


Mr. BOYCE.: How much do you expect it will take to carry it through?


George Perry Graham: The tender is $253,657, probably it will take more money than that.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: What I would like to see done there is a little straightening of the channel between the government dock and the entrance to the canal. I think the minister has that well under consideration.


George Perry Graham: That will have to be done.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I know he has been giving a great deal of consideration to us up there, which we very much appreciate indeed, and I ask that he will generously continue the good work.
Sault Ste. MJarie canal-rebuilding north entrance pier, including dredging, $68,000.


George Perry Graham: That has to be dredged out and rebuilt. We propose to advertise for tenders and let the work to the lowest tenderer. That is the north entrance pier, which is simply rotting away. I was up there on some other business last fall, and I took a look at it. It really has to be done for the safety of navigation. I think we cannot make any mistake in not letting these things go too long where navigation is concerned.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: How much dredging is there to be done?


George Perry Graham: We have not got the detailed estimate in time to give it to the House. I am asking for $68,000 to start the work. We will make a' concrete pier, a permanent work.
Quebec canals-remarking boundaries, surveys. &c., to complete, $5,560.


John Dowsley Reid: Didn't I see something a short time ago in the papers where some deputation from New York wanted to use these canals right through?


George Perry Graham: Really what they wanted was for us to rebuild the Chambly canal up to the Richelieu river, to give them connection between the port of Montreal and the state of New York. But that has not yet been agreed to.
Lachine canal-wall north side of Basin No., 2, $70,600.


John Dowsley Reid: Who has the contract?


George Perry Graham: Quinlan & Robertson. This work can only be carried out in the spring time when the canal is unwatered. The date of the contract is April 20, 1908, and the work is required to be completed next October. There were two tenders, those of Quinlan & Robertson and Mr. Wallberg.


John Dowsley Reid: What happened that Wall-Kerg did not get it?


George Perry Graham: He only gets it when he is the lowest tenderer and this time he was	not. The	contract	price	is	$114,019,and	the total	estimated	cost	is	$184,000.
This is for a concrete wall on the north side of Basin No. 2.
Beauharnois canal-
Building stone protect'o.i for c'ay
dyke	$ 1,500
Macadamizing road, Hungry bay
dyke	11,000
Extending protection wall at Hungry bay	15,000


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that the Beauharnois canal was leased to some parties for a water-power and that the government have practically nothing more to do with it.


George Perry Graham: These three votes are practically in connection with the protection of land that would otherwise be drowned. This is a dyke that has been there for years. It is to build a stone protection and to macadamize the road. This work was found to be necessary and last year we had to do some temporary work to keep the land from being flooded by water.


John Dowsley Reid: Are the government keeping on the lockmen and maintaining the canal?


George Perry Graham: It is leased and we do not pay any of these expenses.


John Allister Currie: How much do you get out of it?
Mr. GRAHAM, $12,000 a year.


John Allister Currie: How much do you get out of the Cataract Power company?


George Perry Graham: I will give the exact figures to-morrow. I do not like to give them from memory.


John Dowsley Reid: I see in the Auditor General's Report at page W-83 a payment of $7,032.31 for staff last year.


George Perry Graham: That was before the lease was executed. We do not pay anything now.


John Dowsley Reid: Will the minister tell me whether all of the lockmasters have been dismissed?


George Perry Graham: The lessee has taken them all over; we do not pay for them.


Mr. PAPINEAU.: Since the canal was leased the lessees are paying all of the men except the overseer. This dyke which is at the head of the Beauharnois canal was built in 1852. After the canal was completed the engineers discovered that they had made a mistake in calculating the level and that instead of getting 9 feet of water they had only five or six feet. They proposed the construction of the dyke between Grand Island and the shore of the St. Lawrence at the entrance to the Beauharnois canal. This is the dyke that the minister is now asking authority to repair in order to keep the water at its proper level.


John Dowsley Reid: Then this dyke is being built for the benefit of those who have leased the canal?


Louis Joseph Papineau: It was bought in 1852, and it has been repaired ever since to keep the water at the proper level.


John Dowsley Reid: Exactly, but the canal was leased in the condition it was at that time. The government leased it to a company to be used for water-power only. Now they find that they have only five or six feet of water and they want to have this dyke repaired. They ask you to spend this money in order that you may give them nine or ten feet of water.


George Perry Graham: This has nothing more to do with lessees of the Beauharnois canal than it has to do with Timbuctoo. The same lake supplies our Soulanges canal and we must have the same level of water for it. This matter was threshed out in the House last year. There were a great many petitions received asking that the property of private individuals should be protected. If we do not repair this dyke we may spend twice as much to compensate people for land which may be drowned or flooded.


George Perry Graham: 


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why do not the lessees do that?


George Perry Graham: This was built fifty years ago.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They have leased the property and why should they not keep it in repair? It is they who get the benefit.


George Perry Graham: This dyke was built under a judgment of the court. We examined this question very closely an'd there is no question about the necessity of the work unless we are prepared to accept the responsibility for drowning out very many acres of land.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is right that some one should repair it, but why should the government lease this property to a lessee and then repair it at its own expense? Why should not the lessee keep it in order?


George Perry Graham: This has nothing to do with the Beauharnois canal lease at all.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman that sits behind the Minister of Justice said that it was to increase the level.


Louis Joseph Papineau: 
John Dowsley Reid: Is it part of the Beauharnois canal system?


Louis Joseph Papineau: It begins two miles above the end of the Beauharnois canal.


John Dowsley Reid: It is outside of the canal system?


Louis Joseph Papineau: Yes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is not the way we understood it.


John Dowsley Reid: Last year you spent $13,019.76 on the Beauharnois canal; was this expenditure prior to the execution of the lease?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: Then there will be no
more repairs?


George Perry Graham: We do not pay any repairs or any staff except the overseers who look after the locks and the repair of the lock.


John Dowsley Reid: This item will not ao-pear again?


George Perry Graham: No.
Some resolutions reported.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Fisher, House adjourned at 12.05 a.m. Wednesday.


Wednesday, March 3, 1909.