Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Westmoreland).: Bill (No. 220) to incorporate the Albert and

Moncton Railway Company, was read the first time last night. With the leave of the House I propose that it be now read the second time, and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.


Mr. LENNOX.: I do not know why this kind of thing has to happen so frequently. We are not going home to stay at home for ever; we are coming back in a couple of months, and, unless there is some special reason for it, I do not think this ought to happen. I think we should all observe the ordinary procedure and not being everlastingly breaking our own rules.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I quite appreciate the fact that if any hon. member objects this cannot go through, but I would urge that consideration be given to this Bill. It is connected with a large enterprise in the county of Albert, involving the development of the shale interests in that section of the province and, expedition is necessary in order to further the objects in view. That is the only reason I would urge upon my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) to give his consent, and other hon. members to raise no objection.


Haughton Lennox: I only wanted the hon. member (Mr. Emmerson) to give some reason for his motion. I do not propose to jump on his Bill in particular; a gentleman for whom I have very great respect -but I do not like this procedure as a rule, and I wanted some reason given.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I quite agree.


Mr. SPROTJLE.: I heard this shale argument advanced about twenty years ago. I am afraid it comes now a litt'le late in the day.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is a new thing there.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I can hardly imagine that the question of the Bill going through a few weeks later or a few weeks earlier would make much difference to that great interest in that county.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I may explain that English capitalists have taken hold of the matter now, and if there is delay here that will delay their movements in connection with the development of what is hoped to be a very great industry. As my hon. friend has said the shales have lain dormant for many years, and we cannot hasten their development now with too great speed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bi'll read the second time.

Mr. GUTHRIE.: I move:
That leave be granted to the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines to sit during the time the House is in session in accordance with the recommendation contained in the 21st report of the said committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think this is entirely unnecessary. There is very little to come before that committee, and if the committee would meet, as it did to-day, half an hour before the time of the sitting of the House, there would be plenty of time for it to pass all the Bills that come before the committee. We have granted this leave in the case of two committees this session, when, in my judgment, there was no need for it. When the House was in session, most of the members desire to be here and possibly to take part in the debates that go on. But if the committee is sitting at the same time as the House, a member of the committee must make a choice which he shall attend. What is the reason for asking that this committee be allowed to sit while the House is in session?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I believe it has been in contemplation on the part of many mem bers that it would be desirable to adjourn the House on the 19th instant, instead of waiting until the 23ri. I may say that I am particularly anxious that the committee should have this leave, because I wish to expedite the Bill, which has just been read the second time. But, if this House remains in session until Tuesday next, or even Monday, there will be opportunity for me to have this Bill brought to the consideration of the Railway Committee in ordinary course. I would urge that in the public interest, and in the special interest of the section I represent, this committee should be allowed to meet as proposed by the chairman (Mr. Guthrie) and take into consideration, as they very well can, this Bill, and any others that may properly come before them-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is simply a scare signal thrown up. There is plenty of time for the committee without their meeting when the House is in session. I for one am opposed on principle to a committee doing business while the House is in session If there were a rush of business I could understand it; but I imagine there are very few Bills to come before the committee, and those of such a nature that they need take up very little time.


Mr HENDERSON.: I desire to add my protest against the meeting of the Railway Committee while the House is in ses-

sion. A few days ago twenty or twenty-five of us were called up stairs to attend a committee meeting while the House was in session, and while the Minister of Railways (Mr. -Graham) was explaining a long resolution he had with reference to the Canadian Northern railway. I regret very much that I had not the opportunity to listen to his explanation, and I have no doubt there are other members in the same position. Besides, I think there is no real excuse for this procedure. The House has been in session for six months. Why did not these gentlemen bring forward their Bill and have it passed in the regular way.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It comes from the Senate.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Somebody is responsible for not having that Bill brought forward either in the Senate or this House. I for one, do not intend to put a premium on delays of that kind-simp'ly holding legislation back with the hope that it will be rushed through without notice in the dying hours of the session, or just prior to adjournment. I do not know whether this motion requires notice or not, but if it does, then I do not consent to it.


Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).: Important legislation is coming before this House constantly now, that we are on the eve of adjournment, and it is very desirable that every member should be in his place, and pay attention to the proceedings. One Bill that the Railway Committee desires to deal with is the Water-power Bill, that was before the House last night. This Bill came before the Private Bills Committee when there were only four members present; but the chairman with enlarged vision saw a quorum and reported the Bill unanimously, and the House started to deal with it last night, notwithstanding that it was not on the Order Paper.
This Bill is not of such urgent importance that it should be rushed through the House at this end of the session. It is a very important Bill, and while the .Railway Committee desires time for its consideration, it is desirable we should all be here and pay attention to the legislation going through the House. I think it would be a mistake to pass the motion presented by the chairman of the Railway Committee. The rights under the old Bill of 1903 have been forfeited, and the object of this legislation is to renew the rights granted in 1903, and which were forfeited three years ago. Why the urgent necessity, when they have not asked for a renewal for three years, and why should we seek now to rush the Bill through the House in the course of two or three days?


Hugh Guthrie: We had a meeting of the Railway Committee this morning Mr. HENDERSON
called at half past ten. There are one or two Bills now before the Railway Committee; both of them are Senate Bills, one the Bill which has just passed its second reading, and the other the Bill referred to by the member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe). I understand there is some urgency in respect of both of them, and there was a general disposition oh the part of the committee this morning that leave should be granted to sit while the House is in session in order to expedite these two measures. I do not think it is unreasonable; I do not think it will take a great length of time. It is a custom that has been followed every session since I have been in the House.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: I do not approve of the practice of the various committees sitting while the House is in session. The Railway Committee is composed of nearly every member of this House; therefore, if we are to be in our places in this House we cannot be in the Railway Committee. If we are not on the Railway Committee, we do not save any time, because when the Bill comes back to the House again we will have to go over the whole procedure and obtain in the House all the information afresh. So we are not going to save any time by holding meetings of the Railway Committee during the sessions of the House.


Mr. FIELDING.: If the committee has considered the matter and desires to have the rule suspended to enable them to meet, I should be individually willing to support the motion. At the same time I doubt whether they would make any progress in the matter, because, if the Bill is not fully considered in the Railway Committee, it will certainly be resisted here. As I presume the committee has talked the matter over and desire to be permitted to meet, I should be glad to join them in their motion, but I doubt whether they will make much progress by it.


Mr. HAGGART (Lanark).: This motion asking for a suspension of a rule of the House must stand as a notice of motion, and cannot be passed now.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Under rule 41, I am afraid it cannot be put except with the consent of the House. That rule requires notice being given.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Does any one object?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I understand that objection is taken, and the motion cannot be put except by consent of the House.



NATIONAL BATTLEFIELDS AT QUEBEC.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEMIEUX moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 222) respecting the Na-
[Stage Direction]
tional Battlefields at Quebec. He said: As the House is aware, some years ago a commission was appointed composed of Sir George Garneau, then mayor of Quebec, Sir Edmund Walker, Mr. Dennison, the Hon. Mr. Taschereau, Minister of Public Works of Quebec, Mr. Turgeon, president of the Legislative Council of Quebec, and the late Sir George Drummond. Upon the death of Sir George Drummond, the hon. member for St. Lawrence division, Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) was appointed to replace him on that commission. The object of the commission was to implement what had already been done towards nationalizing what is known as the Plains of Abraham of Quebec. The House is aware that some legislation was passed a few years ago empowering that commission to acquire certain lands and farms around the Plains of Abraham, and near the other battlefield of Ste. Foy. The commission went to work very diligently, and has so far done splendid work. It has acquired practically all the buildings and lands which naturally come under the scope of the commission. There remains, however, a few lands and a few properties to be acquired, and the object of this Bill is to give the commission the power to expropriate these properties. The various estates and lands are mentioned in the first clause of the Bill. The second clause requires a little more explanation. I may say that the commission has been unanimous in reporting in favour of the acquisition of those properties. Some of them belong to the federal government, and some of them belong either to the Dominion government or to the local government. For instance, the observatory building on the Plains of Abraham is one in regard to which we do not yet know whether it belongs to the federal government or the local government, but that will be ascertained. It is also desired to acquire one of the old Martello towers on the edge of the St. Charles valley. This old tower is decaying, and it was thought that, being an old relic of the past, it should pass into the hands of the Quebec Battlefields Commission. The next clause also requires some explanation. The commission has obtained the service of the well-known landscape architect, Mr. Todd, who was employed, I think, for the embellishment of the environs of Ottawa. They have decided, under the supervision of Mr. Todd, to open an avenue from, the battlefields on the Plains of Abraham to the other battlefield on the Ste. Foy road facing the monument, as the Monument des Braves is on the Ste. Foy road. The first decision of the commission was to open and widen an already existing avenue known as the Belvedere. But that avenue was nbt in a straight line between the battlefields on the Plains of Abraham and
the Ste. Foy battlefield; so they have decided to open another avenue which will be in direct line between the Monument des Braves and the Plains of Abraham. It will add to the spectacular effect of the park when it is completed. The first project would have cost the commission a sum amounting to $19,000. By the second project which is now submitted to the consideration of the House, the town of Montcalm, one of the suburbs of the city of Quebec, has agreed to give the commission the lands necessary for the opening of that avenue. The town of Montcalm asks in return to be loaned a sum of $15,000 for a period of thirty years, at which time the town will reimburse the commission with interest at the rate of three per cent per annum. This amount will be loaned by the commission to the town of Montcalm in order that the town itself may acquire the necessary estates and lands for the construction of that road.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does not the hon. gentleman think that this Bill should be introduced by resolution, since it contemplates a chaTge upon the revenue?


Mr. LEMIEUX.: This ts not money of the government, the money required for the acquisition of these lands is already in the hands of the commission. The fund now in their hands is composed of sums received, not only from various parts of Canada, but from the British Empire at large. In fact subscriptions were received from New Zealand, from Australia, from Great Britain and from all the British colonies, as well as from the various provinces of Canada, and there were private subscriptions in great number. The amount now in the hands of the commission, I am informed by my hon. friend from St. Lawrence division, amounts to from $300,000 to $350,000. It is with this fund that the commission desires to acquire the said properties. But even though the commission desires to acquire these properties with their own fund, yet, according to .past legislation, it has to come to the Dominion parliament, because all sales made to the commission must receive the approval of the Governor in Council. Before I take my seat I may be allowed to lay on the table of the House, or to insert in ' Hansard,' the report of the landscape architect, Mr. Todd, on the National Battlefields under the control of the commission. As I said a moment ago, Mr. Todd has been engaged by the commission, and has prepared an outline of the great national park which will be one of the features of our national life. I would like the members of the House to read this report, which is not very long. I will hand it to the ' Hansard,' so that * hon. gentlemen may be able to read it to-

923i
morrow. Later on, the commission may come to parliament for further aid, when the members of the House will have an opportunity to appreciate the demands made by the commission. The report is as follows:-
10 Phillips Place,
November 15, 1909.
Sir George Garneau,
Chairman, National Battlefields Commission, Quebec.
Dear Sir George,-In compliance with your request of last May, I have examined the Plains of Abraham and other property under the control of your commission, and that which you propose to acquire, with a view of presenting to you a general scheme or plan, the gradual development of which would seem to me to insure the restoration and permanent preservation of its impressive grandeur and historic interest, and at the same time make it available for public use and enjoyment.
With a situation unequalled and historical associations almost unparalleled, it is clear that you have in this property, where the fate of Canada and perhaps the whole continent mere than once hung in the balance, the making of a park ' par excellence.' There are other parks of magnificent views, and many places in the world over where the memory of past deeds of valour fill the soul of man with high ambitions and patriotism, but it is no exaggeration to say that in no other place can we find such grandeur of proportion, such sublime views combined with such a wealth of historical associations, as in encompassed within this park, lvhich legacy you have the privilege of handing down to future generations, with its grandeur and beauty undespoiled, and its historical interest revived and hallowed with the passing time.
To adequately describe your possessions is impossible. One must see to appreciate the grandeur of the views, one must wander at leisure over these old fields of strife, now so peaceful, and must live over the lives of these great men, who gave up their lives for their country, to begin to appreciate -what a priceless gem is this National Battlefields Park. This vast treasure house of the history which is so closely intertwined with that of Canada, with its magnificent panorama of views, you have secured to be dedicated forever to the people of Canada, and the question of how you shall make this available to those who wish to study its history or to gather inspiration from its sublime views, of how you shall plan the. necessary artificial features of the drives, walks, and shelters, without injuring its natural beauty or historical associations, is the problem which I have endeavoured to solve in the accompanying plan.
In presenting the plans, I have in several instances given numbers to drives and entrances to aid in describing the plan.
Broadly speaking the park is divided by its geography and topographical features into five distinct parts.
First, That portion from the Citadel to Wolfe's monument, which consists largely of a high undulating plateau, broken by small elevations. This portion of the park I have endeavoured to keep as natural and informal Mr. LEMIEUX.
as possible, and at the same time have avoid j<1 planting many trees, in order that it may remain as near as possible in the condition in which it was when the historic battles took place. In fact the only planting which is suggested is here and there a group of trees along the drives and walks, to break the monotony, and groups of trees massed along the outskirts of the park in order to screen out what may be inharmonious private property.
Second, We have that large area of comparatively level ground which has been for so long known as the 'Plains of Abraham.' This portion of the park it has seemed desirable to treat in quite a formal manner. It is proposed to locate the new monument at the edge of the slope about opposite the middle of these plains, and this is approached by a formal drive from each side of the park. It is proposed that these drives should be bordered by trees planted at regular distances in contrast with the planting in other portions of the park, which is of an entirely inf. rmal character. Thus will be formed a propt r setting and dignified approach for this m moment, which is to be the crowning feature >f the park. At the same time the formal art -ingement of this portion of the park preserves an extensive open spate, where parades and encampments may be held. In order to produce most satisfactory results, it would be necessary to build up a retaining wall of considerable height to form a terrace on which to place this monument, and as the plains are broken by a small excrescence in the centre, the material might be taken from this elevation and used for building up the terrace for this monument, thus obviating the necessity of obtaining filling from a distance.
Third, We have extending from the edge cf this plateau to the escarpment bordering (he river a large area of rather steeply sloping ground which is covered by a dense growth of coxspur thorn, and other small-growing native trees and shrubs. This portion of the park it is proposed to keep in perfectly wild and natural condition with walks leading through it in various directions and along the edge of the escarpment. In most places this escarpment is so steep as to be dangerous and when walks p.re laid out along here, protecting fences will be required in many places.
Fourth, We have a narrow strip of land extending from the plains to the Wolfe Cove read, and from Champlain street to the Merici property. Considered from a landscape point of view this is a charming spot, with its gently undulating topography extending to the steep cliff and open groves of lofty pine and elm, while historically it is of the greatest interest, as it was up this steep cliff in the shelter of the small point of land that General Wolfe and his advance guard climbed and put to flight the small French poste encamped at the head of the road leading up from the cove, thus gaining the key to the plains above.
Fifth, We have a small park on the Ste. Foy road, which although in itself possessing few features of marked beauty except magnificent views, is a point of great historical interest as one of the most fiercely contested positions in the battle of Ste. Foy. The distant views, rather poorly shown in photograph No. 1 accompanying this report, obtained from this park over the St. Charles valley, are entirely

different from those obtained from the other parts of the park, and are equally charming.
It has been rather difficult to design this Ste. Foy park in such a way as to provide a proper setting for the Monument des Braves, and at the same time lay out the park in a pleasing manner. The proposed arrangement, I think does this as well as circumstances will allow. By making two entrances equally distant from the monument, a certain needed formality is given, which could not be secured with one entrance, and below the monument the park is laid out in an irregular manner, whicli I think will be pleasing, and admit of its best use by the public.



ENTRANCES.

[Stage Direction]
The question of a suitable entrance to your park is one of the greatest importance. There must necessarily be several entrances, but there should be one principal one, so located and constructed as to give some idea of the importance of the park to which it is an entrance, and in so far as possible to be an index to the general character and associations of the park itself. This matter of a proper entrance to a public park is not given the attention in this country that it should. We often see a park with drives and walks well laid out, and with beautiful landscape, while the entrance is entirely unmarked, or else marked by some fantastic gateway entirely out of harmony with the character of the park. We recognize the importance of a well designed entrance to our buildings, and would be shocked to see a large classic public building with merely a hole in the wall for an entrance, or an entrance made out of rustic boulders, nor would any amount of interior beauty dispel from our minds this disagreeable first impression. It is equally important that a park should have a well designed entrance, it may be of the most simple and inexpensive construction, or it may be large and costly, but it should be of harmonious design and of such proportions and construction as will lend dignity to the park itself. This has always been recognized in the old country, as for ex. ample the stately entrance to Hyde Park in London. What could be more dignified or show more clearly the character of the park itself? Again take the entrance to the Bois de Bou-longe at Paris, or that gem of French parks, Parc de la Tete d'Or at Lyons, and yet these parks, beautiful as they are, have nothing to compare with the grandeur and historic associations of your Quebec Battlefields Park to act as an inspiration for the designing of an entrance.
Entrance No. 1, or Main Entrance.-The logical place for your main entrance is to be found on the left, immediately after passing through the St. Louis gate, at the side of the high Citadel wall. An entrance at this point could be made very characteristic, for you have at the east side'of the entrance, the massive time worn wrall of the Citadel, and I would suggest making the entrance really form a part of this wall, by building a wing wall slightly lower than that of the Citadel wall and at right angles to it across the west side of the present skating rink. You will see by photograph No. 2 accompanying these plans, that it would be impossible to make any kind of an effective entrance here *without removing this skating rink, but by removing it and haying an entrance occupy the whole width of this space, it could be made very effective and impressive. I am submitting with this a sketch for an entrance, which carries out in some measure my ideas of what would be effective. This sketch is not to be considered as a proposed plan, but simply as a suggestion to show the effect of such an entrance. One of the most important and effective features of such an entrance would be that the instant you have passed through the gateway you obtain a most striking and impressive view of the Citadel fortifications, which would help greatly to carry out the prevailing idea of the park. Photograph No. 3 gives an idea of what this view would be, although if the rough material which has been dumped near the rear end of the present skating rink were removed, the view would be even more effective than the photograph shows.
Entrance No. 2.-The entrance to your park of next importance would naturally be located near the present Wolfe monument. At this point it seems to me that the present straight drive leading up to the monument should be widened, and that a low entrance should be constructed, with gate piers eight or ten feet in height, conforming in character to the main entrance. As shown by photograph No. 4, the present entrance at this point is very poor, in fact can hardly be called an entrance. The monument itself is distinguished in the distance with an iron railing about it. The street between the entrance and the monument should be re-graded and laid out formally in order to unite it pleasingly with the formal arrangement which I have suggested about the monument itself. I would suggest that sufficient property be taken on either side of the entrance to allow for a double row of trees, as shown on the plan.
Entrance No. 3.-On account of its being necessary to maintain a certain amount of formality in the treatment of this portion of the park, I would suggest that this entrance be made similar to entrance No. 2.
Other Entrances.-There would be several other entrances to the park, viz., at Lans-downe, Tache, and Montcalm streets, and at Wolfe's Hill, Belvidere Road, etc., but these would hardly rank as important entrances, and could be marked by simple stone piers, in harmony with the other entrances.

[Stage Direction]
In locating the drives, it has been my endeavour to keep before me three important considerations, to place them so that they do not break the pleasing continuity of the park, and disfigure it as little as possible; to make them conform as far as practicable to the natural contour of the ground, so that there will be no bad grades or disfiguring cuts and fills; and to locate them in such a way that a person is brought by the most pleasing and convenient route to the finest view points, and to the places of greatest historical interest.
Drive No. 1.-I have so designated the drive leading from the main entrance as far as Wolfe's monument. After passing through the main gateway, where one is confronted by the impressive view of the Citadel, this drive curves out into the broad valley in the rear of the drill hall, and gradually ascends the
[Stage Direction]
hill, on which are located the martello towers, where a most beautiful view of the entire easterly section of the park is obtained, as shown in photograph No. 5. This view is, of course, at presently badly marred by the Dominion arsenal buildings. It is also somewhat difficult to realize or form a proper appreciation of this view because its proportions and distances are so large, and there is nothing at present to give it scale. A few well placed groups of trees would make a great difference in the view and afford the eye the necessary scale to properly grasp its proportions.
Prom the martello towers westward, the drive descends into the valley, where occurred the actual battle between the contending forces, and by a gentle curve approaches Wolfe's monument.
The present tower street, leading from Montcalm street to the monument, it would seem better to abandon and locate as shown on the plan. You will notice by referring to photograph No. 6, which is taken from the centre of tower street looking toward the jail, that this is a very poor approach indeed to Wolfe's monument. The street is laid out so that it appears to terminate in the blank wall of the jail, and it is necessary to squeeze by one corner of the jail and then descend by a sharp grade to the monument, whereas, by diverting this drive as shown on the plan, this disagreeable feature is obviated, and a pleasing drive with an easy grade secured with an approach directly on the axis of the monument.
Drive No. 2.-At a short distance from the main entrance this drive branches off from drive No. 1, and ascending gradually the ruins of the covered way forming part of the old fortifications constructed by the English army, reaches the high point known as Cape Diamond. Prom this point are Obtained perhaps the finest and most .impressive views of the whole park. The view up the river partially shown in photograph No. 7, is particularly fine. Hundreds of feet below and almost underneath one, winds the historic Champlain street, bordered by its quaint houses cut into the face of the cliff. Plowing by is the majestic St. Lawrence, bearing on its beautiful expanse an everchanging burden of marine craft, while in the distance Wolfe's.Cove and the picturesque Sillery church on its high plateau, jutting out into the river, make a picture of rare beauty. At this point the drive should be widened to form a concourse, so that a number of carriages could stand without interfering with others passing, and I would suggest also the building of a shelter at this point. Leaving the extremity of Cape Diamond, the drive should follow for a few hundred feet the old roadway, forming part of these fortifications, and still descending would approach quite close to the Citadel wall at its highest point. Here also the panoramic views are very impressive, but perhaps not as distinctly pleasing as those from Cape Diamond itself. From this point the drive would descend by a fairly easy grade and rejoin drive No. 1.
Drive No. 3.-This is rather a formal drive, extending from entrance No. 2 straight to Wolfe's monument, and then bordering the Plains of Abraham to the terrace on which is located the new monument. The grade of this Mr. LEMIEUX.
drive is almost level and will form a good approach to the monument.
Drive No. 4.-Branching from drive No. 1, this would pass through the present location of the arsenal laboratory, and following around the base of the hill would pass below the little hill east of the fulminate of mercury plant, and would then follow along the side of this fairly steep slope below the Martello Tower No. 1, and continuing would pass below the observatory, gradually ascending again to the proposed new monument. In some respects it is to be regretted that this drive cannot be carried more on the upper level and take advantage of the fine views which are to be obtained from such points as those on which are located the Eoss rifle factory and the observatory, but as this seems impossible, the drive has been carried for its entire distance along the side slope, and in many ways you will find this an exceedingly pleasing location. The views differ entirely from these to be had from the upper drives, and there is such a thick natural growth of trees and shrubbery that it will make the drive very interesting, especially if the evenness of this present growth is broken up here and there by the planting of higher growing trees. The distance that this drive follows this side slope is almost a mile, and in order to avoid its becoming monotonous, it will require careful treatment in the way of arranging vistas by planting and other means, so that a succession of interesting views will be obtained rather than a continuous panorama. The construction of this drive will be a little more difficult than that of the other drives,' as there will be a cut and fill for the greater part of the distance.
Diive No. 5.-This would enter the park at the westerly side of the Plains of Abraham and approach the new monument in a formal manner similar to drive No. 3.
Drive No. 6.-This drive would leave the westerly end of the monument terrace, and descending would pass along the brow of the cliff where Capt. Delaune and his band first ascended, and continuing along the brow of the cliff would join the present road leading up from Wolfe's Cove.
Drive No. 7.-You are particularly fortunate in being able to arrange such a fine approach to Ste. Foy park as that given by this boulevard.
Drive No. 8.-A formal drive enters this park from each side of the monument, and fiom the centre branches descend to the lower side of the park by pleasing curves and wind along the edge of the escarpment overlooking the St. Charles valley, thus taking advantage of these magnificent views.
[Stage Direction]
By reference to the plan you will see that walks are shown leading to the various points of interest in the park from the different entrances. It has been my endeavour with the walks, as with the drives, so as to locate them, that they would exhibit the various features of the park to best advantage. Some of these walks in the less used portions of the park would be more pleasingly kept in turf until such time as their use makes gravel walks necessary.

[Stage Direction]
Cape Diamond Shelter.-On Cape Diamond I have suggested a small shelter, as this is perhaps the finest viewpoint in the whole park, and will undoubtedly be very much frequented by those who wish to enjoy these views. In constructing this shelter, I would suggest that it be designed in such a manner as to harmonize with its surroundings, and it seems to me that the best material to use for its construction would be undressed native stone. The base of the shelter could be built entirely of this, and would practically form part of the cape itself, while if part of the piers supporting the roof were also of rustic stone, and the roof covered with red tile there could be just enough colour to provide a pleasing contrast.
Wolfe's Monument.-I do not know how far you would care to go in making i any changes in this monument, shown in photograph No. 8. The shaft itself is pleasing, but the surroundings and setting of the monument are lacking entirely in anything which make it really impressive, or which lend it the dignity such a monument ought to have. Therefore, I would suggest that a formal court or square be laid out about this monument, and that tho monument itself be raised and placed on a base of sufficient proportions to render it more impressive, and at the same time of such design as will harmonize with the present shaft.
New Monument and Terrace-The location suggested on the plan for the new monument seems to me to be the best which could be selected in the entire park. There might be some advantages in having this located on Cepe Diamond, but it would be very difficult to obtain there the necessary formal surroundings which are required to form a proper setting for such a monument, and situated as proposed, it can be seen to advantage from any part of the Plains of Abraham, and will be a distinctive landmark as seen from the water. The proportions of this park are so large, and especially as viewed from the water, that it will be necessary to have the design of this monument sufficiently grand in its proportions to crown this natural slope, and in order to do this, I think the monument itself should stand on a broad terrace from 400 to 608 feet in length, the masonry of which would rise above the existing slope at least 20 feet or high enough to provide a proper base for the monument as viewed from the river. I have suggested that the monument itself occupy the centre of this terrace, and that the terrace be terminated at either end by a low shelter.
Monument des braves.-This monument, photograph No. 9, forms a most effective termination for the approach drive (No. 7). The base of this is better than that of the Wolfe monument, but I would suggest that here also the surrounding fence be removed, and {hat a formal entrance be built about the base.

[Stage Direction]
This is something which is rather outside the scope of this report, and yet the interest of the park depends so much on its history, that tablets and small monuments properly inscribed should be placed wherever necessary, but in all cases I would suggest that
these be kept low, and not intrude unnecessarily into the landscape of the park.,
Whenever the jail is removed from its present location, I think it would be a very pleasing feature to restore the Wolfe redoubt which surmounted this hill.
The old English fortifications on Cape Diamond, although not built until a number of years later, are very interesting and would seem to be worthy of being restored and preserved at least as ruins.
The two martello towers, photographs Nos. 10 and 11, situated not far distant from the Ross rifle factory, are objects of considerable historic interest, and particularly the one situated nearest the river, adds much to the character of the park as viewed from the river, and it seems to me a great sacrilege that this tower should be surmounted by the ugly water tank as it is at present, and moreover the walls of this tower are at present apparently being used as a butt to shoot at in testing rifles, and for a considerable area on the northeast side the stone has been broken away by the continual shooting. Certainly these towers are well worth preserving, and should not be used for such purposes. PLANTING.
I doubt if there is anything in the entire work on your park which will require more care in handling, or which if effectively handled, will do more to enhance the beauty and interest of the park, than the judicious planting of trees. Owing to the fact that the character of this park is so entirely different from that of the ordinary park, and also on account of the desire to retain the features of the topography as historically correct as possible, the amount of planting must be very limited, and must be confined to the borders of the park, with here and there an odd tree to give proper proportions to the views.
I have on this preliminary general plan shown the location of the trees, where it seems to me they should be placed, but before this planting is carried out the whole question should be studied in detail, and the position and variety of trees carefully considered, for the effect of this planting as it reaches maturity will do much to make or mar the appearance of the park. If you could put in the trees just as they are to look when 25 or 50 years old, it would be a comparatively easy matter, but inasmuch as this cannot be done, and the trees have to be put in and allowed to grow to maturity, it is absolutely necessary that they be carefully selected with a. full knowledge of what their effect will be in after years.
In planting in the vicinity of the Citadel, I would suggest using largely the pyramidal-growing Lombardy poplar, for no other tree can add interest to the old fortifications 8S would a few of these characteristic trees. Starting at Entrance No. 1, I would suggest just an odd two or three of these trees between the entrance and Grande Alice. Inside the entrance I would omit the planting against the Citadel wall until you come to the group shown on the plan on the higher ground. This will allow the Citadel wall to be seen to its most striking advantage. Near the entrance I have suggested massing trees and shrubs along the border of the private ' property, and this planting is continued irre-
[Stage Direction]
gularly along the border of the park wherever it is bordered by such property. Along djive No. 1 are proposed a few scattered trees, which should be largely composed of broadspreading native trees such as the Sugar maple. Between drive No. 1 and the wooded slope below the martello tower No. 1, I have suggested very little planting, as it seemed to me more effective and more historically correct to leave this entirely open.
Two groups of trees are shown on Cape Diamond, and although it may be fairly questioned whether these would be historically correct or not, they will do so much towards increasing the interest of this portion of the park and in giving proper scale as viewed from a distance, that I think they should be used.	_	..	, .
The formal planting of trees along the drive leading to Wolfe,s monument, about this court, and along the drives leading to the proposed new monument can be readily understood by reference to the plan, and need9 no additional explanation.
The character of the park from the edge of the upper plateau to the edge of the escarpment is and always lias been so entirely different, that I have suggested here not only retaining the greater part of the existing growth, but re-enforcing it very considerably with the planting of larger growing trees. The arrangement of the trees along this drive will require careful study in order to properly frame in the different vistas, and in order to provide a liberal amount of shade, which is very much to be desired along this drive on account of its being on the southerly slope and sheltered from prevailing winds.
Below the proposed new monument in particular the planting requires very careful treatment in order to add to and not interfere with its effectiveness.
On that portion of the park between the iMerici property and the escarpment, X would suggest using 'largely the native white pine and cedar, in order to restore this as nearly as possible to the conditions that existed when Wolfe gained the ascent at this point.
The trees along the boulevard should he ordinary street trees, which are suitable for your climate, and of which none is probably better than the hard or sugar maple and elm.
In the planting at Ste. Foy park, the chief object will be to provide a formal setting for the monument and needed shade along che walks and drives, and to screen out the adjacent private property.

[Stage Direction]
You have supplied me with a plan drawn by C. E. Gauvin, Esq., dated October 31, 1908, showing lands intended to he acquired by your commission in order to properly carry out your park plans. In addition to tlie requirements as shown on the plan, it 6eems to me quite necessary that the following property should he acquired.
As already mentioned in discussing the main entrance, it will he necessary to procure the property of the skating rink shown in photograph No. 1, in order to make an effective entrance.
Between the present Montcalm street and Wolfe monument, it would seem desirable that lots Nos. 4441 and 4442 should he acquired hack to the line shown on the accompanying plan.
Mr. LEMIETTY
The whole of this area is not absolutely required, but a large portion of it is necessary in order that the drive may properly approach Wolfe's monument, as shown on the plan, and the taking of these lots back to the suggested line makes a much better park boundary than to acquire just enough for the road, and as this entire ground is one of the most important parts of the actual battlefields, and where Wolfe fell mortally wounded, it is of much historic interest.
On both sides of the present entrance to Wolfe's monument it will he necessary to acquire the private property and to tear down the two rather poor houses at present standing here, and shown in photograph No. 4, in order that an effective entrance may be made.
On the Gauvin plan above mentioned, you show a line through the Merici property, the land south of which you intend to take for the purposes of your park. I have been unable to lay out a drive along this escarpment which is entirely satisfactory, without encroaching at some points still further on the Merici property. In order to keep south of the line as now proposed the drive would join the Wolfe's Cove road just where the grade is very had, and in addition a sharp curve is required. If a small additional piece of the Merici property is taken the drive can be located as shown oil the accompanying plan, so that it will form practically a continuation of Gilmore Hill road and escape the greater part of this bad grade. I would, therefore, suggest that the taking the line through the Merici property he changpd as shown on the accompanying plan.
If there is anything in this report or on the plans which I have not made clear, about which you wish additional information, kindly let me know.
Respectfully submitted,
(Sgd.) FREDERICK G. TODD.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this money that is put at the disposal of the commission in the hands of the Receiver General or in the hands of the commission?


Rodolphe Lemieux: In the hands of the commission.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How does it come then that parliament is asked to grant power to the commission to spend their own money?


Rodolphe Lemieux: At the time the commission was created it was provided that not a red cent of the money received from the various parts of the empire should be spent without receiving the sanction of the Dominion parliament, and also of the Governor in Council. With this sanction, the people of the country will have confidence that their money is being properly expended.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Even with the consent of the Governor in Council, if parliament has a right to give authority to use this money for that purpose, it comes under the control of the Crown in such a way as to require the consent of the Governor in Council. Besides that we are either taking or purchasing a highway that, I presume,

will be for all time in the future a charge upon the revenue; it will have to be kept up by the government.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We do not buy it ourselves.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Though it should come to us by wav of gift, we still will be charged with the responsibility of maintaining it tor all time. In addition to that, parliament will likely be invited to give an additional amount to that commission to carry out the purposes which they have in view. I think it would be well to take a little time to consider it.
the commission to make a loan to the to*vn of $15,000, without interest for a certain length of time, after which interest will be paid at the rate of three per cent.
I am very doubtful of the right of parliament to sanction anything of that kind; I do not think it was ever contemplated when this trust was created that an adventure of this kind should be entered upon. If the municipality of Montcalm feels disposed to make a gift let them do so, but for us to authorize a loan by this trust would not be a proper thing. Was not a considerable portion of the money now in hand contributed by the Dominion parliament?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have stated that the moneys belong to the commission. The commission was appointed by parliament, and it was resolved then that_ nothing should be spent towards the acquisition of land or property except it were done under the supervision of the Dominion government. This being a national park, it is well that parliament should have control over the enterprise.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will not this money have to be paid out of the consolidated revenue, and will it not be a charge upon the consolidated revenue, if they commence the undertaking now and acquire property that must of necessity compel them to pay out money in the future?


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is no question but that later on, if the commission comes to parliament to get some further aid towards beautifying or maintaining this park, then such aid will have to be introduced by way of resolution. But in the present case the object is to give legislative sanction to an act of the commission, an act to purchase property with their own funds which they Bold in trust.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Does the proposed purchase include the Ross Rifle factory?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No.
Mr. LENNOX- There are a few points which the minister has not explained fully. First, I would like to know why this matter has been delayed until now. In common with many other members, I _ have very serious objection to matters being rushed through the House when we have not proper time to consider them, and I do not think we have proper time to consider this matter now. I would like to know in the second place what is the urgency for doing it now. Then I would like to know as to the acreage of land it is proposed to acquire, and what is the amount of expense contemplated. I would like a fuller explanation as to the proposal of the town of Montcalm. I understood the minister to say that Montcalm proposed to make a gift, and that in consideration of that gift he wishes to authorize


Rodolphe Lemieux: I shall be glad to state the amount in the hands of the commission on the second or third reading of the Bill. I gather from the hon. member for St. Lawrence division, Montreal (Mr. Bick-erdike), who is a member of the commission, that they have about $300,000 in cash, perhaps a little more.


Haughton Lennox: I want to know if any came from the Dominion government?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly. The laTge portion of that amount came from the various provinces of Canada, but a very large amount from other sections of the empire. As regards the proposed arrangement with the town of Montcalm, I shall read a letter which I have received from Sir George Garneau, president of the commission, who
says:
As to the proposed loan of a sum not exceeding $15,000 to the town of Montcalm, the position is as follows:
It was at first intended to connect the two battlefields, of the Plains of Abraham and of Ste. Foy, by widening the present Belvidere road and making it one of the Park avenues and authority to acquire the necessary land on the east side of the Belvidere road for the purpose of widening was granted by 7-8 Edward VII, chapter 58, schedule No. 6. The acquiring of this land would have cost over $19,000. The commissioners now propose to open a new avenue instead of utilizing the Belvidere road, which new avenue will be in line with the Ste. Foy monument and will greatly improve the general scheme of the park. The municipality of the town of Montcalm has agreed to give to the commission the land required for the proposed avenue on condition that the avenue be built and maintained, as a part of the National Battlefields Park, by the commission. As his municipality is called upon at present o make heavy disbursement on capital account for the laying of water and drainage pipes in the rapidly extending parts of the town, which practically absorbs its borrowing powers, the commission has agreed to advance the amount required for the purchase of the right of way from the private holders on the condition that the municipality cede it to the commission and reimburse the amount by annual instalments extending over thirty years with interest at

the rate of 3 per cent, subject to the approval of parliament. This is the power that is prayed for by article 3 of the proposed Bill. The net result as far as the commission (and the public) is concerned is that instead of paying over $19,000 for the land required to widen the Belvddere road it will get the land for the new avenue gratuitously and build and maintain the avenue in either case.
So it is, in my judgment, a good transaction which is being made by the commission. A few days ago I met two of the commissioners, Mr. Denison of Toronto and Sir Edmund Byron Walker. Sir Edmund Walker stated to the Prime Minister, the Finance Minister and myself that he considered this a great improvement on the first scheme to widen the Belvidere road, because it is in a straight line between the Ste. Foye monument and the Plains of Abraham. I do not think any exception should be taken because the commission take the proper precaution of coming before parliament to get the necessary sanction.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: What about the urgency?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The tercentenary of Quebec took place in 1908. We are now in 1911. This is the remaining portion of the lands necessary to begin the beautifying, and embellishment of the park. The commission have engaged Mr. Todd, the landscape architect, on the suggestion of the Dominion government, and he has made a very lengthy report which my hon. friend will read in * Hansard ' to-morrow. The people who have subscribed for the acquisition and beautifying of the battlefields naturally wish to know what has been done with their money, and it Is time to start vigorously in order that the work may be accomplished without undue loss of time.


George Taylor: The government knew this three months ago.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This has been before me for some time. The Prime Minister had to introduce the Bill at some time during the session, and I do not think any time has been lost.


George Taylor: It is six months to-day since the House met.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is nothing in this Bill which is controversial.


Haughton Lennox: Does the minister consider that the proposed arrangement with the village of Montcalm comes within the terms of trust created some years ago?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly, and the very reason that the commission applied to parliament for the sanction of their operations is that they can do by this Act of parliament what they cannot do of their own Mr. LENNOX.
authority. Any transaction of the commission whether by way of loan or sale or purchase must come before parliament.


Haughton Lennox: We created a commission for the disbursement of money for specific purposes, and they have no right to go into an extraneous matter. Have they the right to begin to loan money?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Is it not one way of acquiring land?


Rodolphe Lemieux: They might acquire the land by loan or by payment of cash. I will explain on the third reading.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I raise no objection now to the form of procedure, but I shall ask the ruling of Air. Speaker later on.


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

Mr. PUGSLEY moved:: That the House do to-morrow go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution.
Resolved, that it is expedient to ratify and confirm an agreement between the-Collingwood Shipbuilding Company, Limited, and His Majesty, dated the 27th day of July, 1910, respecting the construction of a dry dock at the town of Collingwood, and to authorize the Governor in Council to pay an annual subsidy of three per cent per annum for 20 years upon the sum of $306,965.18 being the cost of the construction of the dry dock.
He sail:	His Excellency the Governor
General having been apprised of the subject matter of this resolution recommends it to the favourable consideration of tha House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. GRAHAM moved:: That the House-do to-morrow go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolutions:
Whereas, by chapter 25, of the statutes of 1910, it was provided that the Minister of Railways and Canals might, subject to the terms and conditions therein contained, lease lines of railway connecting with the government railways and operate them as a part of the government railways, but no leases have been made under the said Act:	and
whereas it is deemed advisable to make the provisions hereinafter contained for the leasing of the undermentioned line of railway.. Therefore it is resolved that it is expedient1 that the Minister of Railways and Canals be authorized, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to lease for a term not exceeding 99 rears the following line of railway, namely: -The Yale railway, property of the Acadia

Coal Company, Limited, extending from New Glasgow to Thorburn, in the province of Nova Scotia, a distance of about six miles, upon terms and conditions to be approved of by the government railways managing board; provided, however, that the consideration b.v way of rental for such line of railway shall be an annual rental of one dollar and the carriage of the traffic of the company, its successors and assigns, upon the line of railway to be leased and upon the government railways, and between points to be designated and at rates not in excess of maximum fixed rates for 9uch carriage between such points, such fixed rates to be subject to a provision for revision of such rates at the end of each period of 10 years during the continuation of the lease.
Such railway so leased shall become and be operated as a part of the government railway.
And the following:
Whereas, by chapter 25, of the statutes of 1910, it was provided that the Minister of Railways and Canals might subject to tin terms and conditions therein contained, lease lines of railway connecting with the government railways and operate them as a part of the government railways but no leases have been made under the said Act, and whereas it is deemed advisable to make the provisions hereinafter contained for the leasing of certain of such lines of railway. Therefore it is resolved, that it is expedient that the Minister of Railways and Canals be authorized, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to lease for a term not exceeding 99 years, any of the following lines of railway, namely:
The Quebeo Oriental railway, extending from Matapedia to Paspebiac, a distance of about one hundred miles;
The Hampton and St. Martins railway, extending from Hampton to St. Martins, a distance of about thirty miles;
The Albert railway, extending from Salisbury to Albert, a distance of about forty-five miles;
The Moncton and Buctouche railway, extending from Moncton to Buctouche, a distance of about twenty-eight miles;
The Caraquet railway and Gulf Shore railway, together extending from Bathurst to Tracadie, a distance of about eiglity-five miles;
The York and Carleton railway, extending from Cros9 Creek to and beyond Stanley, a distance of about ten miles;
The International railway, extending from Campbellton to the St. John valley at St. Leonards, a distance of about one hundred and thirteen miles;
The Cape Breton railway, extending from Point Tupper to St. Peters, a distance of about thirty miles;
The Temiscouata railway, extending fron Riviere du Loup to Connors, a distance of about one hundred and thirteen miles;
The New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island railway, extending from Sackville Junction to Cape Tormenting, a distance of about thirty miles;
The Elgin and Havelock railway, extending from Elgin to Havelock, a distance of about twenty-eight miles;
The Kent Northern railway, extending from Kent Junction to Richibucto, a distance of about twenty-seven miles;
Including the company's rolling stock in each case.
Upon terms and conditions to be approved of by the Government Railways Managing Board, provided, however, that the rental to be paid for each such line of railway shall in no case exceed an amount to be determined in the following manner, that is to say, the value of the railway proposed to be leased shall be fixed and determined by the judge of the Exchequer ^ Court of Canada, upon the report of the chief engineer of the government railways, based upon the examination of the railway by, and the report of the engineer appointed by the Department of Railways and Canals to inspect such railway during construction, such value also to include interest during construction, the cost of equipping the railway, the cost of terminals and right of way of the railway now in use in the operation of the said railway in any city or incorporated town, (the amount of such interest during construction, the co9t of equipping the railway, the cost of terminals and of right of way of the railway in any city or incorporated town to be fixed by such judge upon proper and sufficient evidence) and deducting therefrom any aid received from the government of Canada towards the construction of such railway, and also deducting such amount, if any, as may, in the opinion of the said chief engineer, be necessary to put any such line of railway in a safe and efficient condition.
Except that in the case of railways which have, since their construction, either through sale, foreclosure proceedings, transfer of shares of stock or securities, become either wholly or substantially the property of other companies or persons, at a cost less than the original cost thereof with the deduction aforesaid, then the value of such last mentioned railways shall for rental purposes hereunder, be determined by such judge upon evidence of, and shall be based upon the amounts actually paid by the present owners for such line of railway, shares and securities, respectively. Such judge shall, in the case of the railways last above mentioned, make a report showing the amounts pai I for such railways and their rolling stock, shares and securities, respectively, and the owners thereof, as of date of April 1, Mil. After receiving the report and finding of such judge, the Minister of Railways may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, lease any of said lines of railway and pay therefor, for the first five years of the term of the lease, an amount as rental not exceeding three per cent per annum on such value so fixed by such judge; for the next five years 0f the term of the lease an amount not exceeding three and one-half per cent per annum on such value; and thereafter during the term of the lease an amount not exceeding four per cent per annum on such value, such rental to be paid half-yearly.
Nothing herein shall be deemed to require the taking over of any of the said railways if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, having regard to the convenience of the public or the interests of the Intercolonial railway, the terms and conditions proposed by the company are not fair and reasonable.
Any such line so leased shall become and be operated as part of the government railways.

He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General having been apprised of the subject matter of these resolutions.' recommends them to the favourable consideration of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. CROCKET.: I am informed that the Marine Department has notified the collector of customs at Dalhousie not to collect pilotage on vessels carrying pulpwood from Dalhousie to Portland. Is the department of opinion that under the terms of the Shipping Act these vessels are exempt from pilotage dues, or, has the department power to exempt from pilotage dues vessels which under the Act are liable to pay?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will make inquiry and give an answeT at three o'clock.



CORONATION STAMPS.

Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Has the Postmaster General any announcement to make in reference to the coronation stamps?


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is under way at present.



UNITED STATES TAX ON CANADIAN SHIPPING.

Mr. G. H.: BARNARD (Victoria, B.C.) I call the attention of the government to the following article published in the Victoria * Daily Colonist ' of May 10, 1911:
A Bill aimed at Canadian shipping under which the coasting steamers plying to the United States ports will be called upon to pay a tonnage tax ranging from 10 cents a ton on vessels of the usual coasting type, to 50 cents a ton on steamers from 4,000 to 8,000 tons register has been introduced at Washington. This is one of two Bills introduced and aimed against Canadian and British shipping. The Bill introduced by Mr. Rucker, of Colorado, contains the following clause.
'Every vessel not of the United States that shall arrive direct from her own country, its colony, or possession, in ballast or merchandise produced there, or with passengers in a less portion than one-third of her burden or capacity, for freight or passengers as aforesaid, shall pay a duty on the gross measurement in addition to the regular duty imposed by law, as follows:	On all vessels
not exceeding 2,000 tons, 10 cents per ton: not exceeding 2,400 tons, 25 cents per ton; between 4,000 and 8,000 tons, 50 cents a ton: between 8,000 and 12,000 tons 75 cents a ton; between 12,000 and 16,000 tons, $1 a ton; between 16,000 and 20,000 tons, $1.25 a ton; exceeding 20,000 tons, $1.25 a ton.'
Under this law, if it comes into effect, the local steamers of the Canadian Pacific railway trading to Seattle would have to pay a tonnage tax of 10 cents a ton, which, in the case of the ' Princess Charlotte ' of 1,925 tons register, would be $192.50 per trip, and the ' Princess Victoria ' would be mulcted $43.30 a trip. The steamers plying to Alaskan Mr. GRAHAM.
ports would also suffer from this law. The Blue Funnel liners and the Weir liners would suffer, being called upon to pay 75 cents a ton for they rarely have passengers to the extent of their tonnage. The Japanese liners, by touching at Victoria, would escape under this law, as by making a call at Victoria, they do not go direct from their home country, but the Japanese lines plying to San Francisco from the Orient would suffer.
Another Bill, introduced into the United States senate on April 20 last, by Mr. Gore, provides that, 'on and after July 1st next, all alien immigrants coming to the United States from any foreign country other than an adjacent country shall be required to embark upon a vessel of American register at a seaport of the country of which he is a lawful citizen, or subject, and of which he has been resident for two years.'
Here is another clause of the same Bill: 'Any and all vessels may be entitled to admission to registry in the United States for the purposes of this Act without regard to the place of construction, and without any requirements as to ownership, except that a majority interest of such vessels shall be owned by citizens of the United States.
This means that no immigrants are in future to be allowed to go to the United States through Canadian ports or by Canadian lines. How immigrants can be brought across the Pacific for the United States under this law is hard to see, for there is but one steamer flying the United States flag in the North Pacific ocean trade, the Min" nesota, which makes about five trips a year.
If these measures receive official sanction at Washington, local transportation men are expecting they will be followed up by measures equally prohibitive in Canadian railways doing an international business. A start has already been made by including in the first Act above mentioned a clause exempting from the operation of the interstate commerce commission and the Sherman AntiTrust Act, freight brought to the United States in American ships.
I would like to ask the government if they have any knowledge of the introduction of these Acts, and if it is their intention to make representations to Washington that they would be, if passed, an undue discrimination against British and Canadian ships?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have no information at present in regard to such Acts; but if there is any truth in the statements published by this paper, I am quite sure that the government will make the necessary representations.



THE BRITISH COLUMBIA MILITIA.

Mr. GOODEVE.: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to call the attention of the acting Minister of Militia- to some articles which are appearing in some of the western daily papers. The first article is from the Nelson ' Daily News ' of April 20, and is headed: ' Go to Kamloops Camp or Resign; Situation of Officers in 102nd Regiment; Allege Neglect by Department.' The article says:

'Go to Kamloops on June 5 or resign/ exactly represents the situation in Nelson as regards the order which has been issued l>v Colonel Wadmore, D.O.C., to the effect that the 102nd Regiment shall go into camp on that date; and the unanimous decision of the officers of the regiment as far as can be gathered is that the latter is the only step which they can take.
Further on the article says:
Another point over which there is the greatest dissatisfaction is the drill hall. The armoury here was originally built to accommodate but one company. There are now two companies, a Maxim gun section, a stretcher bearer section, a signalling section, a bugle band and all their equipment. Last year a special store room was obtained by the regimental staff, but this, it is claimed, is far too small to accommodate all the equipment which has to be piled in, more or less discriminately, something after the junkshop manner. The regiment contended that the new rooms are needed for the Maxim gun detachment, for the stretcher bearer corps, for the signallers and for armoury purposes for 'C' Company. For over three years efforts have been made to induce the department to make these improvements with the net result that promises have been given and plans approved but nothing more tangible accomplished.
A little further on, under the heading of ' Ludicrous State of Affairs,' the article says:
A ludicrous feature of the neglect with which the regiment is said to be treated, and the general mismanagement at headquarters which is alleged, is that of clothing. It was learned during the past few days that if the regiment turned out to-morrow some of the men would be without coats, others would be without trousers, and others would be without caps. An instance of this mismanagement is that in 1907 the officers of the regiment were told that they were entitled in 1908 to 2i great coats, while none of these promised coats have arrived so far.
But that was a minor matter compared with the trouble that commenced after the general order was issued in September, 1909, that the green uniforms which up to that time were worn by the Canadian militia, were cancellerl and that they were to be replaced by khaki clothing.
After several months of patient waiting on the part of the local officers, the clothing began to come along from headquarters in driblets, usually in very small and mixed driblets. For instance, one consignment consisted of four caps, eighteen pairs of trousers and five frocks. This varied assortment, naturally, was just sufficient to furnish four men, though one other might have gone on parade nicely dressed but with a bare head, while It others would have made a fine soldierly picture in their undershirts, caps and trousers and without any frocks.
Then, a paper of May 11, just to hand, represents that the dissatisfaction with this state of affairs has reached the climax. Above the article is a picture of Sir Frede-292
rick Borden, and it has these headings: ' Headquarters Officers Hand in Resignations; Officers of Other Units of Regiment Expected to Follow Suit; Ottawa Stands by District Officer Commanding.' Then it goes on to say:
The commissioned officers of the 102nd
regiment R. M. R., in Nelson, which means all the officers of the headquarters establishment comprising 'B' and 'C' companies, Maxim gun section, stretcher bearer section, signalling section, and regimental staff, are resigning as a body, as a protest against the refusal of the Militia Department to pay the regiment for the drill and training of 1910-11. Many of the officers handed in their resignations yesterday, for transmission to the proper quarter, and it is undertsood that the balance will hand them in to-day. The drill and training of 1910-11 was duly performed, both by the headquarters establishment and by the companies in the other towns, but Colonel AVadmore, the new district officer commanding, both refused to grant the inspection requested and refused to allow pay. AVhile this is not the chief ground on which nearly all units in the regiment have refused to attend the annual drill and training ordered for Kamloops in June, it is one oi the grounds, and it is one of the sorest points with the 102nd.
There are reasons for believing that the officers of the companies at Rossland, Kaslo, Revelstoke and Kamloops are about to resign also, on the same ground that serves the officers of the headquarters establishment.
The article then gives a list of the officers. At the time of the trouble in South Africa, no regiment was more prompt in offering its services than this regiment, and no men did better service than the men from these western contingents, and they seem to have a very just ground of complaint.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman cannot discuss the matter on the orders of the day.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I merely wish to ask what action the denartment intends to take with regard to the resignation of these officers?


Mr. KING.: If the hon. gentleman will let me have the clippings which he has read, I will inquire in the department and endeavour to get the information.



PETAAVAWA MILITARY CAMP.

George Gerald King: Yesterday the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. White) asked a question in regard to the military buildings at the Petawawa camp, which had . been destroyed by fire. For his information I beg to say that the buildings were destroyed on the 11th instant. Two buildings at Petawawa camp grounds, the supply and ordnance buildings, were burnt, the fire having originated from lightning. The fire occurred about five o'clock in the



morning, and notwithstanding the fact that within a very short time two streams of water were playing on the buildings, they and their contents were completely burnt, there being a very high wipd blowing at the time. The loss by this fire is approximately as follows: Buildings, $6,000; stores $9,000; a total of $15,000. It is the intention of the department to rebuild these buildings, at least one of them, at once, and probably both.


Mr. WHITE (Renfrew).: Was there any insurance?


George Gerald King: The memorandum does not say.



THE FESTIVAL OF EMPIRE.

Mr. MARTIN BURRELL.: Mr. Speaker, on Monday night, in answer to a question of the hon. leader of the opposition, the hon. Minister of Agriculture said that he had cabled to England and expected to get a report with regard to the withdrawal of the Battle of Chateauguay from the Pageant of the Festival of the Empire. I notice in this morning's paper the following press dispatch:
London, May 16.-Frank Lascelles, master of the Festival of the Empire pageant, in an interview to-day with reference to the strictures in the Canadian parliament because of the omission of the Battle of Chateauguay, said it was a storm in a teacup. The abandonment of the scene, he asserted was not due to fear of American feeling, but the result of the conclusion reached by the Canadian committee that the episode was not typical of Canadian life.
I might say that the day before yesterday I received the following letter on this subject:
St. James Street, S. W.
Royal Societies Club,
5th May, 1911.
My dear Sir,-As the author of the scene 'Chateauguay' which was to have been presented at the Festival of the Empire Pageant, I have read your remarks as I find them reported by cable in the 'Times' with very great interest.
At the same time, I should be extremely obliged to you if you would take some occasion to make it publicly known that Lord Strathcona was no party to the suppression of this most picturesque scene.
Several Canadians on the committee feared that the scene, in which a number of American soldiers were to have been represented, might be exaggerated by the Yellow Press of both countries and thereby cause ill feeling most undesirable in connection with such a Festival. For that reason we withdraw it.
Believe me, dear sir,
Faithfully yours, BECKLES WILLSON.
I make no comment except to add that I thoroughly sympathize with the views Mr. KING.
expressed by the leader of the oposition, and can only regret the withdrawal of a feature which should have roused no resentment on anybody's part.



THE VICTORIA MUSEUM.

Mr. OWEN.: Some days ago I drew the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the condition of the new museum building in this city, and I notice in the Ottawa 'Citizen' this morning that the crack is still widening. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance, who is leading the House, to this, and ask him if he considers the building safe.


An hon. MEMBER.: How wide is the crack now?


Charles Lewis Owen: Forty-six feet ten inches.


William Stevens Fielding: No doubt when the period referred to by the 'Citizen' arrives, I expect the Minister of Public Works will be still here to answer the question.



DAM ON THE MISSISSIPPI.

Mr. THOBURN.: Before the orders of the day are called I would like to ask the attention of the acting Minister of Marine (Mr. Lemieux) to a letter I have received from a resident in my riding, complaining about a dam built at a place called Galetta on the Mississippi, which destroys the fishing. The letter is as follows:
Almonte, May 9, 1911.
Dear Sir,-Excuse my liberty to ask would you kindly have fishways looked into and provided from the mouth of the Mississippi river to at least Carleton Place lake you could not provide a much greater blessing for the people of the surrounding country.
I may say that the dam complained of is built near the mouth of the Mississippi river which empties into the Ottawa river about a mile or two from where this dam is located, and it is utterly impossible for fish to come out of the Ottawa and up the Mississippi on account of that dam. That dam is built for power purposes, and for supplying light to the town of Arnprior, and is situated about four miles from the village of Galetta. If the hon. minister will look into that, he will confer a great favour on a large number of people who have the pleasure of living along the Mississippi river.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand from my hon. friend (Mr. Thoburn) that the people are willing to have the dam, but now they want to have it tempered by a blessing. While it might be in my power to give a dam, I am not quite so sure that I could give the desired blessing.



DISTRIBUTING SPEECHES BY POSTMASTERS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds)-. Might I ask the Postmaster General whether the report, which comes to me on reliable authority, that copies of speeches of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are being sent out in bundles to post offices, and the postmasters are instructed to distribute them, is well founded. I put this question the other day and would like to have a reply.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Unfortunately I was at a funeral yesterday and did not hear the question.


George Taylor: It was put on Monday.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No such instructions are given postmasters. Hon. members on both sides can send out literature, but the postmasters have no right to distribute it.


George Taylor: But if they are doing it?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Then they are acting contrary to instruction.


George Taylor: If it he proved that they are doing it, will the Postmaster dismiss them?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would certainly warn any postmaster who did anything of the kind. Some of them may have done it through ignorance. I warn them publicly now that they have no right to distribute for anybody literature sent to them.


Mr. LALOR.: Was it due to ignorance on the part of the gentlemen who sent out the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister?


Rodolphe Lemieux: It may have been due to ignorance on the part of some postmasters, but they have their instructions and ought to know their duty.


Mr. BLAIN.: Would the publisher of a newspaper such as the Toronto 'Globe' have the right to send bundles of that paper to country postmasters and have them placed in the post office boxes without being addressed?


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is quite different. A postmaster may receive a list of subscribers from the proprietor of a newspaper and distribute the newspapers according to that list. Some times there is no time to address the newspapers and they are sent in bundles so as to catch the early train, but the usual way is to label each newspaper.


Richard Blain: Can the publisher of a newspaper send a hundred copies to a country postmaster to be distributed by him to people who are not subscribers?
292}


Rodolphe Lemieux: No.


Richard Blain: That was done in the general elections, I think. It was done in my own town with the Toronto 'Globe,' and that is why I asked the question. I understand the Postmaster General to say that no newspaper can send a bundle to a country postmaster to be circulated to people who are not subscribers?


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is against the post office regulations. They can only be sent to bona fide subscribers who have paid their subscriptions, and are entered on the list. No postmaster is allowed to distribute bundles of newspapers which are not regularly subscribed for.


Richard Blain: Suppose they call it a sample copy.


Rodolphe Lemieux: A sample copy is allowed, but there are rules governing sample copies. No one has the right to send a bundle of papers to a postmaster to be distributed to people who are not subscribers. The postmaster must be given a bona fide subscription list, otherwise he is not allowed to distribute the newspapers and the proprietor is liable under the law.


Richard Blain: It might be well for the hon. minister to issue a circular to his postmasters notifying them to that effect.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend will find that in black and white in the Post Office guide.


Richard Blain: But the minister might send a little reminder to the public.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I give that reminder now, that it is done.


Mr LENNOX.: Is there any regulation by which a newspaper publisher has the Tight to send a list of his subscribers, and then send a bundle of newspapers not individually addressed, and have the postmaster open that bundle and distribute the newspapers according to the list?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No. That is against the regulations.


Haughton Lennox: I would like to ask another question. The Postmaster General intimated a few moments ago that he knows that this is sometimes done, but not very generally. Does not the minister think it his duty to see that it is not done?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly.


Haughton Lennox: Will he do it?


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is not a criminal offence. Take a case in point. Suppose the Ottawa ' Citizen ' or the Ottawa ' Free Press,' wishes to serve a place, and to serve it must catch a particular train. When the time comes to

catch that train, they have only 200 or 300 papers printed. I asked the hon. member (Mr. Lennox), would it be human in me to prosecute the ' Citizen ' for that when it is done in good faith. This is a regulation for the protection of the department and public, but it must be administered in good faith.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. minister asked me a question, I would like to answer it.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I am afraid I cannot allow the debate


Haughton Lennox: The minister asks a question.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: But there must be a stop put to it somewhere.


Haughton Lennox: May I not answer the question?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It is against the rules to continue


Rodolphe Lemieux: As I put the question I would like the hon. gentleman to have an opportunity to answer it.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The only difficulty is that if I grant permission to one member I cannot refuse it to others.


Haughton Lennox: Very well, I will take it up later.



CANADIAN NORTHERN ONTARIO RAILWAY-GUARANTEE OF BONDS.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 211) to grant certain aid towards construction of the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company-Mr. Graham.
On section 1,
1. His Majesty, on behalf of the Dominion of Canada (hereinafter called 'the Government') may aid and assist the construction and completion by the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company (hereinafter called 'the Company') of a line of railway extending from the city of Montreal, in the province of Quebec, to the city of Port Arthur, in the province of Ontario, including the mileage of the line (lying between the said points) 'already in part constructed by the company and by the Canadian Northern Quebec Railway Company extending from a point in the province of Quebec opposite the town of Hawkes-bury to Rideau Junction, west of Ottawa, in the province of Ontario, and including the line already constructed by the company extending from a point in the township of Cap-reol, in the province of Ontario, to or near Sellwood Junction, by guaranteeing the principal and interest of -the bonds, debentures, debenture stock or other securities (hereinafter called 'the guaranteed securities') of the company, to the extent of thirty-five thousand dollars per mile of the said line of railway so aided, which guaranteed securities to the extent aforesaid, the company is here-Mr. LEMIEUX.
by authorized to create and issue; interest on the guaranteed securities to be at the rate of three and one-half per cent per annum, payable half yearly; the principal to be payable in fifty years from the passing of this Act. The government may, subject to the provisions of this Act, enter into a contract with the company fixing the terms and conditions upon which the guarantee is given and of the security to be taken therefor.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: The minister (Mr. Graham), stated that the route would be given more definitely in the Bill than in the resolution. But that is not the case.


George Perry Graham: I did say to my hon. friend that I thought perhaps it would be more definitely stated. But, in looking over it, I do not see how we can state it more definitely. The route has to be approved by the Railway Department with final approval by the Railway Commission. I gave the route in a general way, and it cannot vary very far from the line I mentioned the other day, and as given in the resolution.


Robert Laird Borden: That, I suppose, is more or less a formal matter. You never find the Railway Commission varying very much from the general line of the route proposed.


George Perry Graham: About a mile perhaps- they cannot vary very much.


Robert Laird Borden: Therefore, there does not seem to be very much ground in that contention. This is rather important because the preamble of the Bill declares that among other objects this railway is for the purpose of opening up, and developing portions of the country as yet without railway facilities. The Bill states one terminus as being in Port Arthur and the other in Montreal. Rideau Junction is named, and also a line of railway partly constructed. But otherwise the route seems to be entirely indefinite as between Port Arthur, on the west, and Monteral on the east. If the object is to open up and develop the country now without railway facilities, one would suppose that the route would be stated, and that looking at the Bill we could see that the preamble is carried out by the terms of the' enactment.


George Perry Graham: The route, as I stated it the other day, is as definite as it could be made until we come to actual location. The charter _ of the company states where they can build. Beginning at Port Arthur, as I outlined the other day, that part


Robert Laird Borden: The minister need not go over that again. When we come to deal with the realities of the situation, the company will be bound by the Bill, and not by the minister's speech.

Therefore, his explanation does not put us very much further along. My point is that there should be something in the Bill binding the company as to the route, since the alleged purpose is to give railway facilities to portions of the country that are not yet provided therewith.


George Perry Graham: To fix the route in the Bill would mean, that, if there were engineering difficulties the road could not be built. As a matter of fact the route of this road has to be approved by the Railway Department before the company can start construction, the final location has-to be approved by the Board of Railway Commissioners. I do not see how we can describe it more particularly in the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand you cannot point to a single county in Ontario through which the road must run, according to the terms of the Bill.
to pass this Bill until the location is better defined. The Railway Commission can deviate, but they must have something ter deviate from, and there is nothing in thff Bill to guide them. I would not tie the company to an exact location within a mile or so, but we certainly should say it should pass through certain named parishes, townships or counties.


George Perry Graham: In the old settled country it is easy to do that, but this line will run through territory that has never been opened up, and it is difficult to describe it. You might put something in the Bill that .would prevent the building of the road at all if it "were restricted in that way, when you come to approve of the route map. There has to be some discretion left to the department in approving of a particular route through such territory, else you may defeat the object we have in mind.


George Perry Graham: I presume there is nothing in the statute which says they must rur to certain points except that they must gr to Ottawa, Hawkesbury, Carillon, Montreal and Port Arthur. The department will certainly locate the line along the most feasible and practicable route. The company intends to run through Renfrew, Nipissing, and all through that country to within sixty miles of Port Arthur, when they get closer to the Canadian Pacific railway.


Robert Laird Borden: How near does the road approach the other lines if that intention is carried out?


George Perry Graham: The Canadian Pacific railway skirts the Ottawa river, and this road will cross the Ottawa into the province of Quebec, and will return in the locality of Portage du Fort, and then it will go to the town of Beachburg. There are points where it will be 10 miles from the Canadian Pacific Railway, and other points where it will be 40 or 50 miles away. On the way to Pembroke it will go through territory not touched by the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Mr. LANCASTER.: The Railway Committee would not grant a charter for such an indefinite location as this.


George Perry Graham: They have a charter.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why should not this company, which is heavily subsidized by the people, define more particularly the route, as indicated by the Minister of Railways in his remarks?


George Perry Graham: Even the minister cannot deviate from the charter of the company.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We should not involve the credit of the country in helping a railway, the location of which is * so indefinite. I do not think we should be asked


Haughton Lennox: This line is about 1,000 miles long, between Montreal and Port Arthur, and whilst some of that territory is new, its physical features are fairly well known. We inferred from what the minister said that there have been explorations sufficient to enable the company to know pretty well the cost per mile of building this line, and there appears to be sufficient data to move the government to give a guarafltee of $35,000 per mile. The minister should at least have defined in this Act certain points through which it will pass, so that we may know that we are promoting the building of a railway through a country which it is desirable to open up.


George Perry Graham: Let the clause stand and we will see if it can be better defined.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there anything in the Bill which fixes the outside mileage that we guarantee? Are we sure that the road will not be 1,500 miles instead of 1,000?


George Perry Graham: There is a clause in the Bill which says that the decision of the Governor in Council as to the mileage shall be absolute.


Haughton Lennox: That is only as to the measurement.


George Perry Graham: It does not say so.


Haughton Lennox: It certainly means that.


George Perry Graham: Possibly it does. However, the approximate distance is one thousand miles and the department would not be so negligent as to let them build all around the country.


Haughton Lennox: There should be a limit in the Bill saying ' not exceeding ' a certain distance.


Robert Laird Borden: It is rather unusual to ask a guarantee at the rate of so much per mile for an indefinite mileage.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You should say not
exceeding so many miles.


George Perry Graham: It would be easy enough to do that.


Haughton Lennox: It is rumoured that instead of being 1,000 miles it was 1,200 miles.


George Perry Graham: I have never heard of that.


Haughton Lennox: There is a lot of information on this side of the House that you never heard of.
On section 2,


John Graham Haggart: How is the security that the government takes to be paid out to the railway company?


George Perry Graham: The proceeds of the sales of the guaranteed stock are placed to the credit of the government and are paid out from time to time upon the certificate of the government engineers.


John Graham Haggart: That would mean a thorough survey by the government as to the quantities taken out and the estimates. If you fix the price the parties are to get for the material removed you can pay out as the work proceeds, but unless all that is provided for I do not see how you can guard yourselves.


William Stevens Fielding: The guarantee being for so much per mile, all that would be necessary to see to would be that that amount of money was expended on fair and reasonable terms on the mileage as respects which the certificate is given. We have nothing specifically to do with the terms of the contracts, but if the prices were excessive or unreasonable or did not represent a bona fide expenditure, the government engineer would certainly not certify them. I think that is the- only check we have. The contracts made between the company and the contractors are not matters directly under our control.


John Graham Haggart: The danger is this:	Suppose a construction company is
formed by the same parties who own the railway; the railway company enters into an arrangement with the construction company, as nearly every railway company does, for the purpose of getting this road constructed. The prices may be fancy prices. The security of the government may amount to double the actual cost of the work. The amount paid goes into fhe hands of the construction company. The necessity then arises for the government to have an exact valuation of the work done and Mr. LENNOX.
the exact quantities, and to pay out the money on these securities just as they would pay out cash on a contract of their own.


William Stevens Fielding: The government do not pay out securities at all. The securities are sold in the market, and the proceeds are placed to the credit of the government, and are then paid out from time to time on the certificate of the government engineer.


Haughton Lennox: Does the government exercise any supervision over the payments to contractors? Does it see that the contractors have been paid before it releases the money?


George Perry Graham: There is a clause in the contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company providing that the material that goes into the road must be paid for. Cases have arisen in which sub-eontraetoTs have run bills for materials that did not go into the road, and the government engineers have held up the money until an attempt has been made to have a settlement of these bills. Some of them have been found collectable under the contract and others not.


Haughton Lennox: Suppose that contractors either for work or for material had a lien on the road for a large amount of money that was1 owing to them, it would be necessary that the government should take note of all that in releasing this money.


George Perry Graham: I think that would be a part of the agreement with the company. If we are paying public money or going security, we ought to know that there would be no lien prior to the government security.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That should apply not only to the contractors, but to the workmen. The contractors might get the money and not pay the men.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.
On section 3,


William Sora Middlebro: In the case of a contractor or subcontractor who has not paid for material or labour, and where a lien is filed against the railway, what precaution is taken to see that the lien is discharged?


George Perry Graham: I am informed that workmen cannot enforce a lien against a railway. We proteot, however all these interests in our guarantee contract just as we do in our subsidy contract. We insert a clause providing that if claims are made against any of the contractors for material or labour, these must be paid or we retain a certain amount until they are settled.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That applies to subcontractors as well?


George Perry Graham: Yes, it applies to all the labour and material that goes into the work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You are only mortgaging the bonds, and I would assume that the company sells the bonds and realizes the money.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then the money is in the hands of the company.


George Perry Graham: No, the bonds are sold and the money is deposited with the Receiver General, and is released from time to time as the work progresses on the certificate of the engineer in the Railway Department.


Robert Laird Borden: There are two matters which should be had in mind. One is that the proceeds of the bonds guaranteed shall be applied to the purpose for which the guarantee was given. These proceeds, I understand, are taken charge of by the Finance Department, and the department pays out the money according to the amount of work performed, upon the report of its own engineer, reserving a certain amount to meet any contingency.


George Perry Graham: That is right.


Robert Laird Borden: The other thing necessary is to insure that subcontractors, and contractors under them, and the men employed shall be paid, and that no contractor shall retain money which ought to be paid out for material and work. From what the Minister of Finance has said, I take it that that point is pretty well covered, though I am not quite sure.


George Perry Graham: We make a contract with the company as to this guarantee, and we put in that contract a section which protects the working men and those who supply material either to contractors or subcontractors, and the department reserves the right to retain funds until these demands are settled.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand from the Minister of Finance that his department takes precautions to the end that these moneys shall be applied only to the purposes for which the guarantee is granted.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: That is ascertained by the examination and report of the engineer of the Railway Department?


George Perry Graham: Quite so.
On section 10,


Mr. REID (Grenville).: Does the government hold all this money until work is commenced, and then pay it out according to the work being done?


George Perry Graham: As the Finance Minister explained a few moments ago, the bonds are disposed of and the money is deposited with the Receiver General and paid out as the work proceeds, on the certificate of the engineer, and the auditing of the books by the auditor.
On section 13,


William Sora Middlebro: What is the penalty?


George Perry Graham: As I said the other night, I am still of the same opinion, that we have done the utmost that can be done in order to encourage trade through Canadian ports. I do not think that any penalty you can place there will help the situation in the least.
On section 14,


George Perry Graham: I move that after the words ' Port Arthur ' we insert the words ' Ottawa.' That will give us three chief terminals.


Robert Laird Borden: Why do you put that in the disjunctive? You say that the company is bound to consent to an order providing for use by the government or by such other railway company ' of the terminals at Port Arthur -or Montreal.' It is meant to include both, is it not?


George Perry Graham: We will say * Port Arthur, Ottawa and Montreal, or either.'


John Graham Haggart: What are the terminals used for the Intercolonial in Montreal? If I remember rightly, there is a joint ownership between the Grand Trunk railway and the Intercolonial, and the expenses are paid according to the user. Who are the owners of the terminals?


George Perry Graham: The terminals are owned by the Grand Trunk Railway Company. We have a rental arrangement by which we use their lines from Ste. Rosalie to Montreal, and also their terminals. For that we pay $140,000 odd a year. In addition to that we have a traffic arrangement with certain conditions as to the upkeep of the road, and of the terminals.


John Graham Haggart: Do we not get the ownership in some manner, or was that in connection with the bridge, that by a contribution we acquired a joint ownership with the Grand Trunk?


George Perry Graham: The proposed arrangement is not with the Grand Trunk. The Canadian Northern will probably have terminals there, and, as I suggested the other night, the time may come when we will wish to compel the Canadian Northern to connect with the Intercolonial railway, to

hand us its traffic, but it will probably not be through the Grand Trunk terminals.


Robert Laird Borden: The object of the section is to provide that- if the government, through the default of the company, is obliged to buy in the railway or any part of the railway from Montreal to Port Arthur, it shall also be in a position to acquire the terminals, since otherwise they could not operate the road. This is a paragraph which was put in at my own suggestion after we had discussed the resolution. We were told in very eloquent terms of the great advantage to the country of our obtaining a lease for certain purposes of the Grand Trunk terminals at Montreal. One is never impressed in visiting the terminals there, with the idea that the Intercolonial railway is very much to the fore; it is very difficult to find the headquarters or location of Intercolonial railway at these terminals. I have had occasion sometimes to look it up, and I find it housed in a little cock-loft upstairs, a very absurd looking place and altogether out of keeping with the character of a road which covers 1,600 or 1,700 miles of territory. If one wants very much information about the operations of the Intercolonial railway, it is not always the easiest thing to get it there, it is much easier to get it here.
This agreement looks forward to an interchange of traffic between the Intercolonial railway and this road. How will it be possible to bring that about? We have our terminals in Montreal fixed for the next 90 years. I suppose it might be possible to interchange traffic between the Canadian Northern and the Intercolonial railway in Montreal, even if the terminals were at a considerable distance apart, but I would like to understand what the situation will be. How will this interchange of traffic be arranged? The idea in 1898, and 1899, when this country bought the Drummond County railway and leased a portion of the Grand Trunk railway as well as the terminate, the idea then was to make our traffic arrangements, or, as the minister very graphically expressed it, to hook up, with the Grand Trunk railway. Now, apparently, we are looking forward to the project of unhooking from the Grand Trunk railway and hooking up with the Canadian Northern railway. That will not be quite so simple an operation as it would appear on its face, if I am correct in my appreciations of the conditions, but I do not understand enough about it to be able to form a correct judgment. For that reason, I would like the minister to explain what will 'be the outcome in that respect.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is ah-solutely correct as to its not being a very Mr. GRAHAM.
simple proposition. If it had been quite simple perhaps we would have gone further in this Bill and outlined an agreement about to be made, but the situation with the Grand Trunk railway is as described by my hon. friend. We have a lease with them for 99 years. We have a traffic arrangement' with them for the interchange c! traffic at Montreal which the government can break by giving notice but which the company has no right to end of its own motion.


Robert Laird Borden: You cannot breaK the lease of the terminals?


George Perry Graham: No, it is the traffic arrangement. The Grand Trunk railway are already urging very strongly and so are the Grand Trunk Pacific, their interests being identical, that the traffic arrangement may be brought to a close. We could not afford at present to bring the traffic arrangement to a close because if we did the need for using the terminals at Montreal would be largely diminished as our traffic would be reduced to the extent of $1,500,000 each year. But the Grand Trunk Pacific being constructed down to the eastei'n provinces, and the interests of the Grand Trunk railway being identical with theirs, they are already beginning to feel their way to see if some arrangement could not be arrived at by which they could be relieved from the obligation to give us their traffic.


John Graham Haggart: Do they carry out the arrangement?


George Perry Graham: They do pretty thoroughly now. There were differences of opinion when the arrangement was first made. A board of arbitrators settled a number of matters such as Montreal being the junction point instead of some other place. It will undoubtedly be strongly urged in years to come that from Levis at least the Grand Trunk Pacific should be allowed to carry the traffic. We are not in a position now to release the Grand Trunk railway from this contract, but it may be in the interest of the public, it will certainly be in the interest of the through Transcontinental line, and it may be in our own interest that that arrangement should be broken if at the same time we could make other satisfactory arrangements. We would prefer to have our terminal arrangements part of the agreement to enter into a traffic arrangement, and I think it is in the interest of the Intercolonial railway that we should be in a position to go to the Canadian Northern, and make a proposition to them that they should enter into an arrangemlent with us to interchange traffic, both through and local, as the Grand Trunk railway is doing with its local traffic. That is why I was careful to put it in that way. We are

taking the power to say to the Canadian Northern railway when we are ready to- do that:	You must enter into such an arrangement with us. But we could not say that now, because we are not in a position to enter into an arrangement.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: What did the Minister of Public Works mean the other night by stating that we could only break that agreement with the Grand Trunk railway by serious loss to the government?


William Pugsley: What I said was that if parliament now were to make it obligatory on the part of the Minister of Railways to cancel the agreement with the Grand Trunk railway, that company would know that the Minister of Railways was bound by the Act of parliament to cancel the agreement, and, therefore, they would be in a position to exact terms which might be very detrimental to the Intercolonial railway and might inflict a loss upon that railway which would not be likely to be sustained if the Minister of Railways were allowed a free hand to deal with the Grand Trunk in the matter.


Mr. MONK.: This is the last clause of the Bill, and I would avail myself of the opportunity, before the Bill goes out of committee, to ask my hon. friend (Mr. Graham) if it is intended to push this important measure through before the adjournment^


George Perry Graham: I hope so.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is it intended that the Bill shall go through before the adjournment?


George Perry Graham: I have that in my mind. I am very anxious to get it through this House, so that it may go to the Senate.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have listened to the discussion while the Bill was in the committee, and I must say that although that discussion has gone largely upon details, it has left a number of questions which appear to me to be unanswered. Furthermore, it seems to me that for the consideration of a Bill such as this the House would require more time. It is a measure, of the very greatest importance. I believe that very - few of the members of this House are informed as to the details of the measure. We have not had time. Yet it is being rushed through. Is that wise? We are undertaking to fasten on the public a liability of $35,000,000-that is, if the calculation of the distance over which the guarantee extends is one thousand miles. But there is not a man in this House wha can say whether that is the exact distance or not. It more probably is twelve huhdred miles, in which case we are pledging the credit of the country for $42,000,000.


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) will permit me-I have an amendment to suggest that the Bill provide that it shall not exceed 1,050 miles.,


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That may be the information of my hon. friend (Mr. Graham). I have heard that the distance is greater than that. But it has not been measured. But my hon. friend will admit that even at 1,050 miles, the liability is very large. Yet we really have not had opportunity to consider the measure. There are a number of clauses in the Bill itself which seem to go into details as, for instance, clause 14, which we have put through in a very few minutes, but the experience we liaye is that these clauses are nothing but a screen. They may be eluded, they have been eluded in the past, and will be in the future; there is no doubt about that. I consider that, under these circumstances, when the House is on the eve of adjourning through necessity for a few weeks

1 am using a strong expression, but not too strong it seems to merits a public scandal, nothing less, to push through a measure of this importance. No man in the House has had any opportunity whatever to go fully into the question and get all the information which we ought to have. I say this

the public cannot be aware of such undue haste, or we should all be condemned for rushing through an agreement of such magnitude under such circumstances of levity. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that there is no reason. Hon. gentlemen are aware that-probably through our own fault but also largely through the fault of the government-measures of this kind are brought in at the end of every session; they are rushed through, and we have no time to look into them. It is not right; it is not fair to our constituents; it is an injustice to the country. For my part, I wish to enter a protest against the passage of this Bill.


George Perry Graham: Of course, if we were discussing this matter for the first time-I presume my hon. friend was not here when this Bill was discussed on the resolutions, some-days ago. We took a whole day for a full discussion, and did not rush it. The Bill is exactly as the resolutions were, with some .very slight amendments which we think a little improves them.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend (Mr. Graham) calls that a full discussion. Members get up who face these resolutions for the first time, and ask questions. I do not think I am doing injustice to the minister when I say that, generally, he cannot get positive and categorical answers. You cannot in half a day discuss any transaction of over $30,000,000. In such a time you cannot get a satisfactory discussion of a measure of that kind. The matter would have to be gone into in the minutest detail as such matters are in other countries. I venture to say there is not a legislature in the world

mi
that puts through measures of this kind with such speed. As a matter of fact, I am perfectly sure that we could take up these clauses, examine them carefully and find a multitude of unanswered queries which would suggest themselves at once to our minds. I can only protest, but I think it my duty to do so.


John Graham Haggart: To utilize the terminals at Montreal, you will have to have an exchange with the Intercolonial at the Grand Trunk station. I do not see how you can do it otherwise. My recollection is that we have a half ownership in the terminals at the Grand Trunk at the city of Montreal. That was given to us in exchange for our assistance in the widening of the bridge going into Montreal. We pay a lease to them of $140,000, and we have joint ownership of the terminals.


George Perry Graham: I think we have not joint ownership of the terminals.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What sanction is provided in case of the non-execution of this clause 14? Without going into the subsections this provides for an agreement to secure suitable terminals in Montreal. This is like the preceding section where there is no sanction whatever provided in regard to the route-and we know what the clauses about routing traffic amount to ; they do not amount to a row of pins- they are violated every day. What is going to happen if the railway company will not enter into, the agreement as regards these terminals in Montreal? And if it declares that it is ready to make an agreement with the government, as foreshadowed- though it is nothing else but foreshadowed- who is going to decide whether the terminals are suitable or not? Is there any independent authority? Will the city of Montreal have anything to say? The whole of that clause 14 is to my mind nothing but a screen.


George Perry Graham: The establishment of terminals at Montreal or anywhere else can not be undertaken until after an arrangement is made with the city and approved by the Railway Commissioners, or at any rate approved by the Railway Board. The practice in all such large places is to have a thorough discussion of the city's interests in the matter, and then the Railway Commission says what precautions must be taken.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We have but the dictum of a minister that nothing will be done without these precautions, but seeing that this legislation is bound to be put through in a short space of time, and that the country i3 to he made liable for $35,000,000, talking on my part will not prevent it, Let me ask if there is a report extant from some Mr. MONK.
responsible person as to the advisability and safety of this enormous guarantee.


George Perry Graham: There is no special report from anybody. The government made full inquiry, and are fully satisfied that security is ample, and that it will not cost the country a cent.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is the usual answer we get from this government, but I venture to say there is not another legislature in the world that would pass in this way such an important transaction without having before it the report of competent and independent men as to the value of the security offered, and the necessity for giving this guarantee. Sometimes guarantees are necessary and beneficial, and sometimes they are not, excepting to individuals who make money from them. We have no report as to the advantages the country will get from this immense risk it is taking.


Mr. PORTER.: The Minister of Railways, said that the estimated cost of this railway is from $50,000 to $55,000 per mile, and the guarantee being only $35,000 per mile and being a first charge against the railway, the security was therefore considered ample. I have been told by several people who professed to know-I cannot vouch whether it is a fact or not-that this railway will be constructed, as the Canadian Northern railway have been accustomed to construct their roads, for a total expenditure of not 'more than $35,000 per mile. If that be so the government would be practically building the railway and handing it over to the Canadian Northern. There is a good deal of force in the suggestion of the hon. member (Mr. Monk) that there should be before parliament some reliable estimate and information. We ought to know what evidence has been laid before the government to satisfy them that the $35,000 per mile liability is really secured. It occurs to me that if there is anything in the statement that the Canadian Northern in the past has been constructing railways and operating them too, through a country just as difficult as this, at a cost of not more than $35,000 per mile, then it is indispensable that the government should have a proper and reliable estimate made, so that we may be sure we are not guaranteeing the full cost of the road. If it should turn out that default is made by the railway company and that the government is forced to foreclose and acquire the railway, it will not be a very good bargain if, after the railroad has been operated long enough for the company to make default, the government has to take it over at its original cost which would be more than the railway was worth at the time of foreclosure.


George Perry Graham: I do not think any person experienced in railway engineering and knowing the country through _ which this line runs would suggest that it would be built for $35,000 per mile. We have laid down a standard to which they must build and there is no doubt such a railway cannot be built for $35,000 a mile.


Robert Laird Borden: The point is that the government asks parliament to authorize a guarantee of bonds to the extent of $35,000 per mile, and bases the application upon the assertion that the road will cost $50,000 per mile; surely that statement ought to be supported by some authoritative report by engineers of standing. Up to the present we have nothing but the more or less casual assertion of the minister that his engineers informed him the road will cost so much.


Edward Guss Porter: It is common talk that the promoters of this railway have been building railways for less money than they were able to sell their bonds and securities upon that railway for, and that they are growing rich day by day by this means, and that this is only another scheme for adding to their accumulation of wealth. In order to put a finality to that sort of talk, if there is nothing in it, it would be in the interests of the railway as well as in the interests of the government that proper inquiry should be made. There is no denying the fact that this is common talk and common belief among the people of the country.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Part of this Tailway in the province of Quebec can certainly be built for less than $35,000 per mile. I assert that because I know the country. I am perfectly certain of what I say. At the figures given by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways, we are undertaking for 1,050 miles a liability of thirty-six and three-quarter millions of dollars. The minister has said that he discussed the resolution during an afternoon, and now we are putting the measure through finally. Does anybody in his senses pretend that that is a sufficient investigation-with no documents before us, no report, only a statement of the minister. We are supposed to be business men, and the country expects us to look into questions of this magnitude according to business methods. In this instance the investigation has been altogether insufficient.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I do not think I would be doing my duty, as representing a rural constituency, that is not in any way interested' in this road directly, if I permitted this Bill to go through the House without entering my protest against it. It is being rushed through too fast altogether. We have had no time to discuss the project or to give it^ proper consideration. In the short discussion that we have had, we have found already that there are mistakes apparently, in the judgment of at least two members of the government themselves. There has been no estimate provided by competent engineers of the cost of this road. I would have thought that one of the first duties of the government was to have had competent engineers go over this road and estimate its cost to the promoters. But without any estimate before us, we jump to the conclusion to guarantee the bonds of this railway for $35,000 a mile, merely taking the word of the promoters that it is to cost more than the government guarantee. I do not think that is just to the people of this country.
I think that as careful an *estimate of the cost of this road should have been made as if it were a road that the government themselves were building. It looks to me .as if the promoters of this road_ would be able, with this guarantee, to build the road, and pocket a very large amount of money on the transaction. I do not believe that we are acting with good business judgment, or as any business corporation would act in a transaction of this kind. One of the features of the agreement is the routing of freight by the Intercolonial; but when we look into that, we find that the arrangement does not amount to anything at all, because when the freight reaches Montreal over the Canadian Northern, the company can route it to an American port, and there is nothing to prevent them doing so. According to the Minister of Public Works, there is in existence an old agreement with the Grand Trunk that almost prohibits us making this arrangement with the Canadian Northern companv. I find on the Order Paper to-day a notice, of a resolution to lease or take over about 12 branch lines of Tailway in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I do not know what the cost of this will be, but it is sure to involve an enormous additional cost to the country. This guarantee to the Canadian Northern amounts to nearly $40,000,000. The whole thing savours of an election campaign, and an enormous election fund, and the country pays the bill. As the representative of an agricultural constituency. I want to protest against rushing this project through without any consideration in the dying days of the session, in order, if there is to he an election this fall, that a huge campaign fund may be provided for the government.


John Graham Haggart: I find that I was correct in my statement that the government of Canada is half owner of the terminals at Montreal. I 'will read to the hon. Minister of Railways the clause in the Act which confirms my statement. This is from the agreement mad.e on the 1st day of February, 1898:
927i

And, whereas, for the purpose of' carrying out the said extension the said company is willing that, for the conducting of the business and traffic of the Intercolonial railway, Her Majesty shall have an undivided one-half share or leasehold interest in the company's railway and property between and including Ste. Kosalie and St. Lambert station at the eastern end of Victoria bridge, together witli the use of the company's railway and property between and including Ste. Rosalie and Bonaventure station in the city of Montreal, the use of the Victoria bridge across the River St. Lawrence and of the terminals and connections hereinafter more particularly described, together with an undivided one-half interest in and use of the bridge across the Chaudiere river, and of so much of the tracks and line of the said company in connection therewith as are hereinafter described, all of which right, title, property, interest and user shall be used, enjoyed and exercised to the same extent as if the said railway and property were owned by Her Majesty.


William Pugsley: For what length of time?


John Graham Haggart: For 99 years, the lease is made.


Mr. CARVELL.: What is the rental?


John Graham Haggart: Nearly $150,000 a year. Besides that, we paid in cash for making an addition to the Ste. Rosalie branch, and for broadening the Victoria bridge. We become half owners of that.


William Pugsley: Half owners for a limited time.


John Graham Haggart: 
John Graham Haggart: we are only giving security for $35,000 out of the $50,000. That is not the kind of statement which the people are entitled to. We are entitled to all the details of the cost of this undertaking, including the terminals and rolling stock. We ought also to have the route more accurately defined. To give a company the power to build a railway from Ottawa to Port Arthur, without mentioning the objective points, is very dangerous. In the Railway Committee we always insist on certain objective points being mentioned. Why? In order to prevent railway companies from dickering with the municipalities and saying to a municipality : unless you agree to pay us a bonus or give certain other favours, we shall go in another direction. So that we ought to see that the objective points of this railway are specifically mentioned. But the minister says they have a charter. Well, I have not seen the charter, and we do not know where it is. There is no evidence yet before the House as to the charter this company has. We should not leave to the Minister of Railways and the Board of Railway Commissioners the locating of this road. We have the right to knov where it goes. We have the right to know which particular route is to be adopted in the building of this line. As my hon friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) says, the information given us is of the most meagre kind ever presented to this House, when asking this House to vote a guarantee to such a large extent.


Edward Guss Porter: The Minister of Railways said, in answer to a statement of mine, that anybody would know that this railway could not be constructed through certain portions where it was intended to go for anything like $35,000 per mille. While that may be true as regards the north shore of Lake Superior, are there not other portions-for instance, all of the line east of the particular point I have mentioned-where the road could be built for very much less? If I understood the minister rightly before adjournment, he could not say exactly where the line would be located and would not undertake to define in the Bill the exact location. If that be correct, how can he say that it is going to cost $50,000 per mile to construct a railway, when he does not know where it is going to be constructed?


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend will study the general contour of the country, he will find that it would not mako any difference whether the railway went 10 miles one way or the other. The cost in either case would be practically the same. In the map which I laid on the table, hon. gentlemen will find that there is a route approved by the Board of Railway Commissioners and the Railway Department which this line proposes to take. That route was ap-

proved after full argument before the Railway Commission and the Minister of Railways by every interest involved. All were present and all laid their views before the commissioners and the minister, and a considerable portion of this line has been finally located by the commission. We could not change that again without full notice being given to all the parties.


John Graham Haggart: What portion from Ottawa to Port Arthur?


George Perry Graham: From Sudbury to Port Arthur has been approved by the Railway Commission, after hearing the representatives of the Canadian Pacific railway and the Canadian Northern railw.ay, and all others interested. A piece from Montreal to Georgian Bay has been approved by the Minister of Railways. A short portion east of North Bay and through to Sudbury is the only portion that has not been approved after hearing all the parties.


John Graham Haggart: Why could not the route be defined in the Bill?


George Perry Graham: For this reason. Supposing when the company came to construction that, for some reason, every interest would see that it ought to be moved, neither the railway commission nor the Minister of Railways nor any one else would have the right to move it. There was the statute, and we could not vary it. But no change can be made in the approved route without all parties interested being heard.


John Graham Haggart: There is a part, the minister says, from Montreal to ' Pembroke; you go up to the Falls there, cross over and come back again to the Ontario side of Portage du Fort-has that portion been approved?


George Perry Graham: That has all been approved after every one interested was heard, except a few miles on either side of Pembroke. That was delayed in order to allow the company to go to Pembroke and make some arrangement which would be suitable to that city.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Does the provincial land grant apply to this line?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Edward Guss Porter: Then they get not only the provincial land grant but our guarantee as well.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The minister says all parties.' That reminds me of the story of the judge who asked the lawyer if he had any authorities in support of his proposition, ' Yes,' said the lawyer, 'your honour, all the authorities are in favour of my proposition.' What 'parties' does the minister mean? There is a 'party' for whom we
are acting-the people of Canada. We are their representatives. But we have not had an opportunity of looking into this matter.


George Perry Graham: That shows distinctly that what I said is correct. My hon. friend knows from his own experience-and I leave it to his own experience-that where his constituency is interested in a line of railway, he is informed of the hearing. And when a town or municipality is affected, the mayor is notified. And so it is with the representative of every parish They are the people who are interested in seeing where the road is to Tun, particularly so far as local interests are concerned.


Mr. PERLEY.: Who notifies the members of the House as to the hearings?


George Perry Graham: Where a constituency is interested in the location of the line, it is the duty of the Department of Railways to inform the member for that constituency. And I think it is invariably done. Certainly these are the instructions that have been given. And, in the same way, the mayors of towns are notified. I am sure I never have a hearing on a route map in my department when there are not members of parliament there because of having been notified.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend (Mr. Graham) has asked me as to the route going through Jacques Cartier and neighbouring counties. There is no difficulty about that. But when the route was fixed, there was no question of a guarantee. The point I insist upon is not the route, but the guarantee, the importance and magnitude of the transaction. And when he says-and he has said repeatedly-that 'all parties' have been heard, I can only say that they may have been heard upon the question of the route, and all ques- -tions of that kind, but I say also that we have not had an opportunity to be heard as to this particular transaction, which is being rushed through unfairly.


George Perry Graham: I was answering an hon. gentleman who was asking me more particularly as to where the railway was going.


George Halsey Perley: The minister must be mistaken as to these notifications, or he had better give more distinct instructions to his department. Because, in the case of this very railway, the route of which between here and Montreal passes through the county I have the honour to represent, the hearing was held a couple of years ago, and I never had any notification of when the matter was to be brought before the minister. -


George Perry Graham: I think it must have been 'longer ago than two years.


George Halsey Perley: I do not know, but it was since I became a member of this House.


George Perry Graham: I am very careful about that. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) remarked that I did not notify members of the House. I will leave to members about him the refutation of that statement.


Haughton Lennox: In the case of the Sudbury branch of the Canadian Pacific railway, which was built through my riding since I became a member of this House, 1 got no notice whatever. And I understand there are a good many other members who have had similar experiences. However, that is not the point I wish to speak about. I wish to say a word about the question of the cast of construction. The minister understands that it will cost $50,000 a mile. On the other hand, it is said by hon. members on this side that it cannot cost $35,000 a mile. I am inclined to think, with all deference, that none of us know very much about it. And that is the very difficulty in the matter; we have no more information about this than we had about the Transcontinental. Take the Transcontinental line, say, from Quebec to Winnipeg. We had specific information from the Minister of Finance


An hon. MEMBER.: ' Mountains of information.'


Haughton Lennox: Yes, ' mountains of information.' We had not only statements from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and the First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) but we had a statement from the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) who was advocating the construction of that road. He stated that he had engaged his own engineer to go into the matter, and that this engineer, in conjunction with another engineer who had been over the route, had placed the cost definitely, as an outside figure, at $30,000 a mile for a large portion of this road. There is no reason to believe that that was not stated in good faith, perhaps, but we have the fact now that this railway, 1,800 miles of it -a large portion of it paralleling this 1,000 miles-will cost $100,000 a mile.
An hon-. MEMBER. With stealings.


Haughton Lennox: Of course, we do not know how much stealings that includes. I do not for a moment imagine that the construction cost anything like $100,000 a mile, if the thing were properly and honestly carried out. But what I am pointing out is that we have a right to some definite information about the cost of construction. But we have the fact that the minister says that he is informed that the total cost will be $50,000 a mile, and then hon. gentlemen on this side state that it Mr. GRAHAM.
cannot be over $35,000 a mile. I venture to say there is no good foundation for the minister's statement. We had an estimate in reference to the Transcontinental that the cost would not exceed $28,000 a mile, including interest, and we know that other estimates put it at from $25,000 up to the estimate of the hon. member for Brandon, $30,000 as an outside figure. And we know also that the cost to the country will be actually $100,000 a mile. Now, we have a right, both on general business principles, and more particularly having regard to the fact that these statements of this government have proved themselves to be utterly unreliable in the past-we have a right, I say, to some definite information about this matter. I am not saying that this road can be built for $30,000 a mile, or that it can be built for $50,000. But what I do say is that as a business proposition we should have placed before us the estimate of engineers who have gone over the route, and who can testify as to the character of the road, and give us a reasonable basis upon which to form an estimate, and that estimate should be laid before the House in advance of our being driven into adopting a measure of this kind. I am entirely in favour of giving reasonable assistance to this company, but I am very much opposed to this system of rushing things in when we are all anxious to go home, and have no reasonable information to justify us in pledging the country to this enormous liability.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I would remind the minister (Mr. Graham) of the fact that the provincial government of Ontario gave a large land grant to the road that we are asked to furnish $35,000 a mile to build. The hon. gentleman has had considerable experience in politics in the province of Ontario, and if I am not mistaken, he took some part in the last provincial campaign. And the chief argument of the leader of the opposition, Mr. Mackay, in that campaign was that the provincial government had given a land grant to this road far in excess of the value of the road. Any one who heard Mr. Mackay in the Opera House in Ottawa, and his followers throughout the country, knows that that was his argument about this railway. Now, the Dominion government step forward, and give them an additional sum of $35,000 a mile, and do that without giving the matter proper consideration, in the dying hours of the session, without any engineer's report, or any information at all before them in connection with it. We grant this large sum of money, which will amount probably * to nearly $40,000,000. I say it is not right in the public interest that this should be done. We should have had much more time to consider it, and the government

should not rush hastily into this matter. As I said before, it looks very much as if there was something behind this, some reason for it on the part of the government, and I can see no other reason than the fact that a Dominion election is staring them in the face this fall.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: In addition to the land grant, does the provincial government guarantee the bonds too?


George Perry Graham: There is a small section of ten miles in the vicinity of Sellwood which comes under the provincial guarantee. That guarantee runs out in twenty years, then ours will become the first mortgage. In the meantime, we get $35,000 a mile of mortgage bonds on another portion of their line to cover that ten miles. Without wanting to drag in political questions, I may say that I think my hon. friend will remember it was that guarantee that Mr. McKay discussed more than the land grant.
Mr. M1DDLEBRO. I notice that one of the principal objects stated in the preamble of the Bill as a justification for the government guaranteeing these bonds, is to afford the government system of railways in Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, an interchange of through traffic. That would also include, I suppose, the proposed branch lines, concerning which there is an item on the Order Paper to-day. Section 14 says:
The company (the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company) and the Canadian Northern Railway Company, respectively, shall enter into an agreement with the government:
(a)	to secure or establish, or cause to be secured or established, suitable terminals for the company within the city of Montreal;
(b)	on the request of the government, to make arrangements with the Intercolonial railway for the interchange of traffic between the company and the Intercolonial railway at Montreal.
I suppose that is one of the chief objects of guaranteeing the bonds. I would like to ask the minister, if the Canadian Northern Railway Company and the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company refuse either to enter into an agreement, or, having entered into the agreement, refuse to carry out its terms, what remedy has the government against the Canadian Northern Railway Company?


George Perry Graham: I imagine that if they refuse to enter into the agreement provided under this Act, they would not get the guarantee. It is a part of the Act that they enter into a certain agreement.


William Sora Middlebro: Supposing they agree to do it and do not do it, what remedy has the minister?


George Perry Graham: That would be a legal point.


William Sora Middlebro: As I understand it, the principal obejct of the agreement is to extend the Intercolonial railway westward?


George Perry Graham: No.


William Sora Middlebro: I think the members on this side of the House understand that one of the chief objects of the agreement is to make the Intercolonial a paying concern by giving it an interchange of traffic with this company. Now they may enter into this agreement, and there is absolutely nothing that I can see to compel them to keep it. All we are doing with the company is to guarantee the bonds. Once we guarantee the bonds, and the company does not carry out the chief object of this agreement, there is, so far as I can see, no remedy. It does not constitute such a default that would justify us in taking possession of the road. They could refuse to carry out the agreement, and we still have to guarantee the bonds. If they make a breach of the object for which we give a guarantee of those bonds, we have no remedy.


George Perry Graham: I have discussed that point so many times already that perhaps I should not weary the House with repeating it. But I suppose it is a principle of law, or ought to be, that there is a remedy for every wrong. We should discuss the question from a practical standpoint, as well as hanging on the threads of technicalities. Does my hon. friend surmise that they would have a railway all the way from Port Arthur to Montreal and then refuse to have a terminal in Montreal?


William Sora Middlebro: I said my principal objection was that if they refused to enter into an agreement for an interchange of traffic, if, for instance, they should find it more profitable to send their goods by way of Boston or New York than by the Intercolonial, and if they refused to send them by the Intercolonial, you would have no redress, so far as I can see.


George Perry Graham: We could proceed against them for damages.


William Sora Middlebro: What would be the measure of the damages to this government whose only contract is to guarantee ths bonds? You simply have to guarantee their bonds, and you have no measure of damages against this company for not carrying out their agreement.


George Perry Graham: There may be some legal question mixed up in that. I take it for granted that if the government makes an agreement with the Canadian Northern railway that it shall do certain things, the government would have redress against the

Canadian Northern, if it did not do those things.


William Sora Middlebro: What redress would yon have?


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman is asking a legal question, and I am stating a plain business transaction. It is like a business transaction between two men, and I cannot conceive that the law would place a railway in any other position than I would be placed in if I made a contract with my hon. friend, if he was worth anything, and if I could substantiate that I had been damaged by his refusal to carry out that contract, I could obtain damages.


Robert Laird Borden: The action would have to be brought by His Majesty against the Canadian Northern railway or the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company. What would be the measure of dam ages?


George Perry Graham: That would be for the courts to determine.


Robert Laird Borden: Under whai principle would they be assessed? I have never been able to understand yet, either under the Grand Trunk agreement or under this, that His Majesty could recover anything more than nominal damages.


William Sora Middlebro: If I were making a contract I would make it in such a manner that, if there was a default on the part of the company, I would have some redress. We could seize some portion of their receipts, or something of that kind.


Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).: I do not set how you could attack this company. The operation of this guarantee of ours would be subsequent to the action of the company in breaking this promise. For instance, we guarantee the bonds of the company. The guarantee by the government,' that is to say, the action of this government, Oir whatever guarantee it gives, only takes place after there is a default. Now it is before there is any default that the company would likely refuse to carry out the spirit of this agreement. So long as they are paying interest on its bonds we could not step in. The only way in which action could be taken would be this, that if the company refused to ship goods by the Intercolonial railway, this parliament could withdraw this guarantee. The government of this country has power to withdraw this guarantee at any time by legislation.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Not after the bonds are sold.


Morley Currie: We all know that this parliament has absolute power to withdraw that guarantee at any time. The only thing about it is that it would be Mr. GRAHAM.
repudiation. If you wish to have.any hold on the company you must insert a clause in this agreement, that if they fail to carry out the spirit of this clause parliament can cancel this guarantee.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I have here the Act of the Ontario government of 1908 guaranteeing certain aid to the Canadian Northern railway. I will ask the Minister of Railways if we are duplicating the guarantee of the Ontario government? Section 4 of chapter 47 reads as follows:
The securities hereby authorized to be guaranteed are as follow:-[DOT]
(a)	Securities to the amount of $20,000 or its equivalent in sterling or other money per mile of the company's lines of railway specified in the first part of the schedule hereto.
(b)	Securities to the amount of the expenditure heretofore made in acquiring the lands and premises for terminal purposes specified in the second part of the schedule hereto and in making improvements thereon for terminal purposes, including wharfs, docks, warehouses, tracks and other terminal works and facilities.
(c)	Securities to an amount representing sixty-five per cent of the expenditure hereafter made in acquiring other lands for extensions of the said terminal lands and premises, and in making improvements thereon for terminal purposes, and on the lands and premises mentioned in subclause (bl of this section. Provided, always, that the total amount of the securities authorized by subclauses (b) and (c) of this section shall not exceed $1,500,000.
(d)	Securities to the amount of the outstanding debenture stock issued by the company and guaranteed by the province under the provisions of chapter 20 of the -statutes of Ontario for the year 1904, representing $20,000 per mile of the line of railway specified in the third part of the schedule hereto.
It is a matter of great public concern to what extent we are duplicating this guarantee, and the total amount of guarantees that this company possesses on the construction of this road.


George Perry Graham: There are but ten miles of that guarantee included in the line we are guaranteeing.' The terminals referred to there are to be established in Toronto.
Mr. SHARPE (Ontario) What consideration moved the government to specify the specific amount of the guarantee per mile, $35,000, instead of a percentage of the cost of construction which would seem to be the business methods to adopt in guaranteeing bonds. If the actual cost is $55,000 per mile, and we are guaranteeing $35,000, that is a little over 60 per cent. If the cost should be only $30,000, then a guarantee of $20,000 would be sufficient. Then the government's engineer would supervise the construction and you would guarantee a certain percentage of the cost.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend objected to that very principle in the mountain 'sections of the Grand Trunk Pacific. We guaranteed 75 per cent of the cost of construction of the mountain section, but that was not satisfactory. On the prairie section, we put in a maximum amount, a certain percentage not to exceed a certain amount. The railway has cost over $33,000 per mile on the prairie sections, and the guarantee that we gave has not met the expectations of those to whom we gave it. The Grand Trunk Pacific have to raise another loan of $10,000,000. Having the experience of the Grand Trunk Pacific and of the Canadian Pacific railway, from a business standpoint, I believe it is better in the interests of the country to name a stated amount, which would not be decreased and could not be increased and adhere to that amount. I believe this is only a fair proportion of the cost.


Robert Laird Borden: That may be correct. I appreciate a portion of that argument at least; but it is only a good argument when the minister comes down with reasonable evidence of what the road will probably cost. Surely this estimate of $50,000 a mile must have been founded on something? I would imagine that the minister would not trust to an oral report of an officer of his department, that he would insist on a written report. He must have some information. Why not communicate that to parliament, when his whole case is based on the theory that this road will cost $50,000 per mile? Estimating the cost at $50,000 per mile, we guarantee bonds to the extent of 70 per cent of its cost. That is less than we guaranteed in the case of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Upon the prairie section of that road we guaranteed three-fourths of the cost not to_ exceed $13,000 per mile. The minister points out certain inconveniences. These inconveniences have not been to the. country, but to the persons who are building the road. We are supposed to be looking at it here at least to some extent from the country's standpoint. What is the evidence upon which the minister asks this committee to come to the conclusion that that road will cost $50,000 per mile upon the average, and that, therefore, $35,000 per mile is a reasonable amount to which the country should pledge its credit for the purpose of consummating the construction of the road?


George Perry Graham: I could understand that if we were not naming a certain standard of road to be built?


Robert Laird Borden: To say that the road must be built of a certain standard may convey an idea of its cost to persons familiar with railway construction; to me it conveys absolutely nothing, I do not know whether a road of that standard ought to 293
cost $15,000 or $20,000 or $30,000 or $100,000 per mile. Therefore, I am obliged to .rely on the reports of experts who do know. It seems to me as one member of the committee, that I am entitled to the report of some competent engineer who will say that a road built up to that standard through this particular country, although the country is not very well defined, will cost $50,000 a mile, or will cost something so that I can make up my mind as to whether this is a reasonable guarantee. The minister is handicapping his own case before the committee, by not coming here armed with evidence of that kind. If I were trying to put a proposition of this kind through a committee of this House,^ it would be the first thing that I would think of. I would not expect the committee to pay any attention to me when I asked them to assume that this road would cost $50,000 a mile, and to base their action upon that assumption unless I had provided them with evidence or a report indicating what the road would cost.


George Perry Graham: Of course my hon. friend
does not see it from my viewpoint. We have had any amount of evidence as to two roads being constructed through a portion of this country, one of a better standard than this which will cost a large amount of money, and it never dawned on me that any one would intimate that $50,000 was too large an amount for the construction of this road, and the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) has endeavoured to prove that my estimate was too low.


Haughton Lennox: It would prove that you do not know anything about it.


George Perry Graham: That might not be difficult to prove. However, my engineers know the profile of the country, and the standard of the road has been submitted to them, and I am sure it cannot be constructed for less than $50,000 per mile. I believe myself it will cost a good deal more before it is finished.


Robert Laird Borden: Who says that?


George Perry Graham: My engineers. I have not asked for a written report.


Haughton Lennox: Have they been over the route?


George Perry Graham: They know the contour of the country, and they estimate that it will cost $50,000 a mile, and my experience is that it is safe to add at least 25 per cent to the estimate given.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Will this road be constructed up to the standard of the Canadian Northern from Fort William to Winnipeg?


George Perry Graham: The standard is set out in the Bill.


William Sora Middlebro: Will it be as high a standard as the Grand Trunk Pacific?


George Perry Graham: No.


William Sora Middlebro: While I do not think clause 14 is of much value, still we might make it as valuable as possible, and we should state a time when the company will enter into the agreement. As it is now they might not enter into the agreement until all the bonds have been guaranteed by the government. The words should be inserted, ' before the execution of the guarantee mentioned in section 4 of the Act.' Otherwise you lock the stable dooT after the horse is stolen.


George Perry Graham: Our difficulty is that we were not prepared to enter into an agreement now owing to certain conditions existing. I want the right to compel them to enteT into an agreement when we are ready.


William Sora Middlebro: They will have the money then, and they don't care whether they agree or not.


Robert Laird Borden: The clause is now indefinite as to time, and possibly it could be put in proper shape by inserting after the word ' shall ' the words when required by the government.'


George Perry Graham: That would cover it. It would carry out what it is intended to do.
Amendment (Mr. Borden, Halifax), agreed to.	.


George Perry Graham: I move that section 4 be amended by adding the words: 'not exceeding in the whole 1,050 miles.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. BORDEN {Halifax). Now, what about the route?
George Perry Graham: I discussed the route question at luncheon, and I do not see that we can describe the route with any more particularity. The charter does not prescribe the route very particularly, but it does say at a point in the township of Chisholm, which is at or near North Bay to a point in another township, which is near Sellwood Junction. The route map has been practically approved by the department and the Board of Railway Commissioners for a great deal of the distance. A short section from North Bay to the junction north of Sudbury is the only portion not approved. None of the other portions were approved without the Canadian Pacific railway, and the other parties interested being notified and heard. The road is agreed to from Sudbury to Port Arthur. From Montreal to a point east of North Bay has been approved by the minister, but is subject to a change of one mile either way by the Railway Board. The question will be at once asked: ' If that is the ease, why not describe the route Mr. GRAHAM.
in the Act, and no doubt the route approved will be approximately the route constructed on, but, if we name-definitely the route in this Act the minister could not change it suppose it became necessary to move the track to another side of a lake.


John Graham Haggart: Surely the minister could do that?


George Perry Graham: He could, if it is not in the Act. If there was a possibility that the minister would arbitrarily and without notice change the route, it would be another matter, but the practice is to notify all the parties interested, and no route can be varied unless such notice is given, and the parties heard if they object. Once a route is approved by the minister it takes a pretty strong argument to vary it. After that they have to proceed to the Board of Railway Commissioners. If the location were marked out in this Act, it might be necessary to change it, but it being statutory, the Minister's hands would be tied.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is that not an argument for not proceeding with this measure until we know where it is to be located?


George Perry Graham: The route for practically the whole distance has been approved.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister is mistaken in supposing that the naming of the principal points on the line would prevent him altering any portion of the line.


William Sora Middlebro: If the route is not defined in some way, there is the danger that the company will use the indefiniteness of the route for the purpose of extracting bonuses from municipalities.


George Perry Graham: The route is fixed and is .approved practically from Montreal to Port Arthur, except the small portion which I have described. A considerable portion of it has also been approved by the Board of Railway Commissioners, and unless good cause can be shown, neither the minister nor the board will allow it to be varied. The company is building under a charter in which the route is defined generally, and if we placed in this Bill something that is not in their charter, they would be tied up to the particular route described, and it might be that when they came to construct, that route would be found to be practically impossible, and the company could not proceed with the work until they came to parliament again.


John Graham Haggart: 
William Sora Middlebro: Why not define the route subject to its being changed by the Minister of Railways. That would give an assurance to the municipalities that it could not be changed at the dictation of the railway company.


George Perry Graham: As a matter of law, the company cannot change that route once it is approved. They cannot build a foot on any other location except with the approval of the Minister of Railways.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand the route is approved for nearly the whole distance except for a part north of Lake Superior.


George Perry Graham: A small part east of North Bay to Sudbury.


Robert Laird Borden: Does that mean that the line must be built where the route has been so approved, and that no tribunal or minister or any other power can change that?


George Perry Graham: No. Alost of this route has been approved by the Minister of Railways, and a portion has been definitely located by the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it first approved by the minister and then located by the board?


George Perry Graham: It is approved generally speaking by the minister after he has given notice to the railways and municipalities and others interested. That location is taken to the Board of Railway Commissioners who can vary it a mile either way. The road from Sudbury west has been approved by the Minister of Railways, and the Board of Railway Commissioners. The line, with the exception named from Montreal to east of North Bay, has been approved by the minister. Aly hon. friend asks can that be changed? It can be changed, but all the proceedings would have to be gone over again. The company would have to make their application and file a new map showing the proposed deviations and all the parties would have to be heard. Then the minister could, it he considered the argument sufficient, consent to the deviation. Then that would have to go before the Railway Commission again, and the parties be again heard.


Air. GRAHAAI.: point:
It does
in one other
inAfJf"e of railway extending from a point
Sudwt +nshlp of CaP'T,01' in the district of oudbury, to or near Sellwood Junction.
Air. BORDEN (Halifax) was quite close.
I thought that
north t qAI^M' Sellwood Junction is north of Sudbury. There would be no ob-jectmn at all to saying 'at or near North nay. That would give a general line.


Mr. BRADBURY.: Why could it not be described as so many miles north of the Canadian Pacific railway at given points'?


Duncan Graham: That is fixed absolutely on the route map.


George Henry Bradbury: You can revise that any time you like. Why not fix it at given points on the Canadian Pacific railway?


George Perry Graham: Then we could not change it, and that might stop the building of the line.
thMT SI*ARPE (Ontario;. I have here the Toronto Globe ' of April 11, 1908, which has an editorial discussing the propriety of the Ontario government guaranteeing the Canadian Northern bonds to the extent of $1,500,000. This is an illuminating editorial. It is headed ' A million and a half endorsement,' and is as follows:
Such an Act as that guaranteeing the bonds ot the McKenzie and .Mann system to the extent of a million and a half would never be introduced except at the close of a session, the explanation that the necessary information was not available earlier sounds puerile m the face of the obvious attitude of the public towards such a measure. To bring it in at a reasonable time in the session would hare been to invite the earnest consideration of the public. It would have led the public to ask why their credit should be pledged to the extent of a gigantic sum for the benefit of these men and their enterprises. If the public had a few weeks to reflect on the matter instead of having it rushed through in virtual violation ot the rule, they would have asked why the endorsement of the province, and an endorsement h&ving a large cash value,! should be given for nothing. They would also have asked how far the line aided by the credit of the province would go to build up a system parallel to or in competition with the road which the province should complete to Hudson bay.


Robert Laird Borden: The definition of the route leaves Rideau Junction a little west of Ottawa, and hits nothing again 2934
Then the article goes on:
Such a pledging of the credit of the province naturally occurs, not only in the dying
*9237

hours of the session, but in the dying hours of the legislature and when a general election is above the horizon.
We hear rumours around Ottawa that there is to be a general election.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend did not repudiate that guarantee by the Ontario government, but defended it.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The Minister of Railways is not repudiating it now. The article proceeds:


Mr.  E. B.@: Osier has stated in the Dominion House that subsidies voted to railway promoters do not always stay witli^ them, hut are sometimes diverted to the politicians voting them. This from one so well informed should lead to questioning every time the money of the people is given or the credit of the people is pledged to support any private railway enterprise. The same interest thac is freely receiving the credit of the province to the extent of a million and a half is virtually holding up Hon. Adam Beck's^ power policy and stepping in where the premier was afraid to venture. Taking all the circumstances into account this extension of public favour to men who are interfering with the development of a public policy has anything but an innocent aspect. It is at all events -blunder and a waste of public resources, and it remains for the government to assure the public that it is nothing worse.
That is a very illuminating editorial coming from the source it does, because the conditions at that time bear somewhat of a resemblance to those existing now. Here we have a pledge of $35,000,000 on the eve of a general election. It is being rushed through the dying hours of this stage of the session. Some one has suggested the dying hours of the government. I would respectfully suggest that, owing to the importance of this matter, and the strong condemnation of this pledging of the credit of the people to which we have just listened from the Toronto ' Globe,' the Minister of Railways should postpone the consideration of this Bill until we come back after recess. We would then be in better position to give judgment as we would have had the opportunity of testing the feeling of our constituencies regarding the guaranteeing of such an immense sum to these men.
On the preamble,


Edward Guss Porter: As to the preamble of this Bill, I take it to be a recital of the facts upon which this legislation is based. I do not doubt for a moment that the construction of this railway by means of the guarantee that this Bill gives will be of vast benefit to the Canadian Northern railway. But that is not the preamble of the Bill. The preamble is that it is greatly in the interest of Canada that this Bill should pass in the .form in which the committee has just pro-Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).
nounced upon it. Now, I would like to know, for my own information, before assenting to the passing of that preamble, whether the facts-or the alleged facts- stated in it, are true, and what evidence there is before the House to show that they are true. I agree, in a general way, that there is prosperity, and great prosperity, in this country. But to go to the extent of saying that the increase, or to use the words of the preamble- that, having regard to the growth of population '-is another matter.
I question very much that the growth of population in Canada since the construction of the last transcontinental railway nas been such as to be a reason, a good reason, foT constructing a third transcontinental railway. I do not believe that the statement is true, as recited in the preamble of the Bill. The preamble goes on,
' and the rapid development of the production of trade of that portion of Canada lying west of the Great Lakes.' Now it is unquestioned and unquestionable that there has been very great development and production in that part of the country lying west of the Great Lakes, but it does not necessarily follow that there has been such an increase in the production and trade as to warrant the construction' of another line of railway. Are we to assume from the statement in the preamble of the Bill that it is a fact that there has been such a development in the production in trade in that part of the country that it does warrant the construction of a railway. I would ask the minister (Mr. Graham) what evidence he has of that fact to convince this House that the construction of another transcontinental line of railway is a necessity, or even advantageous, at this particular time. It seems to me that, in order to pass judgment upon that, it would be absolutely necessary to have some comparative table of the amount of traffic and extent of development in that country that the railways already existing are capable of handling, or some evidence that the railways now in existence are incapable of handling the development and the trade of that portion of Canada. We are absolutely without any information, so far as I have heard the discussion, upon that phase of the Bill. The preamble goes on to say: ' and the rapidly extending trade and commerce of Canada.' No doubt, the trade and commerce of Canada generally is extending; but the extension of that trade-to repeat what I have already said-is not settled such (or may not be such) as to warrant the construction of another transcontinental line of railway. We have no figures upon which to base any such statement. It looks well on paper, and I hope it is all true. I hope that the trade of the west and the trade of Canada generally has developed to such an extent that the construction of this line

of railway, or even still another line of railway, is an absolute necessity; but I do not believe it at this time. I have no facts before me, nor am I able to lay hold on any facts that would enable me to pass judgment as to whether the statement in this preamble is true or false. If true, it ought to be made known to this House and the country; if untrue, it ought not to be recited as a reason for passing this Bill. And it seems to me that the committee ought to have some information on this subject. The preamble says further, ' to open up and develop portions as yet without railway facilities.' Now, I can remember very well, during the argument preceding the passage of the Bill incorporating the Grand Trunk Pacific, that it was said that railway would open up a section of the country that heretofore had been unserved by any railway and would answer the purposes of the country for a long time to come. When the line came to be located finally, we found that it did not, and will not, serve a portion of the country such as it was stated it was designed to serve, but, in very large measure will parallel, and very closely parallel, another line of railway, and will not open up new country to settlement or will not traverse a country that is being traversed and rapidly settled up by the people of this country. Now, this measure may be only a repetition of what took place a very short time ago in regard to the National Transcontinental. It seems to me we ought to have some evidence in regard to that point on which this committee could base a judgment. It goes on to say, ' to promote the internal and foreign trade of Canada,' to develop commerce through Canadian ports, and to afford the government systems of railways in Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, an interchange of through traffic. For these reasons, it is said, this railway ought to be assisted in the manner indicated here. Now, up to the present time, I have not been able to discover any evidence that the statements made in this preamble are true. We are asked to say that for the reasons set out here this government ought to be pledged to the extent that we are pledging it by this Bill, and we are asked to say it in the face of an entire absence of any evidence to convince this House or to cause hon. members to believe that the basis on which we are asked to do this act are true. It seems to me that the hon. minister, before asking the House to adopt the preamble of this Bill, should come to the House with a comparative table of the trade that was handled by one railway, the trade that is just now handled by two railways, and the trade that will be handled by three railways, if this one is constructed, to show that the construction of the third line is a. necessity, in order to meet the requirements of our foreign trade or the trade of Canada generally. It seems to" me that we need some data, some information, upon which we would be able to form a reasonable judgment in that connection. Until we have that evidence, and in the entire absence of that evidence, I cannot agree with the statements, however much I might hope and desire that they are absolutely true-I cannot undertake to say that they are true without some evidence being furnished in that way.


George Perry Graham: I will not detain the House very long. In the first place, surely my hon. friend (Mr. Porter) does not want any tables outside those in the trade returns, to answer his first objection as to the trade of Canada rapidly increasing. I do not think he would ask me


Edward Guss Porter: I admitted that in opening. I said I admitted it; but to be able to judge whether the increase was of sufficient extent to warrant this Bill, I want a comparative table.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend, of course, will understand that a comparative table would not assist him very much in forming his conclusion. The question of the future of Canadian trade can only be based on the faith we have in the country. I pointed out the other day, when perhaps my hon. friend was not present, that in looking over the western country I found the Canadian Northern railway with 4,000 miles west of the Great Lakes, but without any outlet except over some other line.
Mr. PORTER That is in the interest of the railway.


George Perry Graham: I do not want to contradict my hon. friend, I do not look at it in that way. At the present moment, perhaps, the railways that are under construction could handle the traffic, but there is a good deal of doubt as to the ability of the railways and transportation companies to handle the traffic as rapidly as it ought to be handled. If you give them sufficient time they can handle any amount of traffic.


Edward Guss Porter: Do the present railways say that they are unable to handle the traffic?


George Perry Graham: Now, my hon. friend takes the railway side of it, as he accused me of doing a moment ago. I have discussed this matter with a good many people in the west, men who ship goods. The railways contend that they can handle all the traffic, but a good many shippers contend that they cannot get accommodation even now when they need' it. What the western production is to-day is hardly-an indication of what the traffic will be-

in three or four years. I may be wrong, but I believe J would be recreant to my duty as a public man if, having an opportunity to connect the eastern and western sections of this great system by merely lending the name of" the government to the proposal, I did not take advantage of the opportunity. To my mind the traffic in the next five or six years when these two roads are completed will be ample to keep all the three railways busy, running to their full capacity for the most part of the year. I believe further, and I think western people will agree with me, that we can improve our waterways, and there will still be sufficient traffic for the railways and the waterways. Now, this is not all done in the interest of the west. A railway train bringing a load of wheat from the west must take back a load of goods from the east in order to give a fairly good freight rate. I am not such a little Canadian that I am afraid the transportation facilities of Canada will not have all they can do when they are up to the requirements of the country. The man who has a carload of wheat in the west will send it to the ocean port by the line that will take it at the best rate, and ,'in the quickest time; and if Canada has the courage to give these facilities we will get the carrying trade, and the country that has the carrying trade is the great country of the world. Now let me point out further that the people of the east have as much interest in this line as the people of the west. It must be borne in min'd that one train load of implements going to the west pay the railroad perhaps twice as much as a train load of grain going to the east, owing to the different classification of the freight. In order not only that the west should have good facilities for getting its products to the east, but that the east should have good facilities for getting its products to the west, I say again that I would not be doing my duty if I were to neglect an opportunity of securing this line for the country. It is my (belief that in the next five or six years the increase in the western traffic will be something that we cannot now understand. There is not a man in this House, who has not lived in the west for years, who can realize the marvellous advance of that country in the last ten years. The most optimistic neonle never thought that the west at this moment would have reached the proportions it has reached, and only the fringe has yet been touched. I may be perhaps too optimistic, but I have the fullest confidence that when the Grand Trunk Pacific is built, and when the Canadian Northern is built, when our transportation facilities are completed, including the Hudson Bay railway, there will still be traffic sufficient in Canada to keep all these lines busy, and people will even be asking for better accommodation Mr. GRAHAM.
I believe also that Canada occupies a natural position ton 'this continent, Inot onlv to do her own carrying trade cheaper than anybody else, but is in a position to offer facilities to our neighbours to the south that will give us a part of their carrying trade from the east to the west and back again.
I come back again to my statement that this proposition to connect the east and the west by this through line, simply by loaning the name of the government to aid them to get money more cheaply, is an opportunity that parliament cannot afford to let go by. Now, as to the eastern section, it is a belief held by most Canadians who have looked over the matter carefully during the last two or three years, that there are abundant signs of great development in eastern Canada during the next four or five years, and a government that does not rise to the situation, and- refuse to wait until the opportunity comes and has gone, is not doing its duty to the people. Governments make mistakes, but I believe that the country west and east demands greater transportation facilities, that the rate of wages of the -man working on the farm, and in the shop, as well as the profits of the proprietors, depend on the speed and cheapness of their. transportation facilities. Those are my views. I believe that in a few years to come we will -see in the east a development scarcely second to that in the west, and it is our duty to endeavour to conduct the trade down through -our own Canadian territory to Montreal, Quebec, St. John and Halifax, and do everything we can to stimulate the efforts of our own people. We are side by side with a great country with a very -much larger population, and we are doing our best to maintain our position on this continent.


Edward Guss Porter: What development does the minister speak of in the east?


George Perry Graham: A -general development in the east. People do not understand, even in Ontario, that there is as much land in the newer parts of Ontario yet untilled as there is now cultivated in the older portions of the province. This railway will run through the southern portion towards the centre of the clay belt; the Grand Trunk Pacific will run through the northern portion. When the Timis-kaming Northern and Ontario Railway was being projected, many people laughed at it, and said it would be merely a colonization road. But the result has been that Ontario has developed, and has been shown to possess some of the richest mineral areas in the world. If we go further east we will find the same wealth in Quebec, in Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, where there are besides vast areas of good agri-

cultural land that are not being cultivated as they ought to be. These provinces are making efforts through their provincial governments to attract immigration to open up their natural resources. Nova Scotia has a mineral wealth that we in Ontario know very little about, acres and acres of which have not yet been uncovered. I do not know what the future has in store for the little province of Nova Scotia, but if we do our duty as Canadians to assist her, as well as New Brunswick, which has also great mineral resources besides her agriculture and timber, we shall see the eastern part of Canada rivalling the west in prosperity. I have sufficient faith in the country to believe that if we have courage, Canada in twenty years from now will have assumed such proportions in the life of the world that we who are now discussing these questions will be surprised even at our own modesty.


Edward Guss Porter: If we just take care of it. The United States have developed along the lines the minister has just indicated Canada is to develop. The United States, we may say, is fully developed to-day; all her natural advantages have been exploited. She has made more rapid progress than any other country. We will have three transcontinental railways in Canada for a population of 8,000,000 and the United States, with all its development and with a century of time, should, according to the same ratio of population, have about twenty transcontinental lines to carry its commerce, which is absurd. Canada is capable of great development in wealth, commerce and trade if we only take care of it, and do not allow it to get into the hands of the Americans through reciprocity or some other mistake of this government, but the minister will see that his argument does not lead to the conclusion he would have us believe, that is, that we should have three transcontinental railways to take care of the traffic now or ten years from now or that the present railway facilities are not sufficient for our present needs. On the contrary it proves by comparison with conditions in the United States, and their development, that we do not need a third road at this time. I agree that the Canadian Northern railway, having lines constructed in the west, and also in the east, it is vitally important to the Canadian Northern that these two systems should be hooked up together, and that this Bill should help the Canadian Northern railway in such a way that they would be willing to reciprocate. It might be well to add another declaratory clause:	And
whereas there is likely to be a general election in 1911, and the Canadian Northern railway will likely contribute generously
to the campaign funds, therefore, it is desirable to pass this Bill.
Bill reported.
Mr. GRAHAM moved the third reading of the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, we all agree that this country is now experiencing a period of unusual development, although that development is no greater than is justified by its great resources, and by the enterprise and industry of its people. The Minister of Railways is inspired with a spirit of optimism. I think every Canadian is so inspired, but what I object to is that the minister should develop the spirit of optimism just at the period when this House is about to adjourn for a couple of months and that he should insist on that spirit ot optimism running its full course in this particular matter, without that due consideration of the measure which otherwise it would receive. Optimism is a very desirable thing in public men in a country like Canada, in a very interesting stage of its development and progress, but there are other qualities which are just as necessary or which should at least accompany that optimism. Some of these are a reasonable regard for business methods, a reasonable amount of foresight, a reasonable amount of caution in pledging the resources of the country. The circumstances under which this Bill has been introduced, and under which it is being pressed to an unusually speedy conclusion in this House do not indicate that the sovernment is seized of all these qualities. The Bill was introduced at a very late period. My hon. friend received a very great inspiration in the west last year. He returned from the west some time in September. Why is it that this optimism with which he was then inspired did not prompt him to introduce this measure earlier in the session? It is undoubtedly true, as the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) pointed out, that this measure has not received the consideration which it would probably have received if it had been introduced three or four months ago. But we also find that the methods of the government in introducing this Bill are otherwise not quite up to the standard which we might expect. There has been almost a complete lack of information on two points, first as to the necessity of the road and, secondly, as to its cost. When I speak of the necessity of the road, I couple with that the extremely meagre information that is embodied in the Bill with respect to the route over which the road is to be constructed. As to the cost, I repeat that if it had been my privilege to introduce a Bill like this for the consideration of the House of Commons, and if I based my claim that the Bill

should be passed on the statement that the road would cost on an average $50,000 a mile, I would have considered it my absolute duty to bring the report of at least one, and probably more than one engineer of standing who would state to the House of Commons that in his belief a road built up to that standard would cost that amount. I must repeat that I do not think the minister has treated the House of Commons with proper respect when he asks them to assume thdt the road will cost that amount, he himself having given no more attention to that particular phase of the question than what he has explained to us in the course of his remarks upon this Bill. The route is exceedingly indefinite. I repeat that it was the duty of the government to have given us at least ten or twelve points which this road might have been expected to touch between Eideau Junction and Port Arthur. I have not heard advanced any reason why that should not be done.
In the discussion on the resolutions I pointed out that with regard to the building of this road for a distance of four or five hundredi miles north of Lake Superior, that is undoubtedly unnecessary at present. I say so for the reason that I understand the Canadian Pacific Railway can to-day accommodate over that portion of its lines five times the traffic that is offered, and we have the Grand Trunk Pacific in process of construction there, thus giving us three railways north of Lake Superior. I imagine that when these three roads are completed they will be able to carry from ten to fifteen times the traffic that will be offered for many years to come. I regard the construction of these roads there under these conditions as an economic waste. If you waste the money of Canada in building railways where they are not needed, you must necessarily deprive of railways other parts of the country that are justly entitled to them.
I desire to emphasize that this measure contains no assurance that the traffic which will be gathered by this system in western Canada will be brought all the way over Canadian routes to Canadian ports. It is idle for me to repeat my remarks on that subject. It is true the measure does embody a stipulation for an agreement to that effect, but if that agreement should not be fulfilled by these two companies I do not know what can be done about it, except possibly it might be a ground for parliament to take some step against the companies by way df retaliation or punishment, but whether such a step could be taken with advantage to the people of Canada is very problematical.
Another point is this; when the measure for the construction of the National Transcontinental railway was brought down I Mr. BORDEN (Halifax)
urged, and others on this side of the House urged, that as the people of Canada were financing that road to the extent of more than three-fourths of its entire cost, it would have been proper that the people of Canada should have some direct interest in it. I estimated at the time that the government of Canada financed the National Transcontinental railway to the extent of nine-tenths of its cost. The people of Canada received no interest whatever in the common stock of the road, while the Grand Trunk Railway Company which assisted to a very limited extent in financing the project received the entire common stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific amounting to $25,000,000. I also pointed out that while that common stock represented no present investment of capital it would, through the progress and development of the country, ultimately acquire very great value. It seemed to us on this side of the House that the people of Canada by reason of the financial aid they were giving to that undertaking should have some direct interest in the value which would be created in that common stock by reason of the progress and growth of the Dominion. I admit that in the present case the conditions are not quite similar. We asked that the Grand Trunk Railway Company should be called on to indemnify the government against the guarantee which it was giving for the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and our motions in that regard were denied. That which was denied in the case of the Grand Trunk is carried out in this case, because the Canadian Northern does, by the terms of this agreement, indemnify the government and the people of Canada against any loss which may accrue by reason of the guarantee of the bonds of the Canadian Northern Ontario railway; so that the two cases are not quite similar. But notwithstanding that difference, inasmuch as this government is giving very important financial assistance towards the construction of this railway it would have been proper for the government to insist that the people of this country should have some direct interest in the common stock of this railway as a consideration for the aid given. The interests of the people of the Dominion have not been safeguarded in that respect nor in the other respects I have mentioned.
In conclusion I wish to say that I do not pretend to doubt that the road, as the country increases in population and development, will be a financial success, but in the net result the people of Canada, while they get the advantage of the transportation, have no 'further control of the rates than that which already exists through the Board of Railway Commissioners. And although the common stock of this railway will no doubt

some day reach the very high standard which the stock of other great railways in Canada has attained, and although we are contributing to the building of this road by pledging the credit of .the country to the extent of about $37,000,000, the people of Canada in the end will have no direct interest whatever in all that enormous value which will come to the promoters of this road. I regret that the measure was not introduced at a time when it would have been possible for parliament to have given to this proposal the consideration and discussion which its magnitude deserves.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on this question before we finally dispose of this Bill, if for no other reason than to put myself on record as to some of the views I hold regarding this and similar questions. This session will certainly go down to the history of the Canadian parliament as one in which we have been very prodigal in our provision for expenditure, and our assistance to railways. It is true, we have good times, the country is being developed rapidly, and the people do not feel the pinch of want very much. But that to my mind is no justifiable reason why we should go it too extravagantly in the meantime. I have been looking over what we have committed the country to during the present session and what we propose to commit it to before the session is ended, and I sum up the commitments in the following figures. First, our estimates, main and supplemen-taries, amount to $156,000,000, a provision for the expenditure of one year which certainly is a record-breaker, being away and above anything that Canada has ever been called upon to expend in any year up to the present time; and when one remembers that this is proposed by a party who, before they came into power, were notable for their desire for stringent economy, one realizes the wonderful difference there is in some men between professions and practice. Then, we are committing the country to an expenditure for the Canadian Northern railway of at least $37,000,000 for the first building of thp road, and about $1,250,000 for the two years interest -which will be borne by the country before there is anything renaid by the company. We have also on the notice paper some resolutions providing for the leasing or taking over or building of 445 miles of railwavs in the eastern provinces as branches of the Intercolonial railwav. This will cost us. at the rate which we haye estimated the Canadian
Northern will cost, namely, $35,000 a mile, about $15,575,000; making in all, for these railway projects, saying nothing about the railway subsidies of whicu I presume we shall^ have some before the session ends, $52,575,000. This, added to the estimates, makes a sum total of $209,800,000 that we are during the present session, committing the country to either in the expenditure of cash or in credit. That is a very large amount of money. Perhaps the development of the country may justify it; perhaps it may be necessary; but to my mind we have not had submitted to us sufficient evidence to convince me at least that thi3 heavy expenditure is amply justified. I know that the west is developing rapidly; I know that there will be an important trade to be handled in the future; but in my judgment the provision we have already made will be quite sufficient to handle that trade for years to come. I agree entirely with what the hon. leader of the opposition said with regard to the portion of the Canadian Northern railway passing around Lake Superior, where one railway could) handle nearly all the traffic if it were run to its capacity. It seems to me it is not the height of wisdom to provide for building three railways, and tne cost of maintaining the tracks when one could do the work. Therefore, I look on that expenditure as one which is not justified by circumstances, and which a good business man would have avoided in the interest of the country. We have been obliged to do this on very scanty information. I happened to be attending a committee meeting during the time the Minister of Railways made the most of his speech, and I did not hear all he said; but 1 read most of it afterwards, and I thought the information he gave was very meagre, and very unsatisfactory to any business man who wanted to satisfy himself as to whether we were doing the proper thing or not, One of the questions that interested me was:	What
did the Canadian Northern up to the present time cost per mile? I do not know whether that information was given or not. Perhaps the hon. minister will say now.


George Perry Graham: No, it was not given.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that was a very important item of information that we should have had, because it would have enabled us to determine with some kind of approximate accuracy whether or not we were proposing to give too much for the building of this portion of the Toad. The next question was:	What is its bonded
indebtedness? Was that given?


George Perry Graham: That was not given.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is another item of information which I think the House ought

to have had to enable us to determine about what the portion of the road already built has cost. Then we could have judged whether the country was giving too large a subvention for the portion of the road proposed to be built. The next question was: What subsidies in land or money have the Canadian Northern Railway Company received or are they to receive for any portion of their road, and how much per mile does it amount to?


George Perry Graham: I gave that information.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can the hon. minister tell me approximately what it amounted to5


George Perry Graham: I cannot tell how much per mile. There was a subsidy, I suppose, of $6,400 per mile, for the portion between Montreal and Hawkesbury; but that has not been earned, as that portion has not yet been constructed. Then the Quebec legislature gave it a land grant, but that has never been earned, and will have to be revoted. The Ontario legislature gave for a portion of the road from Sudbury west 4,600 acres per mile.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: For how many miles?


George Perry Graham: I forget the distance. Then there are ten miles that will become part of this line and on which the Ontario government gave a guarantee in connection with the Toronto terminal. Those are the subsidies from Ottawa to Hawkesbury that had been paid to the Canadian Northern railway.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We ought to know what assistance this company has received for the building of this railway. We ought to know its indebtedness per mile and the actual cost of the road. All these things we ought to know before deciding whether or not the estimate of the cost of building that portion of the railway not yet built is too high or too low. But we are simply asked to go it blind and put this Bill through on the most insufficient data. That is not the way to treat the representatives of the people. What the road cost per mile, what is its indebtedness per mile, both by bonds and other indebtedness, what subsidies in land or money have been given or remain to be given, what the company has received in every shape or form Tor these portions of the road-all these things we ought to know. Then the question which interests me is: are we giving the company too much? We know that we give subsidies to railways of $3,200 per mile or $6,400 per mile, according to the cost of construction. But we have had a great many miles built without subsidy, from which the people are getting all the benefits they can expect from this line. Are we giving too much? I heard it said not long ago in Toronto that Mr. SPROULE.
the Canadian Northern railway is one of the most fortunate railways in Canada because its bonded indebtedness is very much below that of any other railway. How did this company build its various lines? It built them through the subsidies given and by selling its bonds. The owners of this system put very little of their own money into it, so that whatever the railway costs, was paid through the assistance given by the various governments in this country and through selling its bonds. I heard an eminent financier say that if the Canadian Northern railway were as successful in the future as it has been in the past, it will not be long before it will have between five and six thousand miles of railway on which practically there is no indebtedness except the bonded indebtedness. The owners of this system will be among the richest railway men in the world without having put much of their own money into it. Are we helping them by this proposal to a greater extent than we ought, to build that portion which we are told it is so desirable to build? I think we are giving entirely too much, and I am under the impression that such is the opinion of the bulk of the people. Our people have pretty well come to the conclusion that we have reached the time when we should cease subsidizing railways because, although we have many railways to which we have given extensive subsidies, not one of them will carry a pound of freight a cent cheaper than if we had given nothing. These railway men may become rich, their shares may go to 240 or 250, their bonds may sell at a high premium, they may pay large dividends, but the users have still to pay high rates for freight and traffic. Just look at what the Canadian Pacific railway got from the country. Look at the dividends it is paying and the prices quoted for its stock and bonds, largely due to the assistance given by this country, but how much benefit has the country received from that railway on account of this assistance? The more we give, the less we get in return, and the day has passed when we should be so lavish with our assistance, without getting any consideration in return.
There is another question in this connection that interests me, more particularly as a resident of southwestern Ontario. It is said that this system will be beneficial to the whole country. Perhaps in one sense it may. But many years ago I said the building of railways through the hinterland had practicailv side-tracked line and the trade of the country southwestern Ontario almost entirely. Southwestern Ontario was until quite lately on the great highway of commerce, but to-day it is simply on the branch east and west is being carried away past it, although it is one of the most wealthy and most thickly populated parts of the Do-

minion. Southwestern Ontario paid proportionately a larger share of this .money than any other section of the Dominion. What does she get in return? Practically this expenditure has Teduced the value of her farms, destroyed her towns and cities and injured her ports in the Georgian Bay. It has practically impoverished southwestern Ontario for the benefit of the back part of the country. Indirectly that policy is doing good, but every additional line we build there is an additional highway that injures the southwestern portion of Ontario. What do we get in return? Little or nothing. The trade is being carried by our ports, our cities are being dwarfed and we are put on the branch lines instead of being the ere at highway of commerce which we W'ere heretofore. _. . I do not think that we should look with any favour on this proposed heavy expenditure. In my opinion the people are not getting any substantial benefit proportioned to the assistance we are giving this road. I think the government would have been well advised had they arranged, when giving this lavish support, to get some reduction in the freight rates. Had they been the good business men they profess to be, they would have made an effort in that direction.
It seems strange that, after all we have given for railways in this Dominion, stuff can be hauled twenty-five, thirty or forty miles with horse teams as cheaply as it can be carried by railway. Two years ago I had some light machinery to bring from a place about thirty-five miles this side of Toronto. I inquired at the factory what it would cost me to lay it down in Toronto and was given a figure, but was told that if it was all the same to me they could send it to Toronto a little cheaper by horse team than by the Grand Trunk railway. So it was carried thirty-five miles by horse team and put on the railway over which it had to be carried to reach its destination, and it was done cheaper than the Grand Trunk would carry it, and transfer it about half a mile to the other road. That means that there is something wrong with regard to the service the railways of this country give the people.
Well, we are called upon to pass this Bill. Is there any urgency _in it? The Minister of Railways says' there is, but he has not told us in what that urgency consists. We have no information, but we have pushed the measure through in a very short time. Why, if a man were buying 100 acres of land in a section not thoroughly known to him he would take more trouble about it than we are taking about this arrangement that is going to cost the country about $37,000,000. I presume the explanation of 'urgency' in this Bill is that we are near an election. It takes money to run elections, and the government must get money from some source. We know where these funds have come from in the past, and where they are likely to come from in the future.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. gentleman should tell us where they come from?-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I could easily give the facts as to some, and there is a good deal more that we could clear up if we had a little of the information that the hon. gentleman and his friends could so easily give. In years gone by when Sir John Macdonald proposed to build the Canadian Pacific railway, he and his party were turned out of power because it was claimed they received or were to receive $50,000 for election purposes out of the assistance given to build that railway. How many times has this government got that amount twice over to run their elections from railway corporations and not a word about it? Would they dare to take the people into their confidence and tell how much they got in the past from the Canadian Pacific railway to run an election?-how much they got from the Canadian Northern?- how much they propose to get from the Canadian Northern out of this scheme when it is passed? I am sure that if they did, it would not be worth their while to go to the country, for they would be wiped out so suddenly they would scarcely know what struck them. That is one of the great reasons for 'urgency.' That is one of its great aims, in my opinion. The people of this country ought to know that, so that they might govern themselves accordingly when the day of reckoning comes. We would like to be able to give them that information clearly, but we cannot do it because we are denied the information. So, it is because of the approach of an election that it is important to put this through. I suppose the government will put it through, but we would like the people to know what is being done with their money, the lavish way in which their funds are expended and the reckless way in which they are committed to the burdens of taxation which must be borne for all time. And when in possession of that information, I hope that when they go to the polls, they will record their votes against this very 'economical' government that, a few years ago thought $43,000,000 expended in one year meant bleeding the people white, and to-day give us to understand that $156,000,000 of expenditure is stringent economy.


Mr. LAKE.: I do not wish to detain the House at this stage of the proceedings, but I desire to say just a few words in the way of protest against this legislation and of comparison with other legislation that might be introduced. Rumours have been rife during the past two or three years that

it was the intention of the government to hand over the Hudson Bay railway to the Canadian Northern Bailway Company. In consequence of these rumours the strongest expression of opinion came from the people, especially the people of the west, and that expression of opinion was so strongly opposed to the proposed action that the government proposals in that respect were headed off. Now, apparently, we find that the government are determined to do something by way of making a gift to the Canadian Northern Railway Company. What can the reason be? The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has suggested reasons. It appears to me extremely probable that if the government had been allowed to hand over the Hudson Bay railway to the Canadian Northern Railway Company, we should not be asked to pass this legislation for them. This is making a gift to the Canadian Northern Railway Company. I speak advisedly when I say it is a gift because it means millions of dollars to that concern. And it may mean a very great burden upon the people-not less a burden because it hears the form of a guarantee for this company. For my part f would very much sooner see sums of money given outright rather than these enormous guarantees we are making, and which it appears to be the policy of the government to make to these railway companies. When this legislation is passed, I think we shall find that the people of this country are bound to the extent of somewhere near $100,000,000 of guarantees for undertakings by private companies. And we know that occasionally government guarantees have to be met. We had an example of that in the case of the Quebec Bridge Company. When the bonds were guaranteed for that bridge, it was never believed that the people would have to pay the guarantee, but the disaster to that bridge brought about a condition under which the government had to pay the money that was lost.
I wish to make a comparison between the providing of an additional transcontinental railway and the providing of a new outlet by means of the Hudson Bay railway. The people of the Northwest for many years' past have been demanding an entirely new outlet for the produce of their country. They have the very highest hopes of the benefit to be derived from the building of the Hudson Bay railway. It is nearly three years ago now that the Prime Minister gave his word to the people of Canada that that railway should toe built immediately. Up to the present time nothing whatever has been appropriated by this parliament for the construction of that road.
It was only on the 8th of the present month that the first sum appeared in the Mr. LAKE.
supplementary estimates for the commencement of that work, and up to the present moment parliament has not been asked to appropriate anything for the purpose. The sum which appears in the supplementary estimate is merely the sum of $2,000,000; that is all the government proposes to appropriate at present. If they only appropriate that amount each year, it will take fifteen to twenty years before that railway is provided for the people of the Northwest. There is an urgent demand for the construction of that railway by the people of the Northwest. The leader of the opposition this afternoon has demonstrated that there is no urgent demand for the construction of a third transcontinental railway. He has pointed out that the two railways now provided for, the Canadian Pacific railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific are amply sufficient at the present moment, and that all the freight which will toe offering for many years to some will not half equal the capacity of those t-wo railways. I think it would have been better for the government to provide for the Hudson Bay railway than to make this additional provision for another transcontinental railway which is not immediately needed. I yield to no man in my confidence in the great possibilities of our western country, but I think that at the present time the government should apply the public revenues for the extension of railway communication where it is most urgently needed, and that I believe is the Hudson Bay railway.


Gerald Verner White: I was unfortunately unavoidably absent this morning when-this Bill was discussed in committee. In looking over section 1, I find that it does not state through what towns this line of railway will pass, and I would like to know from the Minister of Railways whether it " is to pass through the town of Pembroke. The Canadian Northern surveyors have been in that neighbourhood for some time, and it has been the impression that the road was going to pass through that town. Pembroke being one of the most important towns in the Ottawa valley, I w'ould like to have the assurance of the Minister of Railways that the Canadian Northern will pass through that town.


George Perry Graham: The route as approved passes within two miles on the east side of the town of Pembroke. I understood the town had some suggestions to make as to the entry, and as soon as' an agreement is arrived at the route will be finally approved. If I remember rightly, it was at the instance of the town that the route was not approved before. However, I am sure it is the intention of the road to pass through the town of Pembroke. The com-

pany has never discussed any other suggestions with me.


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

Mr. CLARKE (Essex).: With the consent of the House I would like to present a matter of some urgency relating to Bill (No. 55) respecting the Grand Trunk Railway Company which has been passed this session. It was found that by a clerical error the word 'principal' in one of the clauses was omitted. It is a matter of guaranteeing the bonds of the Grand Trunk Western Railway Company, which is a road on the system from Detroit to Chicago. One clause of the Bill is intended to enable the Grand Trunk Railway Company to guarantee the bonds of the Grand Trunk Western Company, but by inadvertence the Bill was read as only authorizing the guarantee of the interest, whereas the intention was to guarantee the principal as well. The Bill has come over from the Senate, amending the former Bill by inserting the word 'principal'; that is the only change in the Bill. The context clearly shows that that was the intention. I, therefore, move that Bill (No. 223) respecting the Grand Trunk railway of Canada be now read for the first time.


Mr. BARKER.: Do I understand that the Bill sent from the Senate here is being altered?


Alfred Henry Clarke: The Bill that is now presented to the House is precisely as it was passed by the Senate; but it alters a Bill previously passed and assented to by the government, and which is now in force.


Samuel Barker: Are we introducing the word ' principal ' without further consideration by the House? The hon. gentleman will see it makes an enormous difference whether we authorize a company to guarantee principal and interest, or interest only.


Alfred Henry Clarke: That is true.


Samuel Barker: I think it ought to stand a day or two.


Alfred Henry Clarke: The motion now is only to read the Bill the first time, and I propose doing as the Senate did, having <tt passed without reference to the committee. I have here the proceeding of the Grand Trunk meeting held in London in April, dealing with this Bill, pointing out clearly that the intention was to guarantee the principal as well.


Haughton Lennox: That is virtually a new Bill?


Alfred Henry Clarke: Yes, just one clause saying that section 5 of the former Bill is amended by inserting the words ' principal and,' before ' interest.'


Samuel Barker: The interest and principal are very different, the interest would be probably 25 times the principal, and we should not pass this without its going to the committee.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I will move that it be read the first and second time, and be referred to the committee, and that all rules be suspended in relation thereto.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why is there so much urgency for this Bill?


Alfred Henry Clarke: The urgency is that they are in the midst of negotiations. Since Bill (No. 55) was passed, at this session, the matter has been before the meeting of isharehold-ers- in London, and as the House is about to close they are anxious to have this disposed of.


Robert Laird Borden: What was the Bill?


Alfred Henry Clarke: It dealt with several matters, but the only clause in question was one authorizing the Grand Trunk Railway Company to guarantee a new issue of bonds of the Grand Trunk Western Railway Company, part of the system from Detroit to Chicago.


Morley Currie: Was no.t the original guarantee simply a guarantee of interest on those bonds? You are replacing this with a fresh issue of bonds, and in the Bill already passed the Grand Trunk are permitted to guarantee the interest just as before; now you propose to guarantee not only the interest, but the principal as well, on the American end of the road.


Alfred Henry Clarke: That is quite
right. They are at present guarantors for the interest only, but instead of haying a second mortgage they have agreed, and desire to guarantee both principal and interest, and that is how the mistake arose, in drafting the Bill they followed the former one, guaranteeing the interest alone, whereas they wanted to guarantee the interest and principal.


Richard Blain: When the matter was up for discussion in the committee was it understood that they were to guarantee the principal?


Alfred Henry Clarke: Although the Bill was in my name, I cannot now remember what occurred before the committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member has not been as frank with the House as he ought to have been. He says it was a clerical error, but now it seems- it was simpry the interest that was intended to be suaranteed.


Mt. CLAEKE (Essex).: It was intended to guarantee the principal as well. I have here the report of the meeting in London which shows that clearly.


Haughton Lennox: When was this meeting?
annual net charges reduced, has deemed it wise to have the guarantee extended to the principal as well as to the interest. Is it not a fact that the Grand Trunk owns all the stock as well as the bonds?


Edward Frederick Clarke: In April.


Haughton Lennox: Since the Bill went through ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Yes. It was the intention from the beginning to guarantee the principal.


Haughton Lennox: Is there any evidence of that?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I suppose we may say that until we have representatives of the railway present, that was the intention from the beginning.


Mr.   BAEKEE@: I have no doubt of the facts, but I am quite sure the proprietors of the Grand Trunk in England would be very pleased to know that some care was taken of these matters in this House, and I do not think that such a far-reaching change should be made without evidence being produced before .-a loommilttee. I object to the Bill going through except in the usual way.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is committing the Grand Trunk to an obligation to guarantee bonds belonging to a railway in the United States. This guarantee would take precedence of any obligations the Grand Trunk railway owe to the Dominion of Canada, and this would make Canada's security that much less valuable. We should not pass such an important measure without careful consideration.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am not asking that it be considered now, it is to go to the committee in the usual way.
Mr. 'SPEOULE. It looks like, ;unduie haste.


Morley Currie: I understand there is a company in the United States, the Chicago and Grand Trunk


Edward Frederick Clarke: The Grand Trunk Western railway.


Morley Currie: And there is the Grand Trunk Bailway of Canada. By the amalgamation which took place some years ago, the Grand Trunk Eailway of Canada acquired absolute control of the Grand Trunk in the United States although it remains a separate .corporation. It had outstanding bonds. It is not as easy now as it was some time ago to finance a railway company, and even great railways like the Pennsylvania and the New York Central are feeling the stress. I suppose the Grand Trunk, desirous of having money as cheaply as possible, and to have the Mr. SPROULE.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I have no reason to doubt that all my friend says is true, but I do not know.
% Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first and second time.
Mt. CLAEKE (Essex) moved that the Bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Eailways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, and that all rules be suspended in relation thereto.


Robert Laird Borden: That seems to be a pretty comprehensive form of motion. What would be the result of suspending all rules?


Edward Frederick Clarke: We can strike that out.


Haughton Lennox: The allegation is that this is to cure a mistake. If it was a mistake it ought to be corrected, but if it is not a mistake we are within a few minutes' initiating a Bill, and advancing it three stages contrary to all rules. We should have some evidence -now that it is to correct a mistake.
I am not much concerned in it personally, but I have a lingering desire. to see the rules observed. If my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke, Essex), knows of his own knowledge that it was a mistake, I shall be quite willing to take his statement, but if he does not know I urge my point.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I know nothing about it except that the Bill happens to stand in my name, but the committee is the only place where those who know about the mistake can appear and give evidence.


Robert Laird Borden: If the directors state they want the Bill amended in this way I do not -see any particular reason why it should not be so amended, provided they have given proper notice to their shareholders so that they may appear before the committee if they so desire. Subject to that it is a matter that concerns the company more than it concerns anybody else.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The petition to parliament for the Bill states that it was an oversight in the original Act not to include what is now asked for.


William Stevens Fielding: If it is a clerical error it is not a clerical error on the part of parliament, but in the drafting of the Bill. No harm can be done by letting it go to the committee, but in view of the importance of the change the committee should

give it very careful consideration, and not treat it as a mere clerical error.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Stevens Fielding: I would like to call attention to the remaining business of the House up to the time of the adjournment. Hon. gentlemen on both sides have very reasonably urged that we should have a definite understanding as to the time of adjournment so that they may be able to make their arrangements accordingly. We have not hitherto been able to make a definite statement, but we may now say that it is our desire and intention that the House should adjourn on Friday, which is the earlier day of the two mentioned. I believe if we can arrange to adjourn on Friday we should be giving effect to the general feeling of the House.
Som hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


William Stevens Fielding: I quite understand that at_ this stage matters which may be submitted to the House cannot be advanced very far unless by general consent. When you are within forty-eight hours of the date fixed for adjournment any hon. gentleman who has strong objection to any particular measure can very easily prevent its enactment. In giving the list of the measures which we desire to bring to the notice of the House, and to advance, I dp so with the understanding that we can only hope for success so faT as they are non-contentious. There may be some of the measures which I shall mention which are in part 'Contentious, and in part non-contentious, and we may be able to take that which is generally satisfactory, and reserve that which is debatable. Of course, fair discussion on any of these measures is invited', but if it be found there is such strong opposition to any one of these measures from any section of the House as to indicate that the discussion will carry us beyond the Friday adjournment, we frankly say we will not press that measure beyond sufficient time to ascertain the disposition of the House towards it. We propose to take up as the next measure, the Railway Act, portions of which I understand are not like'lv to be debatable. If there are any portions of it which are likely to give rise to debate, and in consequence to delay, the Minister of Railways will consider what portions he wishes to press, and what portions he wishes to set aside.
The special Bill respecting the Bank Act, as I have already stated, will be advanced, also a Bill which is associated with it known as the Quebec Savings Banks Bill. The Forest Reserves Bill, I am told, although it has been the subject of considerable discussion, should be passed, and is
not likely to be much objected to; I do not know whether I am correct in that or not. There is also the Grain Act which my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior will advance and see what the desire of the House is concerning it. The Water Carriage Bill, which I am advised, is not likely to be contentious, will be brought forward; it is to amend an Act of a previous session, and I understand that it has been agreed upon by the Committee on Marine and Fisheries. Then, there is the Quebec Battlefields Bill, which has already engaged the attention of the House briefly, and which it is desired to advance. The resolution respecting the Japanese Treaty will be presented, and a Bill founded thereon. The Minister of Public Works has a notice on the Order Paper concerning the Collingwood Shipbuilding Company, which he will endeavour to advance. The Minister of Railways has two resolutions relating to the Intercolonial railway which will be presented for the consideration of the House under the conditions I have mentioned. We now come to the question of Supply. I shall have occasion to present this evening a small extra supplementary estimate dealing with a matter in connection with the coronation arrangements throughout the country, to which I am sure there will be no objection. We will bring forward a number of items in the estimates-I will send my hon. friend the leader of the opposition a list of them-which we will ask the House to vote for the whole year. Some of these items are small and beyond all question, and I think the committee will agree to vote them. Others are quite large, but although they are for the twelve months, the actual expenditure is likely to fall within the summer months, and a failure to grant practically the whole amount might paralyze the particular services for the whole year. That of course will have to be explained by the ministers in charge of these items when they are brought forward. Then, having obtained as much as we reasonably may of the votes for the whole year, we shall introduce a vote on account, in which I shall propose to take such sum as, united with what has previously been voted, will make five-twelfths of the estimates for the year, that being in accordance with a previous understanding. This is the programme as far as it is possible to state it now. It is possible that some measures have escaped my notice. If so, they will be added under the conditions I have mentioned. We shall only press each on the House if it proves to be of a non-contentious character.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. Minister of Finance has given us a pretty good programme for 48 hours. Including the Supply Bill, to which he has referred, it



&quot;9311 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
comprises twelve Bills and resolutions which we are expected to dispose of in that time. Well, I do not suppose it is seriously expected that we shall make such remarkable progress on all these Bills or on any considerable number of them within that time; it will be absolutely impossible to do it. So far as I am personally concerned, I would rather remain until Tuesday night and give them proper discussion than to drive them through in order to adjourn on Friday night. We have been rushing things through rapidly enough, I fear too rapidly in some cases. Some of these measures may invite discussion; about some of them there will be no question whatever. I would not feel disposed, for the sake of getting away on Friday, to limit what I would regard as necessary discussion on any one of these measures. At the same time, subject to that, I would be very glad to assist in getting as many of them through as possible.
William Stevens Fielding: I am quite content with my hon. friend's remarks, which are reasonable. I have certainly no desire to limit discussion on any one of these Bills. If after fair discussion hon. gentlemen still wish to postpone them, they will not be pressed, if I am right in assuming that they want to get away on Friday. Do not imagine that I would object to remain till Tuesday. I thought I was giving assent to the general wish of the House to get away on Friday, but if I am mistaken in that, I am willing to change the date to Tuesday.


Morley Currie: I would suggest that the hon. leader of the House take up his Supply Bill first, and then we shall have time to attend to these Bills afterwards. The most important item before the House, as far as the government is concerned, is the Supply Bill. If the Minister of Railways thinks the Intercolonial Railway Bill is the most important, we can discuss that for 48 hours. There is nothing going to be advanced in this House by endeavouring to give us too much to do or by threatening us that if we do not put all these measures through we shall not get away on Friday. We can stay here till Tuesday. We have enough money left to pay our board till Tuesday, and the reasonable course for the leader of the House, to my mind, was to have brought down all the supplies he wanted as soon as the programme was laid down when the House was going to adjourn. After that we could have discussed these Bills. As I understand, the premier announced, before he left, that all the Supply that had been arranged and promised had been passed by this House except the five-twelfths. Now, there is a large Supply needed apparently over and beyond that. If the government want that Supply passed Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
before the 23rd, I think it would be wise for the leader of the House to bring it down right away and get it passed.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the programme is not so difficult as my hon. friend imagines. We shall try to get through a number of these Bills, and if we find that they v/ill be unduly delayed, we will not press them on the House.



MESSAGE FROM HIS EXCELLENCYSUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING presented a message from His Excellency the Governor General, transmitting further supplementary estimates for the year ending the 31st March, 1912, which were referred to the Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 197) to amend the Railway Act-Mr. Graham-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
George Perry Graham: This is merely to make the section of the Act which compels the railway companies to furnish us with statistics, apply to telegraph, telephone and express companies.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Does this provide for express companies making a return also?


George Perry Graham: I do not know that it would include the return which my hon. friend has in mind, but certain statistics required as to the amount of business, indebtedness, &c., from railways, is also required from telegraph and telephone companies.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The hon. minister said that possibly this Bill would cover the amendment contained in my Bill.


George Perry Graham: My department will have the power to make it cover that if they so desired.
On section 2,
2. Paragraph (f) of subsection 1 of section 30 of the principal Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
'And may require the company to establish and maintain an efficient and competent staff of fire-rangers, equipped with such appliances for fighting, or preventing fires from spreading, as the board may deem proper, and to provide such rangers with proper and suiV-aible equipment to enable them to move from place to place along the line of railway with all due speed. The board may require the company to maintain an efficient patrol of the line of railway and other lands in the vicinity thereof to which fires may spread, and generally define the duties of the company, and the said fire-rangers, in respect thereof. The

board may require the company bo make returns of the names of fire-rangers in its employ in the performance of the above duties and of the places or areas in which they are from time to time engaged. For the purpose ot fighting and extinguishing fires, the said fire-rangers may follow the fires which spread from the railway to, over and upon the lands to winch they may spread.


George Perry Graham: The matter to which this amendment refers has been discussed a great deal. The Canadian Forestry Association passed a resolution concerning this question, so did the Conservation Commission, and suggested certain amendments to the Railway Act, with the view of greater piotection against fire, caused by sparks from locomotives. The amendment was not such an easy one to work out as might appear on the surface, and I took the opportunity of asking the chairman of the Conservation Commission, and Senator Edwards of the Canadian Forestry Association besides the representatives of the railway companies and the chairman of the Board Commissioners, to meet in my office, with the view of working out an amendment. After discussion, it was decided to ask the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners and the Chairman of the Conservation Commission to draft a clause and present it. I could not say that the clause these two gentlemen drafted met with the absolute approval of the railway companies. These companies object to its not being confined solely to forests, but they did not make serious objection, and it has met the approval of the other parties concerned. This will enable the Board of Railway Commissioners to require a railway company to protect the forests through which its railway runs and give the commissioners power to have the other portions of the country traversed by a railway protected from fire where they deem it neces-
, Mr. SCHAFFNER. Does this mean that the companies are to control the whole of their lines of railways?


George Perry Graham: It gives the board power to say to the railway companies, where there is danger, as in a prairie section, from tire on account of the grass: you must patrol that part of your line, but the continuous work will probably be done in the forests.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: From whom must the request come, say in a prairie section?


George Perry Graham: Under the Act, the Board may, on the request of any one or on its own motion without request, give its orders. The information would have to come from some one, and when seized of the information, the board may act without request. No doubt the practice will be that some one would make a request.


Morley Currie: The province of Ontario has power to range railways, especially in the north. Does this Act relieve the railway company from liability or expense in that respect? If you put a clause in the Railway Act of Canada, under which Act they are operating, they can say that their sectionmen are patrolling the track, looking for fires and so repudiate any attempt to compel additional ranging.


George Perry Graham: That was discussed, and it was thought that this w uld not interfere with any arrangement made with the provinces. If there is likely to be a collision, an amicable arrangement could be arrived at by which there would be no increase of expense.
On section 3,
*Subsection 1 of section 41a of the prinoipal Act, as enacted by section 10 of chapter 62 of the Statutes of 1908, is amended by inserting immediately after the word 'railway' in the third line of the said subsection the words 'telegraph, telephone or express.'


George Perry Graham: This is on account of the telegraph, telephone and express companies coming under the Act. Under the Railway Act we require each company to have some person in Ottawa on whom the board may serve notice. This provides that the express, telegraph and telephone companies shall comply with this requijjen ment.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4,
George Perry Graham: This is a section in which the hon.. member for Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster) is particularly interested. I told the hon. member I would let him know when this Bill was coming up. It was announced by the Minister of Finance last night, but evidently he did not catch it.


Haughton Lennox: Since the minister mentioned it a little while ago we have endeavoured to find the hon. member for Lincoln and Niagara but have not been able to do so.
Mi-. GRAHAM. This section involves a legal question. It relates to the limitation to acquire land and give notice. If no hon. member wishes to discuss it now, I would suggest that we might let this stand for a little while in the hope that the hon. member for Lincoln and Niagara will be here.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Section 4 stands for further consideration.
On section 5,


George Perry Graham: This is really a question between the railways. It seems to have been held that land owned by a rail-



t
way company, not strictly the right of way, cannot be taken by another railway without the consent of the owners. On the face of it, it looks as if every railway ought to be treated as the ordinary citizen would be treated. But such strong representations have been made by several railways concerned that I know this will cause discussion. Therefore, I propose as it is a contentious clause to let it come up another session.
Section 5 struck out.
On section 6,


George Perry Graham: I would like some of the legal gentlemen in the House to look through this and see that it is all right. It is an amendment proposed by the chairman of the Ontario Municipal and Railway Board, and is to provide for the formation of a joint board to consist of members of the Ontario board and members of the federal board to deal with questions such as the physical connections between a Tailway having a provincial charter and one having a Dominion charter. The Ontario House passed their Act, and I agreed to pass one in conformity with it.


Haughton Lennox: This is a matter that has been very much needed for many years. The people have had great difficulty about it. As the minister knows I have given some attention to the subject. The chairman of the board here was good enough to talk with me in reference to it; I have had two or three conversations with him at various times. It was up for discussion in the House last session, but we could not get it through. The member of the Ontario board, Mr. Leitch, was here and I discussed the matter with him. The two chairmen gave their experience in the drafting of this section, as 11 understand it, and I have no doubt they succeeded in putting it in good shape. It would be almost presumptuous in me to say that it appears to me to be all right, but I have taken an interest in the matter, and I feel confident that this section will be found satisfactory.


Samuel Barker: Do I understand that these clauses have been approved by the provincial authorities?


George Perry Graham: The Ontario legislature has passed a similar enactment. The chairman of the Ontario board and the chairman of the Dominion board came to me and placed this in my hands.


Haughton Lennox: I think that at the time this was being considered, the international railway question was before the Railway Board here, and so the chairman had the benefit of that experience as well.


Mr. HERRON.: As this deals in some way with provincial charters, I would like Mr. GRAHAM.
to know from the minister if there has been brought to his notice the question of a railway with a provincial charter getting right-of-way across an Indian reserve? Is there provision for such an emergency? Would it come under a BUI of this kind?


George Perry Graham: I should think that would be a matter between the Department of the Interior and the company
making the application.


John Herron: The question was brought up last summer in the southern part of Alberta, and I understood from the representatives of the company that they had communicated with the local government, and it was found there was no way by which they could force a right-of-way across the reserve. I did not know but that the matter had been brought to the attention of the minister. Some provision should be made for such a contingency.


George Perry Graham: It should be done under the Indian Act rather than under the . Railway Act. Indian lands are in a peculiar position, the Indians being wards of the government. It would hardly do to decide under the Railway Act how land is to be taken away from the Indians.


Mr. DOHERTY.: My impression is that we did enact a provision of that kind.


George Perry Graham: I thought so, and the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson), tells me that it has been done.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, I think it is covered by the Bill which was passed this session relating to Indian reserves.
Section 6 agreed to.
On section 7,
Section 235 of the principal Act is amended by striking out the words ' the railway ' at the commencement of the said section and substituting therefor the words, 'Subject to the company making such compensation to, adjacent or abutting land owners as the board deems proper, the railway of the company.


George Perry Graham: This covers a question which arises where an electric railway, it may be a steam railway, is allowed to run on a highway, there does not seem to be any provision for the owner of property abutting on the street to secure damages. This is provided to get compensation if he sustains damages in this way.


Samuel Barker: There are cases of that kind referred' to in Hamilton. Serious
damage was done, and yet no compensation could be had.


William Sora Middlebro: Why is not the fixing of the amount of damages left under the expropriation clause of the Bill instead of being referred to the Railway

Commission? As the section now reads the board will fix the damages instead of the arbitrators.


Haughton Lennox: I think section 235 should be amended to read: ' subject to the company making compensation to adjacent or abutting land owners.'


George Perry Graham: I am quite willing to accept that amendment. Let it read: ' Subject to the company making compensation to such of the adjacent or abutting landowners as the board deems projoer.'


Morley Currie: Who has been asking for this legislation?


George Perry Graham: I think there is a case in court at the present time about it. But this will not interfere with the present litigation. The Board of Railway Commissioners asks for it.


Morley Currie: We will have a thousand cases' of this kind in the courts inside of the next year if you put that amendment in the Act, because everybody having a railroad running in front of his place will soon find occasion of bringing an action against the railway company. In the United States they have just such legislation. In nearly all the states of the union the owner of the property abutting on the highway owns the right of the land as far as the centre of the highway. Consequently if a railway runs in front of his property, even a street railway, they have got to get the right from the owner of the property, apart from the municipality. In this country the rights of highways are vested in the Crown, and the Crown can give anybody the right to run a railway on a highway. The only right the municipality has about highways is the right to prevent the creation of a nuisance on that highway. This amendment will create the impression that the owners of all the land along the railway, or highway where the railway runs, have some vested interest in the highway. I think the courts are quite capable of guarding the interests of everybody along these routes, and they are doing it now. This will simply invite further litigation.


Haughton Lennox: I am sorry I cannot agree with my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie). As I understand this section, there is no possibility of getting any compensation, no matter how much a man suffers, where a railway crosses the highway. This provides that if it is a proper case they still shall have the right to cross the highway; but if it is a case where compensation ought to be awarded, then the crossing shall be subject to the, right of compensation after the board has so determined. That does not invite litigation. The board will say whether each man's case shall be considered or not.
294}	.


Morley Currie: I am not a lawyer, but I understand that the railway can run along a highway, but if they put anything on it that will injure the value of your property, you can sue them and get redress. This permits of mapy other things. For instance, if a railway passes fifty yards from your house and shakes the dishes off the table, you can sue them for damages.


Edward Guss Porter: This amendment as proposed seems to go a great deal farther than is intended. Under the original clause, section 235, provision is made for crossing highways. By the interpretation clauses of the Act a highway is defined to cover more than is ordinarily understood as a public highway, certain roadways, alleys, &c,, are defined to be public highways for the purposes of the Act. A case arose before the board J,wo or three weeks ago in which I was interested, the case of the "Belleville-Prince Edward Bridge Company. The minister will recollect that there is an approach of about three quarters of a mile from one of the streets in Belleville to the superstructure of the bridge. The Canadian Northern railway in its Toronto-Ottawa line is crossing that approach to the bridge and a question arose whether that was a highway under which they could expropriate under this section of the Act or whether it was private property. It belongs to the Belleville-Prince Edward Bridge Company and they operate for toll, but under the description of a highway in the Railway Act it would come within the description of a highway. The Board of Railway Commissioners held, however, upon the construction of the statute, that the approach to the bridge not being a public highway in every sense of the word, the railway company must treat for that land in the same manner as they would treat for crossing any land of a private individual. The result was that the railway company opened negotiations with the bridge company and made an arrangement by which they were to cross, so far as compensation is concerned. By the passage of this amendment as it appears here, if that power is left in, the Board of Railway Commissioners would have power to deal with that. It would be contrary to the decision already given and unless it is the desire of the Board of Railway Commissioners or unless it would be advantageous to take it out of the category it is now in and place it in the other, it would be better that that clause be not passed now, as it would complicate the matter. It should be made clear, because the order directed by the board has not yet been issued, and as some parts of the Bill will be left over, it might be wise for the minister to allow this to stand in order that the board may be

consulted as the amendment seems to me to go further than was intended.
I would also suggest an amendment to section 196 of the Railway Act, which deals with the expropriation of land as it is ordinarily understood, and provides that:
If within ten days after the service of such notice, or within one month after the first publication thereof, the opposite party does not give notice to the company that he accepts the sum offered by it, the judge shall, on the application of the company, appoint a person to be sole arbitrator for determining the compensation to be paid as aforesaid, provided that the judge shall, at the request of either party, on such application, appoint three arbitrators, &o.
By this clause, the railway company may obtain the appointment ot an arbitrator to fix the compensation but there is no corresponding right on the part of the land owner. Suppose the railway company serve that notice, and within ten days the owner does not say whether he will accept or will refuse, that is taken as a refusal. There is nothing in the Railway Act by which the owner can take proceedings to compel the railway company to arbitrate; if the railway company do not see fit to make an application to the judge to appoint arbitrators, the railway company may let the thing drag along for a year or two. That is an undesirable state of affairs. It came up recently in connection with the construction of the Toronto-Ottawa line of the Canadian Northern railway. There in a number of cases where land has been expropriated, the railway has been constructed across this land, but the owners have refused to accept the compensation offered; the railway company will not take any proceedings to have an arbitration, and the owners cannot take any because there is no provision in the statute by which they can do so; the result is that those whose lands are taken in that way are held up, and are at the mercy of the company. It is said the company are using the power thus placed in their hands to force the owners to accept such compensation as they may see fit to offer rather than engage in litigation. It seems a very unfair position, what is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander. If the railway rSfrTJ 1S*,giVen a ri^t to provide for
rfil T?" thf,Tner should have the same right. It could be remedied by having the clause read:	5
Upon the application of the railway company or the owner.


George Perry Graham: 
George Perry Graham: Under the present arrangement for crossing a highway special application has to be made to the board. This is to provide that the board may give a general order under general conditions by which a wire can be laid across.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Why should that not apply to telephone wires as well as to electrical energy wires?


Morley Currie: I do not see why the Railway Board cannot have their engineers design a standard form of crossing for telephone and telegraph wires, because it is a great hardship to compel small independent telephone lines to appear before the board ana go to the expense of drawings and all that kind of thing. A telegraph wire is not nearly as dangerous as a telephone wire, and the minister would be justified in including telephone wires in this clause.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Even though there are standard conditions, should the railway company object, application will still have to be made to the board. I suppose the railway company would invariably object.


George Perry Graham: In nine cases out of ten the companies do not object now, but the chairman of the board thought it wise to leave in that provision in case some special condition might arise. I cannot just now see what objection there is to adding telephone wires, but I will let the clause stand and make inquiry.
On section 9-waterpipes.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: In this case also the consent of the railway company is necessary. Could not the onus be put on the railway company to formulate the objection?


George Perry Graham: I would prefer to leave the clause stand as the board has arranged it, and we can see how it works out.


Morley Currie: In former day3 the railway companies always objected, and it was only when Mr. MeGuigan became a power in the Grand Trunk that a farmer was allowed to drain his land across the railway track. He took the ground that if the farmer could raise an extra bushel of

grain on the land to be drained the railway company would have that much more crop to haul. This has been a very contentious matter. What is the law now?


George Perry Graham: The Board of Railway Commissioners has the power to allow these pipes to be placed on application of the parties, and this clause provides a certain standard method under which the pipes can be laid without application to the board, if no objection is raised.
On section 10-fencing right of way.
M.r' GRAHAM. Hon. gentlemen from the west will have interest in this clause. It is not easy to frame a law on this matter which will apply equally to the older sections of the Dominion as to the new This clause has received the attention of the Railway Commissioners, and it has been discussed with the representatives of the western farmers in the desire to reasonably meet their views. This clause seems to meet the difficulty fairly well, and has practically been agreed to. The present law relieves the company from fencing unless the board orders them to fence, and we are reversing this, and saying that they shall have to fence unless the board relieves them from the obligation.
We contended for that in 1903 when the Railway Act was passed.


Mr SHARPE (Ontario).: Suppose the board should make an order relieving the company permanently, not temporarily, has the board power to vary that order? '


George Perry Graham: The board has that power under the general Act, and they use it frequently.


David Henderson: They vary their orders every day just as they deem fit.


Mr. MAGRATH.: Under subsection 5, where a, railway is being constructed through inclosed land it shall be the duty of the company to take effective measures to prevent cattle, and other animals escaping from such inclosed land on the property of the company. That is all right as far as it goes; but if a railway company is building through a field of wheat and the contractors working for the company see fit to throw down the fences, the railway company claims that there is no responsibility on its part. I know a case in which under such circumstances a man lost his entire crop. That should be from vided for.


George Perry Graham: 
Haughton Lennox: Would that make them liable for the action of the contractor?


Charles Alexander Magrath: I would like to see the clause put in snch shape that the company must settle for the damages in two weeks, because I know cases in which the companies have been humbugging with settlers. How does the settler proceed to secure his remedy?


George Perry Graham: I suppose he can only have the ordinary 'recourse of suing for damages. The trouble, as I understood it, irom the complaints made to me, was that settlers would have their fences thrown down, and cattle would get in and destroy their crops, and the company would not be responsible. We try to make them responsible whether they do that or permit it to be done.


Charles Alexander Magrath: I know it is a serious question. You get contractors rushing through and building a railway, and they are not at all considerate of" the people whose lands they go through. I know instances where crops have been damaged and the owners have not been able to get any redress, even from the Railway Commission.
. ^r* DOHERTY. I do not think the wording suggested by the minister would exactly meet the case mentioned by the hon. member from Medicine Hat. It makes the company responsible for anything that is done or permitted to be done by the company. A case might arise where the company, in making its contract, would stipulate with the contractor that he must keep the fences in order, and must refrain from doing anything that would permit the cattle to escape. The company in that case would say, we did not permit that to be done, hut did our best to prevent it; it is the action of an independent contractor. If it is intended to make the company responsible for the negligence of its agents or contractors, that should be provided for by express words.


George Perry Graham: The section provides that the company shall take effective measures to prevent.


Charles Joseph Doherty: But it goes on to limit the obligation of the company to prevent by the words ' by reason of any act done or permitted to be done by the company.' I am not prepared to say that under that wording the company would not be responsible if the contractors did it; but if the intention is to make it clear that the company

is to be responsible for the contractors meglect, I would suggest that you make it read: ' done or permitted to be done by the company or by any agent or contractor acting for it.'


Mr SHARPE (Ontario).: Might I make a suggestion? Strike out the words ' to take effective measures ' so that the clause will read ' it shall be the duty of the company to prevent cattle, &c/ That makes the du y absolute upon the company.


Haughton Lennox: As the minister is leaving a number of these sections over, he might probably leave this one also, and the hon. member for St. Anne division (Mr. Doherty) could draft a clause. There has been great difficulty arising out of this very matter of the independent contractors. I have had cases in which I could not recover from the railway company on that account. The minister is anxious to get a remedy, and we might frame a section in the meantime.


George Perry Graham: What I was trying to accomplish was not only to protect the farmers against loss from the killing of stock, but also from injury to crops by the cattle going through them.


Samuel Barker: I would suggest that clause 5 should read:
Where the railway is being constructed through inclosed lands, the company shall prevent cattle and other animals escaping from such inclosed lands upon the property of the company.


George Perry Graham: The objection to that would be that it would only prevent their getting on the company's land and they might get into some other fellow's field.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I would suggest to strike out the last three words ' permitted by the company ' and substitute ' done or omitted to be done by the company, its servants, agents, contractors ot workingmen.'


John Herron: I hope the company will be able to arrange this matter so that a clause of this kind may become law. The grievance is a very serious one, especially in the county I represent, as the railway companies are killing horses and cattle there almost every week in the year. Sometimes they kill them in bunches of a dozen head at a time: and in the last few years they have refused compensation of any kind. I would like to know particularly whether, if the railway board, under subclause 4 of section 10, should relieve a company from putting in cattle guards or building fences, would the company then be responsible for stock running at large and being killed?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will find that provided for in the next clause. How -would it do to accept the suggestion of the Mr. DOHERTY
hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) subject to discuss again in committee and add the words ' done or omitted to be done by the company, its agents, contractors or servants '?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: That throws the onus on the owner of the land to prove that the company threw down the fences and let the cattle get in on the land. The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) made the best suggestion, putting the absolute duty on the railway company, of preventing damage.


Edward Guss Porter: Suppose a man not connected with the railway should throw down a fence, the railway would be held responsible?


George Perry Graham: That is the view which accounts for the words ' effective measures being in the proposed amendment. I suggested making it very drastic, but the Justice Department thought I should only make the railway company responsible for their own acts and not for other people's acts.


Charles Alexander Magrath: I do not agree with the hon. minister. When contractors take a contract from a railway company, they employ all kinds of people, and those men are passing in and out of one's property when building the road through it. Some one should be responsible for these men. If they should throw down a gate or tear down a fence at night, some one should be made responsible to the owner. If the minister allows this clause to stand over, I would suggest that he give it more thought and let us have an opportunity to .discuss the proposed amendment again. If contractors undertake to build a railway and go on my property, they should see that my property is protected.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I would like to call attention to this case. Suppose cattle escape, through the negligence of the company, from inclosed lands on to other property, and then escape on to still further property, would the clause cover that?


George Perry Graham: I think it would. It was intended to make the company responsible for whatever might result from their action or omission.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 11,
11. Sections 294 and 295 of the principal Aoc, and sections 8 and 9 of chapter 50 of the Statutes of 1910, are repealed, and the following is enacted as section 294 of the principal Act:
294. The company shall be liable to the owner for the full value of all horses, sheep, swine or other cattle that may be killed or injured upon the company's lands through the opera-

tion of the railway, save where such killing or injury is caused by reason of any person-
(a)	failing to keep the gates at any farm crossing, at each side of the railway closed, when not in use; or,
(b)	leaving open any gate on either side of the railway provided for the use of any farm crossing without some competent person being at or near such gate to prevent animals passing through such gate on to the railway; or.
(c)	other than an officer, contractor, or employee of the company, taking down any part of the railway fence; or,
(d)	turning any animal upon or within the enclosure of any railway company; or,
(e)	except as authorized by this Act, without the consent of the company, riding, leading or driving any animal, or suffering it to enter upon any railway and within the fences and guards thereof; or,
(f)	leaving the gates of the company at railway stations open for the convenience of the public.


Duncan Graham: This clause has the approval of the Farmers5 Association as it is now drawn:
The company shall he liable to tbe owner for the full value of all horses, sheep, swine or other cattle that may be killed or injured upon the company's lands through the operation of the railway, save where such killing or injury is caused by reason of any person.
Then it gives the exceptions. It repeals absolutely the clause which provides that cattle shall not run at large on the highways within half a mile of a railway. The exceptions are just as they were in the old Act with one added-relating to gates at railway stations left open for the convenience of the public-the company is not held liable for cattle going in through these gates. With the exceptions made in the Bill the railway company is liable in all cases.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: This is a very important section. Cases under it arise in every part of the Dominion. I would suggest that this section be allowed to stand until we have an opportunity to look into it. There are words at the close of this section that, I think, should not be there, the words, ' any person.' The effect of the section is to provide that the Tailway shall not be liable for cattle killed if the killing is caused by reason of ' any person ' leaving the gate open. It does not confine it to the owner of the premises. Might not a stranger, in walking through a man's farm, leave the gate open so that the cattle might get out and get killed? Yet, in that case the railway would not be responsible.


George Perry Graham: Are they to be responsible for the acts of a person with whom they have no connection?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I think that under the Act as it is now the railway
company is liable unless it can show negligence on the part of the owner. The onus is on the railway company.


George Perry Graham: The people who are most interested agreed to this. It took me some weeks to get a Bill that would be drastic and yet acceptable, and, having reached that point, I would not like to change it if it can be avoided.


Samuel Barker: It might be a question whether the neighbour who leaves the gate open should not be responsible for damages.


Haughton Lennox: It would be all right to make it apply to the owner of the land or his servant. But if it would apply in the case of ' any person ' as is proposed here-I would not go so far as that.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: This question of farm crossings is very involved and difficult, but when a railway company goes through a property, and creates a nuisance, the liability properly rests upon them for keeping the fences in order.


Haughton Lennox: It is the Tailway fence, and they should keep it closed. The only thing that should deprive the owner of compensation is the leaving of the gate open by himself or his servant.


Samuel Barker: That would be carrying the responsibility -of the railway company altogether too far. The Tailway is in the public interest, but it is in liis own interest the farmer gets the gate. If the railway company were called upon to undertake the keeping of all such gates closed the expense would be enormous. The farmer who gets the gate usually takes upon himself the duty of seeing that it is kept closed, and he should not allow other people to open it. It is his business to keep it closed.


Haughton Lennox: I do not agree with the hon. member (Mr. Barker), that the farmer gets the gate for his convenience. The farmer has his farm, and the railway company runs through it. The railway company must put up the fence, and it is right that the farmer should be, as far as possible, left in the condition he was in before. I think the only burden on the farmer should be that he shall not neglect to close his gate, but if any stranger or employee of the railway company should leave the gate open, the railway should be responsible. They create the condition of things that makes it dangerous. The farmer should be responsible only for the actions of himself and his servants or agents in these matters. .


Mir. NESBITT.: I agree largely with 1/he hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker), though I do not go quite so far as he does. I agree partially with the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox), that ' any

person ' might include the railway servants, which it ought not to do. If the railway's servants leave the gate open- which, by the way, they sometimes do-the railway should be responsible, but for any other person the farmer should he responsible, for it is his duty to see that the gate is kept shut.


Mr.   BAEKEE@: I would like to add this, and I am sure the Minister of Eailways will consider it. We here must think not merely of the loss to the farmer in having cattle killed, but also of the more important consideration of the safety of trains. If every farmer along a thousand miles of railway might, without risking personal loss, leave his gate open negligently, trusting to the duty of the railway company to keep his gates closed, we should have plenty of railway accidents, for gates could be left open, cattle would go upon the track and be run into, and trains would be thrown off the track.


Charles Alexander Magrath: No one should be on the railway track unless he is a servant of the railway company, and if such a man goes through a farmer's property, and leaves the gate open the railway company should be liable. The railway company has the privilege of arresting anybody for trespassing on its property.


Mr. MAESHALL.: It seems to me that the difficulty could he overcome by the farmer putting a lock on the gate. I agree with the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker), that it would he unreasonable to ask that the railway he held responsible.


Duncan Graham: This section was an important point, but I think it was pretty well considered. I think it is not a breach of confidence to say that the chairman of the Eailway Commission was strongly of the view that it would save many cattle if a clause weTe put in the Act to fine every farmer who leaves his gate open. I could not go quite so far. A railway runs through a man's farm, and he gets damages. He wants a crossing, and makes application to the board. But the board is very fair to the farmers in giving them crossings. I would insist always that the gate shall be kept closed by the farmer or his assistants or your transportation might be ruined as well as the farmer's stock killed, but I will go as far as any person to make the railways responsible for their neglect to protect the farmer's cattle. But there is a certain liability on the part of the owner of stock from which he should not be relieved altogether. I do not think the farmers would appreciate our saying that they had no responsibility at all. The chairman of the board had strong views on that point, and the farmers themselves are willing to assume all just liabilities for their own actions.
Mr. NESBITT


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: When this Bill is passed I presume it refers only to the owners of cattle and property through which the railway runs. We have had cases in the west where the cattle of a man who owned land half a mile from the railway, finding the fences down, strayed away on to the railway. This Bill says the company shall be liable to the owner for the full amount of the cattle killed or injured. Where a man owns cattle a mile away from the railway, and they stray on the railway and are killed, does this law allow him compensation?


Duncan Graham: This law would allow him compensation. I imagine it would not if his cow was killed at a crossing, but if anywhere else on the track, he would get compensation.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: According to the present law I do not think he does receive compensation.


Mr.   BAEKEE@: That is the old law.


Duncan Graham: This Act repeals the clause which says that cattle shall not he left running at large within half a mile of a railway. That was made for the west where cattle grazed beside the track, and was the source of vexation. Then the railway must pay full compensation to every person whose cattle are killed, except in the circumstances named here.


Mr.   BAEKEE@: Under the old law cattle running at large and getting upon another man's land were trespassers, and the trespassing owner had no right as against the railway company, and could not recover.


Duncan Graham: If the cattle were at large within half a mile of the track, the railway had a defence to put up.


Mr.   POETEE@: It might meet the case by striking out the word ' person ' in the clause which says ' where such killing or injury is caused by reason of any person,' and make it read * by reason of any owner, or railway company, or their agents, servants or workmen failing to keep the gates' closed.' That would make it equally the duty of the farmer and the railway company to keep the gates shut.


Duncan Graham: The railway company is not responsible for keeping a farmer's gates shut.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I suggest to add, after the word ' person,' ' any person excepting the company or their servants.'


David Marshall: I understand from the minister that if the gates are left open, and cattle are killed, the farmer will get nothing for his cattle. But supposing those cattle cause the wreck of a train or dam-

age to a train, would the farmer be liable for that?


George Perry Graham: We passed an Act last year to make that clear. Would these words be acceptable ' Where such killing or injury is caused by reason of any person not being an employee or agent of the company ' ? Personally I feel that in the interests of those most affected we might as well not pass the item at all as not meet the views on which all were agreed. It wms agreed by all parties that this was a solution of the difficulty.
On section 12, correction of clerical errors.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The provision in section 12:
No action shall lie against the company by reason of anything in any policy of insurance or by reason of payment of any moneys thereunder,
is unfair legislation.


George Perry Graham: There is no new legislation in this section, that is already on the statute-books.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I think it is bad legislation.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The matter wes dealt with by a special committee last year which met representatives of the railway companies and others concerned, and this clause was agreed upon. There would be a good deal of dissatisfaction if it were changed now.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The railway companies were represented on the committee but not the insurance companies. I was on the committee.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Everybody was represented who should be.
On section 13, Railway Commission and electrical power.


George Perry Graham: We have given the Board of Railway Commissioners, power to say at what price power- generated from water-powers under Dominion jurisdiction shall be furnished. This gives them power to issue orders as to the quantity to be furnished.


William Sora Middlebro: Subsection 2 provides machinery to ascertain the quantity whether they have a sufficient quantity. Should that not also apply to subsection 3 so that they can ascertain whether the company need all the power for their own use?


George Perry Graham: The reason for that is that we have leased many powers to companies solely for their own use. This is to provide that it shall not be possible for
any one to demand of them power which they have not even a right to dispose of.
On section 14, government aided railways falling into bad repair.


George Perry Graham: This is an important and drastic amendment. In Canada we have granted aid very liberally towards railways. Cases have been brought to my notice where railways liberally aided by the parliament of Canada have allowed their roads to become so delapidated that a train cannot be run safely on them. In some cases the rails have been taken up and we have had the spectacle of a road that the people have helped to construct vanishing as old rails, the receipts being obtained by the owners of the road. The railways are aided for the purpose of giving the people transportation and it ought to be our view to have that object carried out even at the expense of the country. This section provides that where a company under federal jurisdiction has been aided by the Dominion parliament and its road becomes unfit to operate, this aid becomes a first lien on that road, and the Board of Railway Commissioners, at the request of the minister, can practically foreclose that first lien, sell the road or dispose of it and use the funds to put it in proper condition, something to get the people the use of the road for which they paid. The objection has been raised that it is dangerous legislation to say that the aid given as a gift by the parliament of Canada should be allowed to become an underlying charge, even under the firi.t mortgage bonds. There is a good deal of force in that argument, but there is this reply, that a road which gets into that condition does not give any value to its first mortgage bonds or any other bonds, and the only way for the railway to be made of any use to the people or value to the bondholders is to have it put in proper condition. The object of this is to practically give the government power to take possession of these roads it has aided and see they are put in proper condition for the use of the people.


Edward Guss Porter: Has the minister anv such railway in his mind that he could mention?


George Perry Graham: I would not care to mention them, because if I were wrong it would be unfair to the railways. This clause will, I think, be a mighty lever to have these railways put in a fit condition to operate.


Edward Guss Porter: I had in mind the branch line from Madoc to Eldorado, which was subsidized by the federal government and the municipalities through which it runs and has not been operated for a number of years. The hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) made an effort to have this

road operated, but without success. Would this clause compel the railway company to operate that road?


George Perry Graham: If the road is unfit to be operated on account of its condition, means are provided here to put it in proper con-[DOT] dition, but I am not sure it would compel operation.


Edward Guss Porter: It may be confiscated.


George Perry Graham: Well, disposed of.


William Sora Middlebro: There ought to be some provision foT notifying the bondholders before the road is closed up.


George Perry Graham: All interested parties would, I suppose, be notified by the board.


Robert Laird Borden: This clause does not cover the case of the railway I have mentioned.


George Perry Graham: I do not think it does.


Edward Guss Porter: Would it not be well to take power to compel the operation of that and other such railways? This line has been subsidized, but it has not been operated for a number of years, and no other company will undertake to build in that territory, because if they did the Grand Trunk would lilkely commence to operate the Madoc and Eldorado branch line. In such cases it would be well to empower the board to take action.


William Pugsley: There is a good deal in the suggestion of the hon. member (Mr. Middlebro) that the first notice should go to the bondholders.


George Perry Graham: We will amend the clause so as to read that the trustees of the bondholders, if any, shall be notified.


Edward Guss Porter: What does the minister think of the suggestion regarding the case I have mentioned?


George Perry Graham: I think we had better not try to enlarge the scope of the Bill at present.


Charles Alexander Magrath: If a road gets into that condition, it is because it is not a paying proposition, and I do not think there is much use in attempting to put it into proper condition unless you are prepared to provide that it must be operated.
On section 15,


George Perry Graham: I wish to move that in the first line of section 372 after the word 'annually' there be inserted the words 'or more frequently if the minister so requires.' Heretofore the companies have been required to make returns semi-annually of certain accidents. As a matter of fact, they only make them annually. I am making it legal for them to make the returns annually for our general report be-


Edward Guss Porter: cause we only issue it annually, but I am providing that on the request of the minister they shall make them more frequently, and I propose to include with other accidents, the killing of animals.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section 15 as amended agreed to.
On section 16,
George Perry Graham: I have a section which I want to substitute for this. At the present time, when a railway company proproposes to change its tariff, it has to give only ten days' notice. I am asking that subsection 3 of section 328 be amended by striking out the word 'ten' and substituting the word 'thirty.' The meaning of that is that the railway company will be compelled to give thirty days' notice instead of ten.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. HAGGART (Winnipeg).: As the object of this Bill is to straighten out a good many matters that are not very straight just now, I wish to mention that in connection with the building of the Transcontinental railway lands have been taken from the former owners and are now being used for the railway without having been paid for. An ordinary railway company has to make a deposit in court before it can go into occupation of lands so taken. It is not so with the Transcontinental railway. Besides the provision in the Transcontinental Railway Act for the expropriation of lands, there are conferred upon the commissioners all the rights that are given to a railway company under the Railway Act and its amendments. Proceedings have been taken in the Exchequer Court, and Judge Cassels, I believe, has held, in the case of King vs. Jones, that the proper proceeding is to proceed under the provisions of the Railway Act, and not under the Expropriation Act, and in the Exchequer Court. The Deputy Minister of Justice, I believe, differs from the judge, and the case is now in appeal, I believe, before the Supreme Court.


William Pugsley: I understand that it has been decided that the Exchequer Court has jurisdiction, reversing the judgment.


Alexander Haggart: In that case I beg the minister's pardon. That will relieve us from the difficulty. In the neighbourhood of Winnipeg a great many cases were held up, and hundreds of thousands of dollars, I believe, were not paid to the claimants. If the matter had remained as it was, I was going to ask for the insertion of a declaratory section in this Bill so as to relieve the difficulty.


Edward Guss Porter: I would like to inquire of the minister whether there has been

any complaint to -any great extent in regard to the operation of the provisions of the law in dealing with claims for damages for the killing of animals on railways. The practice now is to take such claims 'before the Railway Commission instead of as formerly before the local courts, and there has been in my section of the country a great deal of complaint of delay in consequence. Has there been any complaint of that kind made or is the new regulation operating to advantage?


George Perry Graham: I have a great deal of complaint from western Canada but none from eastern Canada. The complaint from western Canada arises out of the belief that the railway companies kill cattle and horses and then their employees immediately bury them, so that a farmer, after hunting for months, will discover his stock beneath the sod. It is said that the railway companies dispute all and sundry claims, and it is very difficult for a farmer under the circumstances to prove his allegation.


Edward Guss Porter: If the local courts had jurisdiction, at the expense of some $5 or $10, a farmer could bring his action and have his case tried, whereas now the cost and trouble are prohibitory.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman say that the jurisdiction of the local courts is taken away?


Edward Guss Porter: Yes. Suppose a farmer has a cow killed on a railway, instead of going to a division court he has to apply to the Railway Commission.


William Pugsley: What section of the Act compels him to do that?


Edward Guss Porter: I have not the section, but that is the practice. As soon as a claim is made on a railway company, which they dispute, they say it has to go to the Railway Commission.


George Perry Graham: In that they are wrong.


Edward Guss Porter: That is the practice.


William Pugsley: People go to the Railway Commission because they think they can get speedier justice.


George Perry Graham: A year ago we changed the Act relating to the Intercolonial railway to provide that the ordinary law shall apply to the Intercolonial railway, and thus enable claimants for damages on account of cattle killed on the government's railway to go to the ordinary court, as they would in the case of cattle killed on an ordinary railway.


John Herron: I know of many cases, such as described by my hon. friend from Hastings (Mr. Porter), of animals killed, and the railway companies simply laughed
at the claims for compensation. I never heard any complaint made regarding the change from the common courts to the Railway Board because the railway companies have absolutely refused to pay damages of any kind. These companies killed at least 50 animals within a few miles of my home within the last few years and refused to pay damages of any kind.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I would be surprised to learn that such an amendment to the Railway Act was enacted because I had a couple of suits last year for loss of cattle which I won in the ordinary courts. It would be very extraordinary if there was such an amendment because that would deprive us of a right to a jury trial, and jury trials are very effective against railway companies.


John Herron: I would like to draw attention to clause (5) in section 11:
The company shall be liable to the owner for the full value of all horses, swine, sheep or other cattle.
I think that the words 'other animals' should be substituted for 'other cattle,' so as to cover every class of animal likely to be damaged. There is one valuable class of animals plentiful in the country and I do not think you could collect under this clause.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If my hon. friend will look at the interpretation clause of the Act he will find that the word 'cattle' is a very comprehensive term and includes everything except those animals specifically mentioned in that clause.
Progress reported.



THE BANK ACT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved third reading of Bill (No. 213) to amend the Bank Act.
David Henderson: I find in the schedule the name of the Farmers' Bank, of Canada. That charter, I understand, is to be completed along with others although the bank is practically out of business. What effect will this legislation have on the Farmers' Bank?


William Stevens Fielding: That point has been carefully considered. I am advised by the law officers that this amendment leaves matters exactly as they are. Whatever rights any party has with regard to the Farmers' Bank remain undisturbed.


David Henderson: form. The Department of Justice advised that it was expedient to put in the name for that purpose.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I would call the attention of the Minister of Finance to the desirability of appointing a Royal Commission to inquire thoroughly into the conditions of banks in this country and other countries with the view of improving our present Banking Act. Recent events have disclosed many serious defects in it. The provisions regarding government inspection do not meet with the approval of many people. The provision in the Bill brought down, would not meet the approval of many people outside the bank authorities.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not sure that they approve it.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I do not think . they would raise any serious objections to it. I should imagine it should meet with their approval.


William Stevens Fielding: It did not emanate from them.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I am glad to hear that because I was under the impression it had been drafted by the counsel of the Bankers' Association, or some one standing close to them. 1 do not think that our banks pay enough for the great privileges they enjoy. In France, England and Germany the banks pay the government for the privilege of issuing currency. Under our system they pay nothing. There should be some restraint, some taxation, should be placed on the right to send money out of the country for speculative purposes. All these and a great many other important matters should be thoroughly investigated by a commission and reported to our next narliament. For when the Bank Act is before the commission what may we expect? We shall have bank presidents and inspectors presenting their views, but no one to speak on behalf of the people. If we had a Royal Commission to examine and report, it might make many suggestions which would assist us to come to a proper conclusion. In the Toronto 'Telegram' of May 16, I find this despatch from Washington:
Washington, D.C., May 16.-Out of a total expenditure to date of $207,130 to study the various banking systems of the world, with a view to improving the United States banking laws, the National Monetary Commission has spent $2,931 to learn about Canadian banks.
Here we have the United States people spending $200,000 in investigating the banking conditions of other countries, and we have not had a Royal Commission to investigate the banking system of our own country. There are_ patent and admitted defects in our banking law, as shown by
Mr. FIELDING
the many failures that have occurred. I think it would be well to spend if necessary $20,000 or $30,000 to have a commission investigate thoroughly the conditions in Canada and other countries, and report next session.


William Stevens Fielding: Fortunately, the desire to improve-where it may be improved

the Bank Act is one which hon. members on both sides will share. Therefore, any suggestion looking to that end Will be received by the government with all the ' consideration to which it is entitled. I frankly say that I doubt whether a Royal Commission would serve the good purpose my hon. friend (Mr. Sharpe, Ontario) has in view. To begin with, it would be rather difficult to get the right kind of men to serve on a Royal Commission for that purpose, men who have the capacity, knowledge and experience necessary. To a large extent-not conclusively-we must learn from the experienced bankers themselves. We are not bound to accept their suggestions, but they are certainly well qualified to give us information and useful advice. I do not reject the hon. gentleman's proposal for a Royal Commission, but at first glance I doubt whether it will serve the purpose.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: There was one to investigate life insurance.


William Stevens Fielding: That was for a different condition of affairs. The hon. member will recollect that there had been an outbreak in the United States in regard to the insurance companies of that country, and many irregularities had been disclosed. A feeling of distrust arose with regard to our own companies. I think, notwithstanding some things that occurred which became the subjects of controversy, it was the wise thing to have an inquiry into our insurance laws, and their operation, in order to reassure the public of Canada as to the stability of our insurance companies. At any rate, that was the reason for the commission. I do not think a similar condition exists with regard to our banks. Our banking system, while not a perfect success yet,
I think, in the opinion of many of the financial men of the world is held to be a good system. Other countries seek information from us and learn irom us.
Touching the question of taxation, it is a common view that the banks should be taxed to a larger degree. That is worthy of consideration. But it must be remembered that the country needs banking capita] to facilitate trade, and that if you have too many restrictions upon banks and the organization of banks, you will never get the banking capital needed. When you consider there is a double liability of shareholders, the responsibility the bank direc-

tors have to assume ' with all the obligations now imposed upon shareholders and directors, I am inclined to think that if you enforce substantial taxes upon them you may defeat the purpose the hon. gentleman has in view. However, these are only passing thoughts. I quite appreciate the interest the hon. gentleman has taken in the subject, and I will discuss his suggestions with my colleagues in due course.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I agree with the hon. member (Mr. Sharpe, Ontario), who favours the appointment of a Royal Commission on this subject. I went carefully over the results of the work of the commission in the United States, and it seemed to me that they had collated a lot of very valuable information, which will, if made known to the people of Canada, and especially to the parliament of Canada, would afford us useful lessons in amending our Banking Act. Our banking system is generally regarded as a very good one. But I am far from being of the opinion that it is entitled to the eulogies very frequently expended upon it. I do not think our banking system has fulfilled what the country might reasonably have expected of it. The Minister of Finance says we must learn from the bankers. The experience of the bankers will teach us much if we can get it set forth frankly. But we must learn much more from the great public as well. The public are not being served as they should be by our banking system. Here is a case that is known to me: One of the regular banks of Canada has a branch in a certain town. A farmer living within a mile and a quarter of that branch bank, a man well known to the manager of the bank, the owner of a fine farm of about 200 acres with good buildings and not a dollar of debt on the property, a man having debts of not more than $200 in the world, a sober, industrious man who has always enjoyed the reputation of being reliable and prompt in meeting his obligations-when that man asked the bank manager for the loan of $25 he was refused. Why? Because he would not get an endorser. To that bank as to others, parliament- has given great privileges-it can stamp paper and call it bank notes, and earn interest on it from the day it goes out, and many other privileges it has from which it makes money. The people must use the banks, because the banks hold the circulating medium which they must hold to carry on business. Yet this is the way one man was used. I asked the manager why, and his answer was: Our instructions from headquarters are to discount no notes no matter how good the individual may be unless he gets an endorser.
Look at our banks to-day. What has built these palatial banking houses that we see on every corner? Pass along Sparks street
or Bank street in this city, pass along King or Yonge street in Toronto, and how many hundreds of thousands, and even millions, of dollars you find invested in costly buildings for the banks. These have been built out of the earnings of the people who pay very sweetly for any business they do with the banks.
Then, go behind the counters of the banks and look at the employees. Consider the long hours they have to serve. We had a discussion on the Bill introduced by the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Lewis), and since that time I have had two or three letters from parties whose sons are employed in these banks, telling of the long hours they have to work-extending in some instances to eleven and even twelve o'clock at night. One man tells me of his son working until nine o'clock at night without anything to eat-the work had to be finished. And yet that boy works for only $4.75 a week. For what purpose? That they may be able to pay dividends of 9, 10, 11 and 12 and 13 per cent to their stockholders. Would y.ou call that a banking system that is to be admired? What is our banking system? The great central banks send out their dicta to the branches that must be obeyed, everything must be done the same as at headquarters. The branch manager knows the conditions of the locality where his bank is situated, he knows the wants of the people, whereas the head office knows nothing about them; -still the branches have to take their orders from headquarters. Compare that with the American system, which is called a bad banking system. There a bank starts in a small village, it accepts the savings of the people, and loans, them out to the industries of the country, to the manufacturers and other people, who need money to pay their workmen. The money thus loaned out serves to develop industries in that locality. Compare that with the Canadian system. Here the banks take the savings from the hard working people, and their money immediately goes to the head office, to be transferred very likely down to Wall Street to be used in stock speculations, because they can earn more on it than they can at home. I can point out line after line where our banking system is defective. I Temember when a branch of the Central Bank was started in Durham. The manager of that bank told me that every time he got a few thousand dollars even though it was not half enough to meet the needs of the people in his locality, a demand came from headquarters, and that money went away to be invested in New York. The people who had saved the money and put it into the bank could not get the advantage of it. Then there is the low rate of interest upon the savings of the people.

The banks are strong enough to control this government, and the rate of interest in the government savings banks is put at the same figure as in the private banks, compelling the people to deposit their money with the government at three per cent interest because they can get no more from it anywhere else. I think the banks should be made useful institutions to the public here as they are in England, France and Germany, where they take up the earnings of the people and lend them out again at a higher rate of interest than they can get in the ordinary banks. Such a system puts a premium on industry, on frugality, and economy, by giving the people a larger rate of interest than they get in the banks to-day. Some years ago we were paying depositors four per cent in the government savings banks, but twice since I came into this House the Finance Minister cut down the rate of interest. At whose instance? At the instance of the banks. They appeal to the people to put their money into the bank and only give them three per cent; but when they go to borrow it for their needs they have to pay seven and eight per cent. Is that a proper service rendered to the public by the banks, to whom we give charters? I say many such evils as I have referred to would be brought out by a royal Commission, that would enable us to consider them carefully and provide a remedy. When we amend the Bank Act, if we had a royal commission, it would afford us the needed information	upon	which	we	couldbase a	remedy for	the	evils
complained of. The representatives of the people do not, in many cases, know how serious these evils are, and they could be brought out by a royal commission in a better way than any other. There are many others that I might refer to. Take the banks of France, take the banks in Germany, take the Farmers' banks. They lend their money at a rate not above five per cent, and they pay a certain per cent to the government on the business they do. Whereas our banks are allowed' an unlimited right to earn what they can, and they pay the government nothing for the privilege. Now, with regard to another subject. A few years ago I read about the case of a young man, who was employed in one of these banks. He had been a steady young man for some years, he had been saving his earnings in view of a time when he could settle down His salary was about $900 a year. He took it into his head to get married, he married a very estimable young lady, and one who had means^ coming from her own people to assist him. But what was the result? That young man was dismissed from the bank inside three days after his wedding he did not wait until he had $1,000 salary. Is that not putting an
^ JHg0SPROULEarriaSe? IS that n0t
interference with the free rights of the people? I say no young man should be placed under such an embargo as that, at a time in life when he desires to get married, when nature and everything demands that he should settle down in wedded life. When the requirements of the state, the propagation of the species, when everything demands that he should marry, he is not allowed to do so. Some hon. members find this a laughing matter. But I say that it is a very serious matter. I have letters in my possession, and information which, in my judgment, show that this is a matter highly important to the country, one that should receive at our hands the most careful consideration. It is an evil that nothing short of a law, making it a criminal offence for any mapager of a bank to enforce such a rule upon his employees, will afford a remedy. It is not only a grievance, it is a cruel injustice, it is at least a moral crime against young men, many of whom could settle down and become even more valuable to the bank that employs them. But why don't the banks pay their employees a reasonable salary? Why do they.insist upon extracting from them every drop of blood they can draw out in the way of long hours and steady service, for a mere pittance, in order that they may show the world what large dividends they can pay? Do we not want information about these things? I think we want more information than we have, to enable us to loot into these matters very carefully when we come to amend the Bank Act, to see if we cannot provide a remedy against the crying evils that are prevalent to-day.


George Halsey Perley: United States 41 per cent of the resources of the banks is applied to stocks and bonds, 12 per cent applied* to real estate, and only 23 per cent of the resources of the banks in the United States is applied to ordinary mercantile loans. In Canada we have no bank loans on real estate, because the law does not permit of it, but, 24 per cent of the resources of the Canadian banks is applied to stocks and bonds, and 51 per cent is applied to mercantile loans. (Eef. page 40.)


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What do you mean by mercantile loans?


George Halsey Perley: Ordinary commercial loans, ordinary business paper of all kinds, and not loans on stock or anything of that kind. In the United States the proportion applied to fostering the industries of the country, and the lending of money to ordinary individuals on theiir notes is only 23 per cent of the resources of the banks, whereas in the case of Canadian banks the percentage is 51 per cent. The banks of Canada lend proportionately over twice as much of their funds for the ordinary purposes of the community as do the banks of the United States.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved second reading of Bill (No. 219) to amend the Quebec Savings Banks Act. He said: There are two old savings banks in the, province of Quebec whose charters wgje granted, I think, before confederation, and from time to time their charters are renewed in the same manner as the charters of the other banks. We propose to extend these charters for one year as in the case of the other banks. There is one other clause which enables them to re-arrange their stocks in shares of $100 which is a very desirable thing.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: What rate of interest do they pay?


William Stevens Fielding: Three per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the third reading of the Bill.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do these banks do an ordinary banking business?


William Stevens Fielding: They do not issue notes. They are of high standing, and excellent reputation, and have power to loan money within certain limitations.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I believe there ought to be established all over the country banks for the purpose of taking the savings of Mr. PERLEY.
the people and paying a higher rate of interest on them than do the existing banks. I believe the state should make better provision for the handling of the money of those who can earn it but are not financiers enough to invest it profitably. I believe the state should put as high a premium as possible on frugality and industry. Other countries seem to do that and succeed with it, and we might well take a lesson from them. My hon. friend gave us a nice history of the failures of Canadian banks. I notice that it has been prepared by a banker, and the best side of it has been put out. I would like to have a man who had been in the business for a few years and dropped out of it to give the other side. I think it would not sound quite as favourable or look as rosy as it does. When he makes a comparison between the failures of Canadian banks and the failures of American banks, he very conveniently leaves out of the comparison the number of failures of national banks in the two countries. Over 25 per cent of all our banks, I think, have gone down in the last 25 or 30 years, whereas, speaking from memory, from 5 to 7 per cent have gone down in the United States. There was another statement with regard to the amount of money our banks put in circulation through manufacturers or merchants or others for the use of the people. I have lived in both countries, and have seen the operations of the banks in both, and I cannot believe from what I have seen and know that that statement is even approximately correct. If it is, it is only accounted for by this, that the large amounts of money put in circulation through large corporations like railway companies or wholesale men are put out in the great metropolitan centres, and not in the small towns and villages. In my judgment, the banks of the United States serve the people better than the banks here. In saying that, I am not especially enamoured of the banking system of the United States, which is defective in many respects, fairer comparison might have been made by comparing the Canadian banks with French or German or English banks. Another consideration in connection with the banking business that has always appealed to me is this. We give certain corporations power to handle the circulating medium of our country-what for? To supply that to the whole people of the country, and not simply to a few millionaire merchants or railway corporations or great manufacturing concerns; every honest and industrious man in this country ought to have some limited credit in these banks. I think I am within the mark when I say that not over 5 per cent of this people of this country can go to these banks and get accommodation. There are at least 99 per cent who are never served by the institu-

tions which the state provides for the service of the people. A system that does not do any better than that for the people of the country is not in my judgment the best that human ingenuity can devise. Why is it that private banks succeed so well in Canada? People will go to them and pay 10 or 12 per cent for accommodation when they cannot get it from the standard banks? As long as the banks maintain the custom of denying accommodation to the great bulk of the people so long will I contend that the banking system of our country is, comparatively speaking, a failure.


Mr. MILLER.: How would my hon. friend define by any provision of law what persons a bank should extend credit to, and what not? Also, how does he account for the fact that there is not in Ontario to-day one private bank to every ten that there were ten years ago?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I cannot go into that as I would like at present; but perhaps at another time I will give a good reason for it. I think the hon. gentleman has overstated the fact when he says there is not one to ten.


George Halsey Perley: With respect to bank failures, I would like to ask the hon. member from East Grey to consider, what difference does it make what proportion of the banks fail? The real test is what percentage of the money does the public lose that it puts into the banks?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it makes- this difference. In the various centres of Canada we have only 25 banks that supply all the credit, whereas the country would perhaps need 25,000. We confine the business to these large banks which do not give the people the accommodation they are entitled to.


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

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 85) respecting Forest Reserves and Parks.- Mr. Oliver.
Mr. OLIVER.: This Bill was gone through when it was in Committee of the Whole on a previous occasion, but it was held in committee for the purpose of making a small addition to section 18 suggested by the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty). Since then an amendment has been drafted which has been agreed to by the hon. member for St. Anne division (Mr. Doherty) and I would ask the committee to adopt it and let the Bill take its third reading. The amendment was for the purpose of requiring that regulations for the disposition of the natural resources in the 295
parks should come before parliament for approval just as in the case of regulations under the Dominion Lands Act. The following is the amendment:
That to section 18 be added the following proviso: Provided that any regulation made by the Governor in Council under subsection (b) of section 16 shall remain in force until the day immediately succeeding the day if prorogation of the session of parliament next after the date of such regulations and no longer, unless during the session such regulations be approved by both Houses.


George Halsey Perley: Why confine it to that particular subsection?


Frank Oliver: Because this subsection deals with natural resources.


William Sora Middlebro: Does this amendment correspond with the provision in the Dominion Lands Act?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not see much distinction in principle between this particular subsection and some of the others. Why make any distinction between (b) and (c) or (b) and (g)?
* Mr. OLIVER. The idea was that regulations which merely had to do with the conduct of the business of the parks peed not come before parliament, but that those having to do with the alienation of natural resources ought to have the approval of parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: There may be Some ground for such a distinction, but take subsection (g) which deals with the confiscation of property and disposal of the things seized. That is rather an important regulation.


Frank Oliver: It was not considered necessary that parliament should take responsibility regarding regulations for the administration of the parks, but that the alienation of the rights of the Crown in natural resources required the sanction of parliament.


Henry Horton Miller: If you are going to apply your amendment to subsection (b) you should divide that subsection into two, and confine your amendment to the cutting and removal of timber, the working of mines, quarries and mineral deposits, and make a new paragraph to include the removal of sand, gravel, &c., so that your amendment shall not apply to comparatively trivial things.


Frank Oliver: They are all of the same class. There is the right to the use and [DOT]occupation of land. That deals with the occupation of land within the reserve.


Henry Horton Miller: I understand perfectly the explanation, but if a settler wants a



load of sand for the building of his house or a municipality wants a few loads of gravel, that should not require the approval of parliament.


George Halsey Perley: Why should the amendment to section 18 not apply to section 17 also?


Frank Oliver: I do not know, but that it might apply to subsections (b) and (c) of section 17. I do not know that it is well to cumber the administration by unnecessary references to parliament. At the same time, if the committee insists upon it, I would not seriously object.


Robert Laird Borden: It does seem to me that subsection (c) of section 17 is of equal if not greater importance in this respect than subsection (b) of section 16.


Frank Oliver: If the wording in the amendment I handed to my hon. friend were left as typewritten without the reference to section 16, the matters in subsection (c) of section 17 would be covered.


Robert Laird Borden: Why not merely add a few words, so as to make the section read:
Provided that any regulations made by the Governor in Council under the provisions of this Act with respect to the matters mentioned in subsection (b) of section 16 of this Act and subsection (c) of section 17 of this Act shall remain in force until the day immediately succeeding the day of prorogation of the session of parliament next after the date of such regulations and no longer, unless during the session such regulations be approved by both Houses of parliament.


Frank Oliver: I will accept that.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George Halsey Perley: The other night when we were discussing this Bill reference was made to squatters, and I think there is a provision by which squatters are not allowed on the land of a forest reserve. But at page 9 of the schedules, referring to certain subdivisions, it says that they have been withdrawn owing to the presence of a squatter, and that the presence of this squatter will tend to protect the forest against fire. How is the minister so much in favour of this particular squatter when there is a provision in the Act to prohibit squatters from going into the forest reserves? -


Frank Oliver: This squatter was in occupation before the reserve was located. The question is whether it is better policy to buy out his rights or to cut him out of the resefve. In this case it is thought better to cut him out of the reserve than to buy out his rights.



M. MILLER.

[Stage Direction]
Bill as amended reported, and read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 212) to amend the Water Carriage of Goods Act, read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Rodolphe Lemieux: This Bill was left in my care by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I understand it has been thoroughly examined and reported upon by the Committee of Marine and Fisheries. The Act in question was passed in the session of 1910, and the shippers, especially in the maritime provinces, have represented to the government that section 10 of the Act hampers them in their business of exporting lumber to Great Britain. Some fifty petitions which I hold in my hands were sent to the department, asking for the repeal of that clause, and for the amendment which I now propose. A special committee appointed two or three year3 ago on Marine and Fisheries sat and heard the interested parties, the shipping federation and the lumber exporters. The legislature of New Brunswick has also passed a resolution to the same effect. In the evidence taken by the committee with regard to this Bill, it is stated on page 7 that the lumber people of the United Kingdom have refused to accept a Bill of lading used under the present Act. The Bristol Timber Importers' Association unanimously resolved not to purchase any more lumber cargoes under existing conditions. On page 29 of the evidence will be found certain telegrams from large shippers of lumber asking for the repeal of clause 10. The lumber industries ask that they shall be at liberty to enter into a contract with ship-owners for a bill of lading with what is known as the eonclusive evidence clause in it, so that shipping companies who do not wish to give such a bill of lading need not do so. They represent that section 10 is in restraint of trade with regard to the carriage of wood goods. The chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) read a telegram addressed to a Liverpool firm by Price, Walker & Company, Limited, Gloucester, which I will read:
Dear Sirs,-Cargo per SS. 'Hersilia' at Sheet Harbour. The provisions which you suggest will not meet the requirements of the Bristol channel importers. We will net comtract without the clause which has been adopted by our association being embodied in the contract itself.
There are one or two communications of a similar nature which I need not quote.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister has been dealing with section 2 of the Bill, whieh I understood pretty well. I was

familiar with the legislation passed by the legislature of New Brunswick, and "some other protests that had been made against section 10 of the Act as it originally stood. Would the minister tell us what was the original form of subsection (a) of section 2?


Mr. SINCLAIR.: The only change is the addition of the words after the word * animals,' ' lumber, deals and other articles described as wood goods.' Subsection (a) in the original Act contained this clause:
Including goods, wares, merchandise and articles of any kind whatsoever except live animals.
The object of this amendment is to exclude wood goods from the operation of the Act relating to water carriage of goods. The original Act, clause 9, prohibits the shipowner from relieving himself from certain kinds of liability for negligence, and this clause 9 includes those goods. It was stated on behalf of the shipowners that they were not in a position to measure the goods and to find out the superficial feet, that it would take a great deal of time and cause delay, and that to ascertain whether a certain plank or deal contained so many superficial feet, was impracticable. Consequently, they asked for a clause that would relieve them from the liability, provided they delivered the number of pieces that were received from the merchant. That is the meaning of clause 10 which was in the Act of last year. The merchants of New Brunswick, it appears, object to that system and wish to go back to the system in force in that province previously by which the shipowner made himself liable not only for the number of pieces but also for the actual measurement, for the number of superficial feet contained in those pieces, and they required the shipowner to sign a bill of lading that he would deliver on the other side a certain number of superficial feet. Often when he reached the other side, there would not be that quantity of superficial feet in the ship and the shipowner had to make up the difference. The shipowner was anxious to get rid of that liability and it was on behalf of the small shipowners in the maritime provinces that that clause was inserted. The effect of this Bill will be to put the law back where it was before and leave absolute freedom for the shipowner and merchant to make their own contract. If the merchant can pervail on the shipowner to sign a bill of lading for a certain number of superficial feet it will be for the shipowner to deliver that, but if he refuses he has to make his bargain with the merchant.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 12.50 a.m., Thursday.
295J

Thursday, May 18, 1911.