[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 188) to amend the Manitoba Grain [Act.-"Mr. Oliver,
Bill (No. 187) to amend the Canada Temperance Act.-Mr. Black.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER ((Minister of Agriculture) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 189) to amend the Civil Service Act. He said : In the preparation of this measure a careful study was made of the various legislation in the Dominion on the civil service, the reports of the three commissions held in Canada at different dates, the course of procedure in the motherland on this question, and the course of events in the United States where civil service reform has taken place. Probably the most important reform provided in this Bill is the establishment of an Independent Civil Service Commission. That commission shall control the examinations for entrance into the service, also give such certificates as may be required with regard to promotions, increases of salary and the improvement of the status of the employees. The commission will control the examinations, and make all arrangements for the carrying out of the work-ail of course subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. The commission is to be composed of two members with the status, salary and tenure of oflice of a deputy minister. The commission will recommend the necessary staff required for the carrying out of the work.
Mr. BERGERON.: Will they be employees of the government or new men ?


Mr. FISHER.: They will be new men appointed for this particular purpose and with large powers under the operation of this Act. The second important reform is that entrance to the civil service shall be by open competitive examination. At present entrance to the civil service is open to those who nave passed the qualifying examination. That examination, however, 340
does not entitle any one to entrance. It simply gives the opportunity of entering, and the choice is left entirely to the judgment of the nominating power. But under this Bill the entrance will be by open competitive examination, and the nominations to the service will be in the order of merit, under the control of the commission.


Mr. BOOSTER.: The hon. gentleman might explain a little more fully the functions of the commission in the matter of appointments. He said the appointments were under their control. What is the measure of that control ?


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: Would the hon. minister also define what he means by civil service ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I was going to do that later on when I came to the classification. My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. B'oster) has asked about the control of the commission over the appointments. The procedure in regard to examinations and nominations is based on the English system. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) is no doubt familiar with that. The examinations will be held as often as is necessary in the judgment-of the commission-probably about twice a year. The several heads of departments will notify the commission what clerks are required or are likely to be required within the next six months in their several departments, stating the nature of the clerkships or services. The commission, when about to hold an examination, will advertise the fact, stating how many and what character of appointments are to be made from the successful competitors in the examination. If there are a large number of ordinary routine appointments to be made, ihey will advertise for so many of these. If a clerkship of a technical character of a special service is required to be "filled, the commission will state that this is to be competed for. Those who compete will be arranged in order of merit. When the examination is finished and the competitors have been arranged in order of merit, the commission will supply to the department clerks in the order of their standing in the competitive examination. Some slight latitude will be left to the commission so that, if a candidate in the examination for a routine clerkship has excelled in one particular line, they may appoint that candidate to a_department which asks for one having such qualifications. But, in a general way, the order of merit will be the order of appointment.


George Eulas Foster: What is the period of probation ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Six months. The clerk will be nominated by the commission, and if, at the end of six months, he is still in the department, he will be ipso factor ap-



pointed. If at any time after two months and within six months, the head of the department gives reasons for rejection, the Civil Service Commissioners may declare that the clerk is not fit for the service generally, or may give him a chance in some other department or appointment.


George Eulas Foster: Written reason is to be given to the commission ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes,-the head of the department is to give written reason to the commission, and the commission's action with regard to the person rejected will, depend upon the character of the reasons given for rejection.


George Eulas Foster: Does the competitive system apply in the same manner to promotions ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No; I am speaking entirely of the entrance into the service. My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) has spoken of promotion. I may say here that promotions or all special privileges to be granted to any clerk will be given only on a certi-cate of qualification from the commission, but the element of competition is not insisted upon in the case of promotions.


Mr.  R. I.. BORDEN@: Is promotion dealt with in any way by the Bill ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, I will come to that later My hon friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) asked to what part of the service this Bill applied. At present, the civil service of Canada is divided into inside and outside services. Speaking generally, the inside service is that part of the government service at Ottawa. But there is a considerable portion of the service here which is not included in the inside service and so is not under the operation of the Civil Service Act. It is proposed by this Bill to bring all the departmental services at Ottawa into the inside service and under the operation of the Civil Service Act.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Making all permanent ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. At present a large number of employees in Ottawa-I cannot say how many, but probably as many as six or seven hundred-are not under the Civil Service Act. In future, the Civil Service Act will apply to the whole of the Ottawa service.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What about salaries ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If my hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) will allow me, I would rather go into the matter systematically and not jump from one subject to another. The Act also provides for bringing under the rules of the civil service by order in council from time to time as may be considered feasible and advisable any or all of the outside service. The Bill' itself provides for the immediate bringing into the inside Mr. FISHER.	1
service and under the operation of the Act of all the Ottawa service.
Now, with regard to the classification, there is a considerable change made in this Bill. At present, the inside service is divided into deputy heads, chief clerks, first-class clerks, senior second-class clerks, junior second-class clerks and third-class clerks. We propose to make a change in this respect. The service will be divided into three divisions. ,In describing these, I may use the words of the Bill itself. The first division is again divided into subdivision A and subdivision B. Subdivision A consists of :
Officers having the rank of deputy heads, but not being deputy heads ladministening departments, assistant deputy ministers and the principal technical and administrative and executive officers.
Subdivision B consists of :
The lesser technical and administrative officers, including the chief clerks now 'holding office.
The second division is as follows :
The second division shall consist of certain other clerics, whose duties shall be such as to qualify them for holding positions in the first division. This division shall be divided into subdivisions A and B.
These are the two main divisions of the inside service as proposed by this Bill. The third division :
Shall consist of the other clerks in the service whose duties are copying and routine work under direct supervision, of less importance than that of the second division. This shall he divided into subdivisions A and B.
Provision is made for open competitive examination for direct entries into the second division. There shall also be arrangements for the entry by direct open competitive examination into the third division. It is contemplated that the second division shall supply by promotion the officers of the first division, but it is not expected or intended, in general terms, that the clerks of the third division shall rise to the second or to the first division. They are expected and intended to be clerks whose duties shall be of almost purely routine character not necessarily fitting them for administrative or executive work. The clerks of the second division who rise to the first division, will be given the more important administrative and technical work of the department. There is a provision by which, under the rules and regulations to be arranged by the commission, clerks in the third division are allowed to enter into open competitive examination for the second division, but when they enter into that open competitive examination for the second division, they must do so on the permission of the commission, under certain rules and regulations to be determined

by the commission, and they must enter into competition with those outside the service.


Mr. CONMEE.: Is it the intention to allow clerks to be called from one department to another ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is a provision in our present Act wrhich allows that, and it is not interfered with.


James Conmee: In the English practice I think that is a general rule.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think that is a general English rule at all, and I do not think it is the practice, though it may be allowed. It is not intended in this Act that shall be done, although where a transfer is required in the interest of the public service, or at the request of heads of departments or of the commission, it may be done. I may say here that where there was no necessity of making changes, the present Civil Service Act continues in force. This Bill is not a repeal of the present Act but it is an amendment of such parts of it as are inconsistent with the proposals which are now being made.


Mr. SPROULE.: Are the regulations concerning the health and moral character of individuals the same as in the old Act ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The age limit is left as it Is. . The certificates which are required are a little more stringent as to the health, character and habits, and are left under the control of the commission. The word ' habits ' is introduced to make that regulation more stringent than it was in the old Act which continues to apply without any change to what is called the outside service, and will so apply unless any portion of that service is brought by Order in Council into the inside service, or under the operation of the parts of the Act which apply to the inside service.


William Findlay Maclean: Would that cover postmasters in the cities, for instance ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That could be done.


William Findlay Maclean: And postmasters 'in cities could be made subjects of promotion as well as others.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The postal service all over the country could, by this Act, be brought under the clauses which apply to the inside service, in whole or in part, and the same with the other departments. There is a provision by which any portion or the whole of any department can be brought under the operation of these new clauses of the Act, by Order in Council. I do not propose to' enter into an argument on any of these points at this stage, as I do not think it is advisable, in making a general explanation of the Bill. I have copies of 240i
the Bill prepared, and in each of the copies the sections of the present Act which correspond to the new provisions are in italics at the bottom of the section. I have also a large number of copies of the present Act printed in pamphlet form, so that members can refer to them from the clauses of this Bill. When members have had an opportunity of studying these provisions and comparing them with the present Act, there will be a more fitting occasion to enter into a discussion of the reasons of the changes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What provision is made as to rearrangement of salaries ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In the classification there is a considerable change made in reference to salaries. I said a little while ago that the service would be divided into three divisions, and each division is again divided into two subdivisions. In subdivision A of the first division, the minimum and maximum salaries shall be from $2,800 to $4,000 ; and in subdivision B, from $2,100 to $2,800. In the second division iin (subdivision A, the salaries run from $1,600 to $2,100; and in subdivision B, from $800 to $1,600. In the third division, subdivision A, the salaries run from $900 to $1,200, and in subdivision B, from $500 to $800.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What provision is made for increases between those limits ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is provision made for a statutory increase of $50 each year, provided the record of the clerk justifies it. There is also a provision that where the record of the clerk is such as to justify it, and a certificate of merit is given by the commission, an additional $50 may be given. That is to say, while the statutory increase remains as at present, on certificate of merit given by the commission showing that the clerk is deserving of a greater increase, he can be given $100 instead of $50.


George Eulas Foster: Who certifies for the increase ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The commission. . All promotions and increases of salary are made on a certificate front the commission.


William Findlay Maclean: I suppose the deputy can make recommendations to the commission ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. Promotions and increases will be made by order in council as usual, but they must be made on a certificate of the commission.


George Eulas Foster: The commission must get their knowledge from somebody.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is a provision for a record, and I will read the clause :
A record of the conduct and efficiency of *11 officers, clerks and employees below the first division, shall be kept in each department.
Such record shall be established by means of reports, to be furnished to the deputy head

at least every .three months hy the chiefs of branches.
At the end of each year, and oftener if required, copies of these reports shall be sent to the commission by the deputy head.
The commission "will act upon these reports. That 'will be their order and means of communication. Then with regard to increases, clause 30 reads :
TJnlass the official record to be kept in the manner hereinafter set forth showis him to be undeserving thereof, there may be given to every officer, clerk and employee an annual increase of $50 until the maximum of his subdivision is reached. 2. In case of exceptional merit, a further increase not exceeding $50 may be given. 3. The said increase shall only be given by the Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the head of the department, based on the report of the deputy head, and accompanied hy a certificate of merit from the commission.


Mr. A. MARTIN.: Does this apply to temporary employees ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. We hope by this Bill to do away entirely with the present class of temporary employees. In the inside service, as hon. gentlemen know, at the present time there are many clerks called temporary, some of whom have been there for twenty, twenty-dive or thirty years ; yet they are to-day called temporary clerks. There is a provision in the Act for the employment of temporary clerks but they may not be employed for more than six months in any one year and they can only be employed on the certificate of the commission.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What percentage of increase is granted in the schedules of salaries mentioned by the minister?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I could not say off-hand. We would have to make a comparison with the present qualifications and the present salaries. The higher grades will practically be eligible to rise to at least $200 a year higher than they can to-day. The minimum of the different grades will be, roughly speaking, $100 higher than at present; but the classifications being slightly different it is not possible off-hand to give a statement on that point. When we come to discuss the details I will be able to do that more accurately than I can now.


George Eulas Foster: Is any provision inserted with reference to what we may call the political side of the service, partisan action by members of the service?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, there is no 1'eference to that.


George Eulas Foster: Is there any attempt in this Bill to deal with any system of superannuation or pension or anything of that kind ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, that is intended to go in another Bill. This deals only with the service itself and not with superannuation.


George Eulas Foster: Another Bill this session ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is a matter of consideration.


George Eulas Foster: It is in the mind of the government ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is a matter for consideration.


Mr. MONK.: Has the government considered the propriety of giving a more secure tenure of office to these commissioners ? Their functions are very important and I understood from the minister's explanation that they occupied their position during pleasure. Has it been considered whether their tenure should be made more secure, like that of the Auditor General?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Their tenure is that of a deputy minister which is generally considered to be secure. I think the deputy minister is appointed during pleasure, but the causes and reasons for the removal must be laid before parliament immediately on the assembling of parliament.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: They must be stated in writing.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, and we thought the same tenure of office, and the same rank and standing as a deputy minister, was sufficient security. We always consider the deputy as being absolutely secure except in case of misconduct or something of that kind and thought it was sufficient.


Robert Laird Borden: It would he neither convenient or proper or possible to discuss the details of the Bill at this time. I shall therefore confine myself to a very few observations. It is a matter of regret that the Bill has stood upon the Order Paper for introduction ever since the 22nd day of May, nearly four weeks ago. If it had been possible, and I assume it was, to introduce the Bill immediately after it was placed on the Order Paper the House could have been engaged in studying it in thel meantime and a great deal of very valuable time would have been saved.	*
So far as the measure itself appeals to us at present, I certainly approve of the three leading features, that is the appointment of an independent commission, the selection of candidates for public office by a system of competitive examination and their appointment in the order of merit. Nearly a year ago, speaking in the city of Halifax on the 20th of August, I argued and declared that the time had come when we should have a civil service system based practically on that which has prevailed in Great Britain for more than half a century. That view was borne out by the report of the Civil Service Commission which was presented to



JIP7E 17, 1908

[Stage Direction]
this House about two or three months ago.
I am very glad indeed that the government have come to the same conclusion and have brought down this Bill. I am not prepared to discuss the' details of the Bill to-day, but it must have impressed every one who has heard the explanation of the Minister of Agriculture that while the measure seemed to be based upon proper lines in the respects which I have mentioned, nevertheless, for the present, it leaves entirely out of Its scope by far the majority of the civil service of Canada. The outside service, as I understand the report of the Civil Service Commission, is very much larger in numbers than the inside service. It is the intention of the government by this Bill to take power to bring at any time the whole or any portion of the outside service in any particular department within the scope of this Act. I trust that upon the second reading we shall have some announcement from my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) on behalf of the government as to the intention and policy of the government in this respect. It seems to me that the benefit which we are entitled to expect from this measure in regard to the public service, while it may be and no doubt will be very considerable, even if the Bill is restricted entirely to the inside service, will be far below what we have a right to expect unless we have an announcement from the government that it is their intention and policy to speedily bring the outside service, in several of the great departments at least, within the scope of this Act.
It is satisfactory to know that the government propose to reconsider their attitude with regard to the superannuation of public servants which was carried out by their action shortly after they attained power. It would be still more gratifying if they had made a measure of superannuation a part of this Bill. Since the old superannuation Act was repealed, so far as the new civil servants were concerned, in 1897 or 1898, the government have to some extent retraced their steps. With regard to the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, the servants of the country in connection with the Intercolonial Railway and the militia, provision has been made for a system of superannuation or old age allowance and it might be noted in that connection that while, for some purposes, the government think they ought not to discriminate between civil servants in one department and another, nevertheless they have, so far as old age allowances or superannuation allowances are concerned, made a very distinct and apparent discrimination between servants working for the government in the different departments.
I would like to ask the hon. gentleman whether or not the Bill has been printed and whether it will be ready for imme liate distribution.
Sydney Arthur Fisher: I said a few minutes ago that the Bill was all ready for distribution as well as copies of the present Civil Service Act so that a comparison could be made between the provisions of the Bill and those of the present Civil Service Act.


Alex.   R.@: Tj. BORDEN. We can therefore anticipate that the distribution will be made at once 1


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is ready for distribution to-day.


George Eulas Foster: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman whether any provision is made in the Bill as to who shall prescribe the form and matter of the examination. Is it to be the commission that will do that and how will they work out that examination ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Bill says that this examination shall be held under rules and regulations to be formulated by the commission, approved by the Governor iu Council, of course, as they must be. We shall have to leave that to the commission. I might say, in that connection, that in the course of my study of this question, in order to formulate the provisions of this Bill, I examined very carefully many of the examination papers of the English Civil Service Commission and I was surprised and delighted to find the character of these examinations. There is quite a strong feeling amongst what are called practical men that a written examination is not much of a test of a person's qualifications and that frequently those who are the successful competitors are not practically so good as some other men may be. I have not always concurred in that view, but I was surprised and delighted to find the character of the papers of the Enelish Civil Service Examinations for I found that the questions were so framed as to bring out, not simply knowledge which might be got by cramming, by rote


Robert Laird Borden: By mere memory.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: By mere memory in regard to the subject, but they were so framed as to require the thinking out of the answers which would necessitate the successful candidate really understanding his subject. The papers are very varied, according to the character of the clerkship or office for which the candidate is competing. I have no doubt that any commission that is appointed here will take as their model and example, largely the successful work of the English Civil Service Commission. I believe that is also the case, to a large extent, in the United States although I have not studied their work so much as I have the English work. I may say with regard to this Bill generally that the formulae and the reforms that are contained in it are

practically entirely based on the work of the English Civil Service Commission and English Civil Service Reform.


Mr.   POSTER@: I have no wish to discuss this question, but the point which was raised by my question and to which the minister has given his attention, is, to my mind, the essential point upon which the whole success or failure of the open competitive system depends, and if the minister will look into the United States Civil Service Examinations he will find them eminently characteristic of that same element of practicality. They are not simply tests of how much a man knows of literature and the like of that. They are aimed to get at the capability of the person who is taking the examination in the line for which he is supposed to be qualified and they are eminently practical. The point I had in view was as to the working out .of this examination. Everything depends upon the choice of the two commissioners. The framing of the regulations and the making of the formulae of examination is the great work to he undertaken. Whether it is proposed to utilize the old Civil Service examiners I do not know. I have .iust one remark to make, without saying anything against the personnel of the old examiners, and that is that they have been examining in a certain rut and it will be required to be thought out as to whether a new broom is not better than using the old material in that respect as we are now to start off on a system of qualification by a method of examination quite different from that which has been heretofore adopted.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Quite so.


George Eulas Foster: I hope the minister and the government will take that into their consideration.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would like to say, in reply to the hon. member for North Toronto, that the proposition is to continue examiners under the commission, hut their work will be entirely under the commission, just like any other examiners who may have to be appointed and just as to-day the present Civil Service examiners have to have joined to them other examiners in other parts of the country to conduct examinations.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I asked a question of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture when he was speaking and he said that he did not want to be interrupted and that he would come to the point to which I had referred later on. I have not heard him say anything about it. My question had referred to employees who are not permanent. There are a great many of them and some of them have been in the service for many years. What will their position be with regard to the examination ? I suppose they will be put into some of these different Mr. FISHER.
classifications. What about their salaries ? Some of these employees have had larger salaries than they would have had if they had been permanent. I hope, that in making this change some of these old employees will not be discriminated against and will be treated as if they had been in the service permanently.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In general terms those who by this Act are brought into the inside service from the outside or temporary service will be brought in on the basis of their salaries and will be placed in. divisions according to their salaries.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the minister whether the Bill contains any provision by which you will be enabled to obviate the frequently occurring phrase in the estimates ' Notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act ?'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think the provisions of (his Bill, while pretty strict, are sufficiently elastic to practically do away with this exception. That has been our object in the framing of the provisions with respect to salaries. I will not say that it will never occur but the intention of the Bill is to do away with it altogether.


Mr. STEWART.: What is to be done in the case of those who are not on the permanent list regarding examinations ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Where an outside service is brought into the inside service it is done by order in council and those in it are not subject to examination. If a branch of the outside service is brought into the inside service under the provisions of this Bill the employees will be brought in without undergoing examination.


Robert Stewart: One other question regarding the recommendation made by the Civil Service Commission as to special increase in salaries. The Civil Service Commission pointed out that the Civil Service was not adequately paid. I would like to know if any action has been taken on that recommendation of the Civil Service Commission ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The new Civil Service Commission will have no control in the way of changing salaries. Salaries are fixed by the Act under the classifications and they will have no control in regard to that.


Robert Stewart: I am aware of that ; I think that perhaps my question was not understood. I am not dealing with the proposed new Civil Service Act but I would like to know whether the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission, that as the members of the Civil Service are not today receiving adequate salaries and as the necessaries of life have increased in cost to such an extent salaries should be in-

creased at a corresponding rate will be acted upon ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The changes in the classifications are in the direction of an increase in salaries. I cannot give details just now as to how they will work out in every individual case but, I said a few minutes ago in answer to my hon. friend from Beauhar-nois, the maximum of a class, in general terms, would be about $200 higher than the maximum of the corresponding class at the present time and the minimum about $100 higher than the mimimum paid in the corresponding class now. There is no actual definite statement of so much of an increase to any individual in this Bill ; it is a Bill dealing with the organization and regulation of the service as a whole and not a Bill dealing specially with salaries.


James Conmee: Will those in the service now come under the operation of the Bill?
*


Sydney Arthur Fisher: All the inside service will come under the operation of the Bill and all the service at Ottawa which to-day is not in the inside service. So far as the outside service is concerned it is another matter.


William Findlay Maclean: I take it that the modesty of the minister has prevented him proclaiming that the real object of this Bill is to remove the civil service from politics. If that is the case, as we must infer from the speech of the minister, it will be approved by the country. Still further, if the government can see their way to remove the outside service at the very earliest day from politics and bring them under this Act, the country will commend them in that, and for no department more than the railway service of this country. We have embarked on government ownership; we have a magnificent railway owned by the state, and the sooner it is removed from politics and put under an Act of this kind the better, and I hope that progress in that direction will be made in connection with this Bill.


Mr. LENNOX.: As to the civil service outside of Canada, for instance, those connected with the High Commissioner's office in London, will the increase proposed apply to them?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The High Commissioner's officer will not be put in the inside service until it is brought in by order in council.


Haughton Lennox: Is it contemplated under this Bill that that service will be brought in in such a way that there will be an increase of salary to the officials in the High Commissioner's office?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No part of the outside service is by this Bill brought into the inside service. I cannot say more than that at the present moment.


James Conmee: I did not understand from the minister's remarks whether those now holding office in the inside service will be subject to this competitive examination.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Certainly not.


James Conmee: If that is so, they would not come under the operation of the Bill as to an increase of salary?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The qualification of the service has nothing to do with the competitive examination. I read the maximum and the minimum salaries of the different classes and said that they would be included.


James Conmee: Those now in the service will be classified in the new service?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Certainly.


Robert Laird Borden: Has any date been fixed or is any contemplated when the classification shall take place? In other words, you propose to fix a particular date when the classification shall come into force. Do you propose any particular inquiry beforehand or will the classification be made in any particular manner, and if so. in what manner?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I thank my hon. friend for drawing my attention to that. Clause S provides :
As soon as practicable after the coming into force of the Act, the head of each department shall cause the organization of his department to be determined and defined by order in council.
The cider in council shall adve the names of the several branches or divisions of the department, with the number and character of the offices, clerkships and other positions in each and the titles and salaries thereafter to pertain thereto.
After being so determined and defined, the organization of a department shall not be changed except by order in council.
Copies of such orders in council shall be sent to the commission.
The Bill is intended and expected to come into operation on the day It is passed. The clause I have just read provides for the definition of the classes and the classification in each department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In apportioning the present staff to the various grades, is there any competitive examination or upon what principle do you distribute them into the new classes?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They will be distributed practically according to their present position in the service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Without any examination?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. There is no intention of having any competitive examinations for those in the service at the time of the coming into force of this Act. I do

not think it would be fair to the present service to subject them to that.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it intended that the classification shall be mechanical, depending upon the standing of the present grades in the service, and that the classification shall not be upon any standard or merit?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The clauses which I have just read misfit make a change in the organization and the classification, but I will read to my hon. friend clause 6 which indicates largely what he wishes to know :
Clerks now holding the rank of first class shall he placed in section subdivision A of the second division.
Clerks now holding the rank of senior second class shall be placed in subdivision B of the second division.
Clerks now holding the rank of junior second class shall he placed in subdivision A of third division.
Third class and temporary clerks paid out of civil government contingencies shall he placed in subdivision B of the third division.
There are, however, two or three small modifications in that to he made for particular eases.


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


Mr.  A. C.@: M A CD O NELL-b v Mr. Taylor -asked:
1.	What ships, including cruisers, icebreakers and lighthouse supply boats, has the government purchased or had built since tbe year 1900, and what are the names and cost of each ?
2.	Were said ships procured or constructed by tender?
3.	Which of said ships were built in Canada and which abroad, or in Great Britain?
4.	Are there any vessels at the present time under construction for the government abroad or in Great Britain, and what is the cost of such vessels?
5.	Does the government at the present time contemplate the construction and purchase abroad or in Great Britain of any further or additional vessels?
6.	Why does the government not procure the construction of Canadian vessels built in Canadian shipyards instead of going to British and foreign shipbuilders?
7.	Does the government contemplate the purchase of a cruiser for the Pacific coast, and a lighthouse supply boat for the Georgian bay and upper lakes? If so, does the 'government intend to have such vessels constructed in Canada? If not, why not?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1,	2 and 3. Tbe Department of Marine and Fisheries has built or purchased the following:


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: The ' Deerhound ' (now known ns ' Lady Evelyn ') was in 1907 purchased by the Post Office Department from the West Cornwall Steamship Company, Limited, of Penzance, England. This vessel was built in Great Britain and the purchase price was twelve thousand, five hundred pounds sterling.


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: I wish to explain that I did not answer because I assumed that the word ' ships ' was not intended to refer to tugs, barges and small vessels of that nature which have been built or purchased by the Department of Public Works.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-OXFORD TO PICTOTJ.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. STANFIELD-by Mr. Taylor-asked:
1.	When was that part of the Intercolonial Railway that runs from Oxford Junction to Pictou town, Nova Scotia, built, and what is the length of said line?
2.	What was the cost of right of way for same?
3.	What was the total expenditure for building this said line of railway?	[DOT]
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and iCanals):: 1.	Between 1887-8 and 1889-1900.	68:40
miles.
2.	$28,142.82.
3.	$1,961,078.55.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-PICTOU TO COPPER CROWN COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. STANFIELD-by Mr. Taylor-asked:
1.	What was the total expenditure for construction of the Intercolonial Railway extension from terminus at Pictou town to Copper Crown Smelting Company's premises in the town of Pictou?
2.	Was the work done by contract? If so, who were the contractors?
3.	What as the length of road constructed?
4.	If the work was not done under contract, how was it done, who superintended it, and to whom were the payments for work -made?
5.	Under what dates were payments made on account of the work, to whom were the respective payments made, and how much were the payments, respectively?
6.	Were any payments made for right of wav ;or damages in connection therewith? If so. how much were the payments, [respectively, and to whom was each paid?
7.	If payments on account of construction, or for right of way or damages, were made through persons other than contractors or superintendents of work, through what persons were such payments respectively made,
how much and on what date was any such payment so made?
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	$20,682.09..
2.	No.
3.	About three-quarters of a mile.
4.	The road was located and work of construction done under supervision of Intercolonial Railway engineering staff, A. J. Stevens engineer In charge.
5.	October 31, 1900, Copper Crown Mining Company was paid $14,500; September, 1901, Copper Crown Mining Company was paid $545.34.
6.	Yes, $2,975 was paid as follows: Clarence and Howard Primrose. .$1,250.00
Wm. Connell	 100.00
A. M. McKay	 500.00
John and James Yorston	 500.00
John McDonald	 75.00
Annie Foote	- ..	100.00
Mary Ann Mainland	 100.00
Martha Carroll	 50.00


Alex.   R.@: O'Brien	 50.00


Fred W.: Fraser	 200.00


Bessie A.: Ross		50.00
Total	$2,975.00
7.	See answers Nos. 5 and 6.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-STELLAR-TON TO PICTOU.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. STANFIELD-by Mr. Taylor-asked:
1.	When was that part of the Intercolonial
Railway that runs from Stellarton, in Pictou county, to Pictou town, built? _	_
2.	Was the right of way for said line paid for by the government? If not, who provided and paid for night of way?
3.	What was the total expenditure for building the said line of railway ?
4.	What is the length of said line from Stellarton to Pictou town?
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and .Canals) :: 1.	Between 1885 and 1889.
2.	Yes.
3.	$553,536.94.
4.	13-93 miles.	.


INTERCOLONIAL' RAILWAY-SUNDAY TRAINS.
Mr. BERGERON asked:: 1.	Have instructions recently been issued by the Railway Department prohibiting the Intercolonial Railwav from running trains in the province'of Quebec on Sundays?
2.	Are there standing instructions that excursion trains are not to run on the Intercolonial Railway on Sundays without authority from the minister or deputy minister ?
3.	Under what conditions is permission granted by the Department of Railways and Canals for excursion trains to be run on the Intercolonial Railway on Sundays?
4.	Was there an excursion from Riviere du Loup to Tirois Pistoles on Sunday, May 31 last? If so, for what purpose was it organized?

5.	How many passenger cars were there on the train ?
6.	How many tickets were sold at Riviere du Loup ticket office and at the stations between Riviere du Loup and Trois Pistoles, and how many were sold on the train?-
7.	What w-as the total revenue on the Intercolonial Railway?
8.	Was any guarantee required from the organizers? If so, by whom, in what -manner was the guarantee deposited and what was the amount ?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	No.
2.	Yes.
3.	Upon a special request being made for excursion or special train to be run on Sunday in the province of Quebec, permission is sometimes granted under the usual rules and upon a guarantee being given.
4.	Yes. To accommodate all persons wishing to attend a political meeting.
5.	Seven.
6.	Sixty-three at Rivifire du Loup, four at St. Arsene, sixteen at Isle Verte, twenty-eight at St. Eloi. None on the train.
7.	$68.55.
8.	Yes. $55 was deposited with the agent of the railway at RiviSre du Loup.


UNEMPLOYED LABOUR.
Mr. ISAM. HUGHES asked:: 1.	Is the government aware that it is stated there are thousands of Canadians in the Canadian west and far west out of employment, whose usual work is in connection with lumber, timber, wood, logs, ties and similar labour ?
2.	Is the government aware that it is stated there are thousands less men employed in the lumber, timber and tie industries this year than in former years in Canada?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to
take any steps this year to give adequate protection to the above industries and to the thousands of honest Canadians and their families ?	,


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: The government have no special knowledge other than that which Is a matter of common report. It Is the desire and intention of the government to give adequate protection to all industries in Canada including the industry of the consumer.


WHITE PASS RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. HERRON asked:: 1.	What is the present position of the appeal of the Dawson Board of Trade before the Board of Railway Commissioners in the matter of -alleged extortionate charges for the carriage of -freight by the White P-ass Railway Company?
2.	Can the Board of Railway Commissioners as at present constituted give a decision upon -the evidence taken (before the late Commissioner Killam and Commissioner -Mills, -or will it be necessary to hear the case -again?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: It is -questionable whether the Board of Railway Commissioners has power to deal with that question owing to the peculiar conditions. In reply to No. 2, that is a question rather of practice than of fact. The commissioners, I presume, could give a decision upon the evidence if the present chairman would take the time to read over all the evidence and digest it. It would rather be a question of practice by the board than one of possibility.	.
OFFICERS ON GOVERNMENT VESSELS. Mr. MONK asked:
1.	Are the officers serving on -the following named government vessels paid -the full amount of their -monthly salaries for the twelve months -of -the vear, -and for -how many years ipast: The 'Champlain,' 'Constance,' ' Druid,' ' Eureka,' ' Montcalm,' ' Reserve,1 'Scout,' 'La Canadienne' and 'Princess'?
2.	If those officers are -not paid the full amount of their salaries for the twelve -months, how much do they receive for -the four months during which they are not in active service, that is to say, for December, January, February -and -March?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Full pay, 12 months
' Champlain ',
' Druid '.
' Montcalm '..


' LA CANADIENNE.'
[Stage Direction]
Captain	
1st officer...
2nd ii	
Chief engineer 2nd	ii
Captain	
1st officer...
2ud it	
Chief engineer 2nd	ii
1902-03.
12 months full pay
8	u
8	„
8	„
8	„
1905-06.
10 months full pay
6i	„	.10	„	.91	ii
1903-04.
12 months full pay .
7	„
12	„ .
Hi	"
1906-07.
9 months full pay .
9 months full pay .
1904-05.
12 months full pay. 7	„
7 n 11 „
10J	„
1907-08.
6 months full pay. 6 „
6 „
6	i,
Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: 1073?


'CONSTANCE.' 1904-05.
[Stage Direction]
1905-06.
1906-07.
Captain ....: 
'PRINCESS.'
[Stage Direction]
1905-06.	1906-07.	1907-08.
			
	3 M - 		8^ m. full, 4^- m. half pay 5 m. full, 4 m. half pay.	\ Full pay, except 1st
	1 M		
Chief engineer	 		3 „ 			j and 2nd officers.
	3 H	8^ it ...*

Captain ....: 
' RESERVE.'
Captain .   ..@: 
'SCOUT.'
[Stage Direction]
1905-06.	1906-07.	1907-08.Captain	8 months full pay	9 months full pay	9 months full pay.1 „ 	5 „ 	9 H1st engineer	IO5 m. full, 2 m. half pay	at $950 per annum	9 11CIVIL SERVICE-man COMMISSIONER'S national transcontinental-steel OFFICE.	RAILS.
Mr. LENNON-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1. In the increases proposed by the Civil Service Bill about to be introduced, does the government provide for increased allowances or salaries to members of the civil service or officials outside Canada, and particularly to those engaged in the office of the High Commissioner in London? If not, has the question been considered?
Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think the introduction of the Bill which has been read the first time this morning answers this question.


Mr. BOYCE asked :: 1.	From what manufacturers has the National Transcontinental Railway Commission purchased steel rails for use in the construction of the railway?
2.	Whiat were the prices per ton, respectively, paid under isuch contracts?
3.	What contracts for rails are still inoom-pleted ?


George Perry Graham: I think that question was answered fully a few days ago. However, if my hon. friend will let it stand I will look up 1 Hansard ' and make sure.


ST. LAWRENCE RIVER ROUTE-WRECKS AND COLLISIONS.
Mr.   WM@: JACKSON-toy Mr. Taylor-asked :
How many wrecks or collisions have occurred in the iSt. Lawrence river and gulf between Montreal and the sea-hoard from 1886 to 1896, and from 1896 to 1908, respectively?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The answer to this question is necessarily very long. If my hon'. friend will make a motion I will see that the return is brought down.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Stand as a notice of motion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It can't be reached this session.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The motion can be made at once. [DOT]


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I move, on behalf of the hon. member (Mr. Win. Jackson), that a return covering the information asked for be brought down.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
QUEiBEC BRIDGE.
Mr.   WM@: JACKSON-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
Is the Quebec bridge to be for horse vehicles and for foot passengers?


George Perry Graham: No plans have yet been approved of for the bridge that will be constructed at Quebec.



PRIVILEGE-ATTACK UPON MILITIA DEPARTMENT.

Hon.   S@: Before the orders of the day are proceeded with, I would like to bring up a matter of privilege. On Monday a report from the Department of Militia was laid on the table entitled ' Interim Report of the Militia Council for the Dominion of Canada on the Training of the Militia during the season of 1907.' In the editorial column in yesterday's issue of the newspaper called the ' Evening Journal,' published in Ottawa, I find under the heading * The Militia Boots,' the following, purporting to be an extract from the report to which I have just referred :
There is probably no regiment in the country which could perform a week's march with the 'boots which the men iare wearing.
This is followed by the following editorial comment :
So runs the report of the Dominion Militia Council.
Wonder who the contractor its, or who the contractors are, or what he, she or they are paid per pair ?


George Perry Graham: Now, whether intentional or otherwise, I consider this publication and the insinuation contained in what I have just read a gross violation of the privileges of this House. Newspapers are given the courtesy, as I understand it, of copying public documents laid on the table of the House for the purpose of giving news, not for the purpose of conveying misrepresentations. The paragraph from which this extract published in the 'Journal' is taken reads as follows:


Mr. LANCASTER.: What page?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) will look at page 7 of the report, he will find the heading : ' Training-Active Militia,' following on down to page 9 under the heading ' Infantry,' he will find the words to which I refer :
As regards equipment, the dress of the infantry is deserving of attention. If it were possible to introduce the ,service dress for all rural -corps it would be a 'distinct -advantage. More attention on the part of company officers to the quality of boots which the men bring to oam-p is much required.
Then follows the words whidh I have quoted as appearing in the ' Journal ' :
There is -probably no regiment in the country which could -perform a week's -march with the boots which the men wore wearing.
I am afraid there is in this a deliberate intention to mislead the country and bring an unjust charge against the minister and the department. If the whole paragraph had been -published every one could have seen-and the newspaper man who made this extract must have seen-the words ' more attention on the part of company officers to the quality of boots which the men bring to camp is much required,' which modify entirely the meaning of the concluding statement. For, as a matter of fact-and this is the whole point-the active militia supply their own boots, and always have supplied their own boots from the time of confederation down to the present moment. There are some 48,000 of the active militia, both city and rural regiments, and every man of them brings his own boots to camp or drill. There has never been provision made, nor is there now


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is no contract?


Frederick William Borden: No contract and no contractor. I do not know liow the men get their boots-I sup-pose they buy and pay for them. No doubt the inspector who wrote this paragraph had in mind that this was an undesirable condition of things. I think it is. But that is an entirely different question. The point is that there is no contract, no contractor. And this paragraph was published, was deliberately published, -for the purpose of giving a wrong impression and casting an aspersion upon the department and the

head of the department. It is too much to hope, I presume, that this paper will retract and apologize. Coming from the source it does, I scarcely expect it.



DEPARTMENT OF MARINE AND FISHERIES-JUDGE CASSELS' INVESTIGATION.

Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe).: I would ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) if it is proposed to have Judge Cassels take up serious matters of importance for review during the present investigation-such, for instance, as the defalcation of one of the employees named Roy at Sorel-or whether it is proposed to continue with matters such as I and others happened to hear dealt with yesterday, trifling matters of the price of blotting paper and things of that kind?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Judge Cassels has in-[DOT] structions to look into the work of ail the officers of the department. I do not know of any defalcation such as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) speaks of.


William Humphrey Bennett: Why, the hon. minister brought down a return showing that he had a man investigating for a year and found this man Roy in default.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, I am not aware of that. My hon. friend has not read the report.


William Humphrey Bennett: I also


Robert Franklin Sutherland: It is not in order to discuss the matter at this time.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then perhaps I may ask the minister whether he proposes that the case that was under reiew by Mr. Gaudet, of Montreal, shall be thoroughly reviewed by Judge Cassels? .


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Judge Cassels will be the judge whether this matter should be reviewed or not. There has already been a very full investigation.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has the minister placed in the hands of Judge Cassels, or in the hands of Mr. Watson, the counsel, all the papers relative to the alleged defalcation, or defalcation, of Roy? If he has not done so. does he intend to do so?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The papers of the investigation are before the House.


William Humphrey Bennett: But not before Judge Cassels?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, I do not know whether copies have been made of the report or not. If I can get copies I will lay them before the judge.


George Eulas Foster: What is the procedure with reference to the presentation of cases and papers in this investigation ? Does it place such
cases and such papers as he considers ought to be investigated, in the hands of counsel for investigation ? Does the counsel make such choice as he pleases or does Judge Cassels make requisition, on the advice of counsel, for papers and cases that he thinks should be taken up ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have given to Judge Cassels and to the lawyers acting for the government access to all the papers in the department. They may make request for everything they want.
Mr. FOSTER, I understood the minister to say now that the papers in the Rov case were before the House and not before the commission.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: They can still get them, if they are before the House. A case occurred the other day when the hon. gentleman asked for documents, and I said they were kept in the House, but could be required for the investigation. These original documents have been brought down and are with the clerk of the House, but everybody has access to them.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the attention of counsel or of the judge been directed to the evidence of the Auditor General to which I alluded a few days ago, and is it expected that the Auditor General will be summoned before the commission to give evidence at an early date ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is in the hands of the judge, I have no direction to give him in that respect.


Robert Laird Borden: I directed the attention of the House, and of the minister, if he were here to certain evidence of the Auditor General respecting insufficient or unsatisfactory certificates that came to him from the Department of Marine and Fisheries ; this was ten days or two weeks ago, and I then suggested that the Auditor General should be one of the first witnesses called. I am not clear as to -whether Mr. Justice Cassels prescribes the order in which the witnesses shall be called, or whether that is in the hands of counsel ; I assume it is in the hands of counsel.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Under the direction of the judge.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose he is guided in that matter entirely by counsel. What I inquired this morning was whether the attention of the counsel or of the judge had been directed to that particular evidence of the Auditor General, and whether it is expected that the Auditor General will be called before the commission at an early date, because it seemed to me that he would be an important witness.


William Humphrey Bennett: I desire to ask if Mr. Gaudet, who was appointed a commissioner in the case of Roy to which I have just re-

ferred, and who brought down what the minister termed an interim report one or two months ago, has proceeded further with the investigation, or is it the intention of the minister to have him proceed further ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: He has made the final report, and 1 have brought it down. There was an interim report which I brought down, and afterwards the final report. These have been before the House for three weeks or a month.


William Humphrey Bennett: I douoi tnat.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: In the reports in the press of the investigation that is taking place before Mr. Justice Cassells, I see the name of Mr. Watson but I have not seen the name of Mr. Perron. Is Mr. Perron also acting with Mr. Watson, as it was the intention at first; or is he not acting, and is he receiving pay ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I visited the court one day when the investigation was going on and I saw there Mr. Perron and Mr. Watson. Besides, * Mr. Perron to my own knowledge, has been spending time in the department studying the files for the purpose of investigation. But I have been told by Mr. Watson that Mr. Perron was not 'there on Monday, he was engaged on some other business. I do not know whether he was there yesterday.


George Eulas Foster: What is the idea of the minister as to the consecutive nature of the investigation ? Has Judge Cassels time at his disposal to go on with the investigation, or is there to be another adjournment ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know how much time the judge will be able to devote to this investigation, but I understood, though not from the judge, that he was going to give the whole of this week. I do not know whether he will be able to complete his work this week, but if not, I suppose the investigation can go on next week.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: Has Mr. Justice Cassells any authority to investigate any question in connection with the Department of Marine and Fisheries except the question whether commissions are received improperly, or enhanced prices are paid through dishonesty on the part of the officers ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: He is guided entirely by his commission in respect to that. His commission authorizes him to make any investigation affecting the honesty or dishonesty of the officials of the department.



CHINESE IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 184) to amend the Chinese Immigration Act.-tMr. Oliver.
William Humphrey Bennett: 


Mr. OLIVER.: In regard to section 4. I desire to move to strike that out and insert the following in lieu thereof:
Said section 7 is further amended by adding thereto the following as subsection 4:
'Notwithstanding anything in this Act, and subject to such regulations as are made for the purpose by the Governor in Council, any Chinese immigrant whose destination is a place in Canada other than the port or place at which he enters Canada, may pass through to his destination and pay the tax hereinafter provided for, only upon his reaching his destination.
The effect of the amendment leaves In the original Act the provision as to Chinese in transit through this country not being required to pay the tax. But in place of the provision that is contained in the Bill, we propose to insert this provision, which applies only to those who are destined to points in Canada other than the port at which they enter Canada.


Mr. AMES.: In a case like that a Chinaman may be lost track of, and what precautions are taken to make sure that he has to pay at the point of destination ?


Frank Oliver: The transportation of Chinese as an article of contraband is under regulations provided by the Department of Trade and Commerce. They are responsible for the safe delivery of Chinese, just as tlie Customs Department is in regard to contraband goods.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is the tax collected by the Customs Department at the point of final destination ?	[DOT]


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: Suppose the final destination is not a port of entry ?


Frank Oliver: That is a matter which would be covered by the regulations which the Act provides for. The Department of Trade and Commerce are responsible for the collection of the Jax. This Act empowers them to make" regulations looking to the collection of the tax. As the Act stood they must collect at the port of entry and this provides they may collect at the port of destination.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I cannot see how this case is similar to that of contraband goods for the natural reason that contraband goods could not escape from a car, while a Chinaman might get out of a car anywhere. I cannot see how you have any assurance that the man will go where he is supposed to go. He might leave the train while contraband goods could not.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Generally, where Is the tax paid to-day ?


Frank Oliver: At the port of entry.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: By this clause this will be changed and it will only be collected

at the point where the Chinese is going to reside ?


Frank Oliver: The intention of the clause is that it may be so paid.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Take, for example, a Chinaman coming to Vancouver to-day, he would pay his tax at Vancouver coming in?
IMr. OLIVER. Yes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: And by this amendment he will not be obliged to pay until he reaches Beauharnois, say ? Who is the officer in Beauharnois who will collect that tax ?


Frank Oliver: That is a matter which the Department of Trade and Commerce must attend to by the regulations provided by them. They are held responsible for the collection of the tax. When a Chinaman reaches Vancouver, we will say, destined to Beauharnois, it is for the Department of Trade and Commerce to decide whether they will collect from him at Vancouver or Beauharnois. If they are not in a position to collect from him at Beauharnois, then the only thing for them to do is to collect at Vancouver.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That is a very dangerous way of doing it. There are Chinese in a great many places. It is astonishing to see how widely they have been distributed through the country. They are in all the parishes, the little villages and towns all over our province and a great many Chinese will be able to come into Canada without paying the tax because it will be impossible to follow them. What is the object of the minister in changing the law?


Frank Oliver: The object is that the tax shall be paid just the same as the customs tax on goods at the point of destination instead of at the seaboard.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: This is a different thing altogether. There is a port of entry which goods in bond cannot pass until they have been released by the officer there. The same condition will not exist with respect to Chinese.
Mr. RALrH SMITH. They are in bond.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: May I ask the minister if a customs parcel coming -.from another country and billed to an inland point in Canada is not in charge of an officer of the Canadian government all the way ?


Mr. MACPHERSON.: So is the Chinaman.


Samuel Hughes: Who is he in charge of ?


Robert George Macpherson: An officer.


Samuel Hughes: Is it not likely that a Chinaman could jump off a train a
little more readily than a customs parcel could ?


Robert George Macpherson: They are locked up.


Samuel Hughes: Locked up ?


Robert George Macpherson: The transportation company are responsible for every one of them. They have to put up security for every individual Chinaman they carry. This was the provision of the law prior to the time that the $500 head tax was imposed. It has been continued.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Where is the tax of $500 collected to-day upon a Chinaman coming from New York to Canada ?


Frank Oliver: It is paid at the port of entry. Where there is no officer of the Department of Trade and Commerce I understand that the Customs Department act for the Trade and Commerce Department.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I would like to ask the Minister of Customs. He collects that tax at the port of entry on the New York Central coming into Canada. There are a great many Chinese coming from New York. We see them passing through. Has the Minister of Customs an officer who collects that tax, or how is it done ?


Mr. PATERSON.: Where are they going to ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: They are going to Montreal. I do not know where they go afterwards. Sometimes you will see a whole carload of them.


William Paterson: I cannot remember whether there is a provision for them coming in bond to Montreal or whether they pay the tax at the port of entry. The customs officers act for the Department of Trade and Commerce. They do not come under our direct supervision, but they are officers of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the enforcement of the provisions of this A^ct.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What was the amount of the tax collected last year ?


William Paterson: I think it was over $600,000. '


Robert George Macpherson: 


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In the case put by the Minister of the Interior of a Chinaman coming to Vancouver designed for Beauharnois not being collected from at Vancouver but supposed to be collected from at Beauharnois, how does the minister secure that Chinaman going through from Vancouver to Beauharnois ? How does he make sure that he gets to Beauharnois after he leaves Vancouver ?


William Paterson: I have not looked carefully through the Bill, but I think there is a clause providing for persons in transit

passing through the country. They pass through on the same principle as goods in bond ; that is to say, they are in bond. Say if goods coming from a foreign country were destined to a point in Beauharnois at which there was no customs officer, they might pass through the country in bond to Montreal and they would be detained there.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You do not put the Chinamen in bond, do you ?


William Paterson: Yes, they go through in bond and the railways are responsible for them just the same as they are for bonded goods.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Suppose the Chinaman did not get to Beauharnois, what would happen ?


Mr. D. ROSS.: Will the hon. gentleman let me read clause 13 of the Act ?
Every conductor or other person in charge of any railway train or car bringing. Chinese immigrants into Canada shall be personally * liable to His Majesty for the payment of the tax of five hundred dollars imposed by this Act in respect of any immigrant brought by or on such railway train or car, and shall, unless such persons are in transit through Canada, pay or cause to be paid to the controller the total amount of the tax payable by Chinese immigrants so arriving by such railway train or car, and he shall not allow any such .immigrants to disembark from such train or car until after such tax has been paid.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The exception is unless they are in transit through Canada. The case suggested by the minister is that they are in transit through Canada.


Duncan Ross: If they are in transit through Canada the transportation companies provide sufficient guards to protect themselves and see that they do not leave the trains.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The men are not in custody are they?


William Paterson: The railway company have to give bonds. Just as in the case of bonded goods, the company must deliver the Chinamen at the place to which they are bonded or they are liable for the amount of the tax.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think that clause 13 affords any great safeguard unless you have some person watching these men. It is all very well to say that the conductors shall be responsible for any of these persons coming into Canada, but how do you know the number or anything about them unless you have an officer on the train or at the border to go through the train and ascertain how many persons of that description are coming in?


William Paterson: The railway would be liable.


William Paterson: 


Robert Laird Borden: Suppose a car from New York to Montreal has fifteen or twenty Chinese on board and you have no person there to keep any check on them, it is idle to say that the conductor shall be liable because you would have no proof against him.


Robert George Macpherson: This is just on the same principle >as we conduct our commercial imports into Canada. A chinaman crossing the border at Niagara, for instance, has either to pay the duty or go through in bond.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not discussing some other case but this case. Where goods go forward in bond, they are locked up and under seal.


Robert George Macpherson: So are the Chinamen.


Robert Laird Borden: The goods go through in bond to the port of destination, a customs port, but if we do not have some official at the frontier to examine the trains and see how many Chinese they contain, of what advantage is it to say that the conductor shall he liable for $500 per head ? How do you know anything about it?


William Paterson: I presume they will make them pay.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Some Chinese coming from New York by the New York Central leave the train at Montreal junction. Today as the law exists I imagine they have paid the tax when they crossed the border at Athelstane. Then they are free to go all over Canada and I presume they have a paper showing they have paid the. tax. But if you pass this the Chinese will come in without paying the tax until they are called upon to pay it at their destination. Sometimes the New York Central train is late at Montreal Junction and instead of going to Montreal they leave the train at the junction and take the Canadian Pacific Railway train for the west. They are not locked up or checked, they are like ordinary citizens. Suppose they go as far as Vankleelt Hill where there is no customs officer, to whom would they pay the tax? I do not understand the object of this law and the minister has not said why he wanted the change.


Robert George Macpherson: If hon. gentlemen opposite do not want the Act passed, I would agree with them, and I am sure that in saying that I speak for the other members from British Columbia. This is simply an amendment enabling the other provinces to share in the tax that is collected from the Chinese. My hon. friend is not standing for provincial rights now. I would like to see this amendment withdrawn because then we would get all the tax in British Columbia where we should have it, and not divide it up with Beauharnois or any other part of the country. The province in which the

tax is collected gets one-half of it. That is the reason for the change, and if my hon. friends desire to have the clause withdrawn I will support them.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I am looking to the interests of Canada at large. I think the tax is now paid, but under this amendment it will not be paid to British Columbia or Beauharnois or any place.


Robert Laird Borden: If the customs officers at the frontier make an inspection of cars for this purpose it would obviate many of the objections that have been raised. I have not been able to ascertain that that is the practice.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the important thing is to know how you are going to work this out practically so as to obviate any danger of the Chinese leaving the team and making off without paying the duty?


Frank Oliver: The law says that a Chinaman coming into Canada under certain conditions must pay a tax of $500. That law is administered by the Trade and Commerce Department and under certain conditions officers of the Customs Department are officers of the Trade and Commerce Department for the collection of this tax. When a Chinaman comes in contact with an officer of the Trade and Commerce or Customs Department, either at Vancouver or Rouse's Point or wherever it may be, it is the business of the customs officer to find out whether that Chinaman is entitled to come in free of tax or not. If he is not it is his business to collect the tax or exclude him.


Robert Laird Borden: The customs officers do that on all trains, it is their duty to do it at any rate.


Mr.   POSTER@: If the Chinaman is bonded through, the customs officer passes him along.


Frank Oliver: Precisely. The customs officer finds a Chinaman on the train at Rouse's Point destined for Montreal. Arrangements may have been made by the railway company to bond him through to Montreal. If he is bonded through to Montreal the customs officer does not collect at Rouse's Point, he goes through to Montreal. But the process of bonding involves that the railway company has made itself responsible to the government for the payment of the head tax upon that Chinaman, and if he does not go to Montreal the tax is paid just as if he did go to Montreal. That is the essential point. The process of bonding, as every one knows, means that those who give the bonds are responsible for the delivery of the goods or the payment of the duty, whichever it may be.


Samuel Hughes: What is the process of collecting the tax on the bonded Chinaman when he arrives in Montreal ?
What is to prevent half a dozen Montreal Chinamen being on hand to personate those who have jumped the job at way stations?


Frank Oliver: Nothing in the world. Whether he is personated or not the railway company will pay the $500 head tax. Therefore we assume that the railway company will see that he gets to Montreal, but it is a matter of indifference to us whether he reaches Montreal or any other place.


Robert Laird Borden: So long as you get the $500.


Frank Oliver: That is the point of this law. The railway company, having made itself responsible for the $500, it will have the privilege of paying it whether it delivers the man or not.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: My hon. friend has not told us the reason for the change of the law. Is it that the different provinces may share in the tax, or is there any other reason ?


Frank Oliver: I must admit that as this matter does not belong to the Department of the Interior, I am not familiar with all the reasons for the change in the law ; but I am given to understand that that is the reason.


George Eulas Foster: Is the law at present that the province within whose bounds the tax is paid gets one-half of the tax ?


Frank Oliver: I cannot answer that offhand, but I am given to understand that that is the fact.


George Eulas Foster: That is very important. Hitherto, so far as I have seen the public accounts, the only province in which there lias been a division is British Columbia. When Chinamen are brought in bond from New York to Montreal, has one-half of the tax on them hitherto gone to the province of Quebec or to the province of British Columbia ?


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: Fifty per cent of the head tax on Chinese is paid to the province in which they enter. The Auditor General's report for the nine months ended March 31, 1907, shows that at Montreal thirteen Chinamen paid the head tax, amounting in all to $6,500. Of that amount fifty per cent would be paid, to the government of Quebec. A small number came to North Sydney from Newfoundland. The same proportion is paid to other provinces as to British Columbia ; but as a matter of fact, British Columbia, having the largest number of entries, properly receives the lion's share.
At one o'clock committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.
On section 4, conditions as to passage through Canada.	*


Mr. HERRON.: I do not see how you can follow up the identification of those who



come in at side stations. It also seems to me that a year's imprisonment is not suf-ficent in proportion to a fine of $500. The railway companies are responsible for the $500 head tax, and that tax has been in operation a considerable length of time. Have the railway companies ever been called on to indemnify the government in any case of default ?


Frank Oliver: I cannot give my hon. friend the information of how many instances have occurred, but in every instance the bond has had to be made good by the railway company.
On section 5, evasion of Act by Chinese.


Frank Oliver: I move that subsection 1 of section 5 be amended by adding the words ' and shall also be liable to deportation.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Frank Oliver: I desire to make another amendment to this section. I move that subsection 2 of section 5 be repealed and the following substituted :
Every one who wilfully aids and abets any such person of Chinese origin in any evasion or attempt at evasion of any of the provisions of this Act is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months and to a fine not exceeding $500, or both.
As section 5 reads in the Bill, there is only a penalty against the persons of Chinese origin who seek to evade the law. This is an error. Under the Act at present on the statute, provision is made for the punishment of those who assist in an evasion ; and the amendment I have moved is to make the same provision in the present Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Frank Oliver: There is another amendment which is somewhat different from the Bill. I am asked to introduce it by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is with regard to subsection 5 of section 2. In that section students under 17 years of age are exempt from the payment of entrance tax. When the Bill was under consideration before, attention was drawn to the fact that there might very well be students of the more advanced colleges who would come into this country and be over seventeen years of age. These would have to pay the head tax. I think my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) drew attention to that. In order to provide for the admission of students actually in attendance at the higher educational institutions, without the payment of the head tax, as well as for the' admission >of students attending ordinary educational institutions under 17 years of age, I move to amend subsection 5 of section 2 so that it may read as follows :


John Herron: Students in universities, colleges and technical schools, and these students, under 17 years of age, in other schools.
Instead of restricting the exemption from the tax to students under 17 years of age, we propose to exempt students of any age attending the higher collegiate institutions, that is to say universities and colleges and technical schools. But at any other school, if the student is over 17, he must pay the head tax.


Mr.   MAOPHERSON@: How does the minister define student ?


Frank Oliver: Provision is made in the Act for the definition of what constitutes a student and the regulations to be passed by the Trade and Commerce Department will give that definition. The reason for this amendment arises out of the disadvantage that exists under the Act, which admitted students without restriction. Once it was shown that they were students, they were admitted free. The intention here is to restrict the freedom from tax of those under seventeen. It has been suggested that this is an improper restriction, inasmuch as it would require a person of Chinese origin who was desirous of taking a course in our higher colleges, to come under the disability of paying $500 bead tax.


George Eulas Foster: X should think that was only fair.


Robert George Macpherson: It is possibly fair enough, because that amendment defines precisely what a student is. But under the present Act, and under the Bill, it says ' students under seventeen years of age.' Now my idea of a student is a man who, being able to read and write, wishes to take up a higher education in our Canadian schools. At present coolies come in and get an education. They will go to school for a year and a half, and then they can get a certificate and their $500 head tax is given back. It is a very simple matter for a Chinaman to make $500, and at the same time our schools are under the necessity of giving him an education.


Mr. BLAIN.: Have there been many cases of that kind ?


Robert George Macpherson: Yes, quite a number of cases of that kind, not only in British Columbia, but in Ontario and Quebec. I have occasion to know that there are many applications for a refund of the head tax by students who have gone to school for a year or a year and a half. Now there is no Chinese boy seventeen or eighteen years of age who can earn $500 easier than by going to school and getting a free education. I am strongly of the belief that we should educate as well as we can all those who come to our country, but I do not see why we should leave a loophole for these people to escape from the head tax. There

ought to be some specific definition, of a student.


Mr. BRODER.: For what reason should we tax a young man in the lower school where he is preparing to go to college, and then when he goes up to college he is free from the tax ?


Duncan Ross: I do not know whether the Department of Trade and Commerce under this regulation can make subsection 5 more definite. If they cannot, it seems to me it will not meet the objections that have been raised. ' Students in universities, colleges and technical schools.' flow what is a college ? This will have an effect in British Columbia possibly greater than in any other province. A college there may mean a girls' college or a boys' college and the Department of Trade and Commerce should be very careful about that. I am rather inclined to agree with my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Macpherson), that while the House is anxious to restrict Chinese who come in and go to school for the purpose of avoiding the payment of the $500 head tax, unless the other sections are much more stringent than this clause, the object of the House will not be attained under this amendment.


George Eulas Foster: You can only put the general principle in an enactment, and under that general principle the government may be relied upon to make the regulations strict enough to prevent imposition.


Duncan Ross: The point is that we cannot avoid fraud under this clause.
Mi-. FOSTER. You cannot wipe out fraud. But here is a clause which I think should meet exactly the hon. gentleman's view. Students of universities, colleges and the like of that are allowed in. Now the college or university would come in under the regulations. It is not everything that calls itself a college that the government may have in view in making the regulations. A government will have common sense land discrimination enough not to allow the Chinaman to escape the head tax by going to this school. My hon. friends from British Columbia are rather strong, stronger than the rest of us, perhaps, on this quest ion, and whilst the country generally is quite willing to restrict the immigration, we must not go too far and make illiberal legislation, especially, where there is a squint towards education.


Duncan Ross: Quite true, but the House has some particular object in view, and if we are going to compromise between the two extreme views the House should be absolutely sure that it knows what it is doing.


George Eulas Foster: It is the ministry who make the regulations, and my hon. friend ought to have no lack of confidence in them.
341*


Robert George Macpherson: It is not a question of lack of confidence. According to our Education Act in the province of British Columbia, the province is bound to educate every child up to sixteen years of age. Now we will have coming into the province, as we have had for many years, coolies who are sent for by their fathers or relatives, and the $500 head tax is put up for them. They are immediately sent to our public schools, and my children and other children are obliged to go to the same school with these coolies. In a year or a year and a half they make application for a certificate from the teacher that they have attended a public school, and in this way it is easy for them to get their $500 head tax refunded. You have not educated that child, you have given him a little education, it is true, but he is simply beating this Act every time he does that thing. I would like very much to see in the Bill a specific definition of what a student is. I agree with my hon. friend from North Toronto that when it comes to a question of education we should be as liberal as possible. At the same time, the public schools in Vancouver and Victoria have had great difficulty with this oriental class, it is a much talked of subject there, and the people are desirous of having a specific ruling as to what a student is. Again, the regulations say that the teacher should give the certificate. I think the regulations should go much further and should say that the certificate should be signed by the secretary of the board of trustees, because after all they are the people who have the management of our schools.


George Eulas Foster: What kind of a certificate is prescribed by the government in these regulations 1


Robert George Macpherson: That should be a subject of legislation. But after all, I am not in sympathy with giving too much power to the government in making regulations of this kind.


George Eulas Foster: I am glad to have that confession of faith.


Robert George Macpherson: It may do my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) good to know that I have convictions and the faith in me td carry them out. I am simply stating my own opinion. I do not believe that too much power should be given to anybody to make regulations. We should pass a law as strict as we think necessary, and then let the regulations be merely for the purpose of carrying that out.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that I am fully seized of the intent of the amendment. Subsection 2 of section 5 of the Bill as proposed reads * students under seventeen years of age'; and you propose to strike that out and substitute the following :
A>755

10T56
Students in 'universities, (colleges and technical schools, (and students under 17 years of age in other schools.
Referring to students in universities and so on do you mean persons attending such institutions in China, or persons who come to Canada for the purpose of attending such institutions ? If you mean the latter, I think it should be so stated. If you mean the former, I do not see why you should legislate in this way, because a person attending a university, college or technical school in China ought not to be exempted for that reason if he should come here to remain as an immigrant. The clause should be made clear. But, when we understand the intention of the government, wg shall be in a better position to criticise the clause.


Frank Oliver: The intention is to provide for persons of Chinese extraction who come to Canada for the purpose of attending college.


Mr.   I@: Would it not be better to say that?


Frank Oliver: Possibly. But no difficulty. has arisen in administration. The law is administered under regulations, and the regulations provide for these cases. There would be no objection, aud perhaps it might be better, to make it clear on the face of the statute. The point that my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Macpherson) raises is that there is still an indefiniteness as to the expression ' student,' and he thinks there should be a definition besides wbat appears here and is provided in the regulations. There is considerable difficulty in making a satisfactory definition as to ' student ' and as to ' college.' Especially is this true in the case of 'college.' It might be better to strike out this word altogether, if we desire to restrict it-as we do-to the higher educational institutions. We might even strike out ' technical school ' also, and confine it to universities. (Still, there are colleges which they should have the privilege of attending.


Duncan Ross: I think the high schools in British Columbia are known as collegiate institutes; and I suppose that nobody objects to Chinese students coming there to study and being exempt from the $500 head tax. But I would direct attention to this phrase ' students under seventeen years of age in other schools.' I think the hon. member for Vancouver is quite right in saying that under this phrase many young Chinese boys will come to the province of British Columbia, not for the purpose of education, but to escape the payment of the head tax of $500. A Chinaman living in British Columbia, for instance, sends for his boy, who is fifteen years of age. That boy, by attending school in British Columbia for two years, earns for his father $250 Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
a year. He is not particular about the education, but he is particular about earning $250 a year for the family. At seventeen years of age, he is ready to engage in house work or other occupation, and he escapes the head tax. We should confine this privilege to young Chinamen who come here solely for the purpose of receiving an education, the assumption being that they are going back to China when they have received that education.


George Eulas Foster: The question has taken on a new phase since the statement by the minister. It is more difficult than it seemed at first. From what the minister said, it seemed that to escape the head tax the person had to be a student when presenting himself at the port of entry. You have Chinamen coming to Vancouver, and the question is, are they (subject to the head tax or are they not? One co-mes and says; I am a merchant. He does not tell you that he intends to become a merchant if he is allowed in free of the head tax. Another class admitted free is wives of clergymen. You would hardly admit a Chinese woman free on her saying :	I am not the wife
of a clergyman now, but if you will let me in I will try to become the wife of a clergyman in a few years. Tourists are admitted free. Men of science are admitted free. But those coming under that classification must be men of science when they present themselves-not that they will promise, if allowed to come in free that, in the course of twenty years they will become men of science. And the same way with students. When a youth- presents himself, the question is: Are you a student in a university, college or technical school in China, and have you come here for the purpose of pursuing knowledge? If he is of this class, he comes in under the exemption. Now, there is another point: Are we liberal enough in Canada to admit Chinamen who come to this country, not as immigrants, but for the purpose of having an English education, as they go to Germany, to Belgium, to Great Britain and the United States? We would like to have China look forward to Canada as a place where they could finish off their young men with an English education. Here is one who comes and says: I want to come into TTour country to be educated in your schools and colleges.


Duncan Ross: If a young Chinaman had no education at all. could not read or write in the Chinese language, the hon. gentleman would not suggest that he should come in here and get his elementary education?


George Eulas Foster: I can hardly conceive of that. I should think that to come under that clause the Chinese must certainly have had some education. I should think by ' regulation you might provide for that.


Robert George Macpherson: I do not think yon will get a child in China who cannot read or write.


George Eulas Foster: I think that myself. The Chinese who come here generally know their own language and can read and write.
I would like to see Canada compete with all the wide world and make a reputation for herself with the nations of the east who are educating themselves in western civilization. This clause provides that only those under a certain age can pursue their course of studies here. Then make your regulations such as to make it necessary for them to declare that they intend to pursue their course in a college or university or a technical school or wherever they are going. They may want to be medical men or engineers. There are two distinct categories. You are legislating for those of a certain status and then you allow to come in all those who want to come in, opening the door, but still under judicious restrictions.


Robert George Macpherson: In what my hon. friend says there is a good deal of wisdom. But there is this trouble staring us in the face, that we have been obliged in the city of Vancouver to establish adult classes made up principally of Japanese and Chinese who claim themselves to be of school age. Sometimes it is pretty hard to tell how old a Japanese or a Chinaman is. You cannot apply the same rules that you can to a white person. As I say, there is a good deal of wisdom in what the hon. gentleman says, but you have to overcome the fact that our educational system is a provincial system of education conducted by the provinces and not by the Dominion of Canada, and in the province of British Columbia you have staring you in the face a wall of prejudice that it is impossible to get over, because they have come in there and we feel that the prejudices against the oriental is very strong with us. If we could look upon it in the same calm manner that it can be looked upon in the east there would be no difficulty, hut we cannot do that, and we know that our people claim -and I believe rightly, too-that the Chinese have been coming in under the Act, paying their $500 under the regulations, qualifying themselves afterwards as students and then getting a rebate of the money they have paid in. I think that the rebate clause should be wiped out. If that rebate clause is wiped out entirely you will have a very strict definition of merchants, wives, minor children, clergymen, tourists, men of science and students, so that if any one could not enter under any one of these classifications he would be obliged to pay his $500 head tax and become as any other citizen of Canada. I think that if we wiped out that clause we would wipe out a good deal of the difficulty that presents itself to us.


John Herron: The hon. gentleman who has just sat down said that It is pretty hard to tell the age of a Chinese or Japanese. I quite agree with him in that, and I was going to ask whether the government have provided for the presentation of a certificate of age by these people. The lines are drawn very sharply about the age of a person entering as a student and other classes are defined very strictly, but I think there should be a good deal of importance attached to the certificate of birth. I have seen a good many Chinamen, but I have never seen very many old ones or very many young ones-they all seem to be about the same age.


Frank Oliver: The necessity for that has not yet arisen. It is only in the new Act that we propose to make a limit of age, and of course the acceptance or rejection of the evidence offered by the applicant will be at the discretion of the officers of the department.


Duncan Ross: I would like to suggest to the minister the desirability of so restricting this clause that only such Chinese as can show by certificate some qualification that they are competent to enter any of the higher schools or colleges will be permitted to come in free. They should be required to show that they are coming for the purpose of securing an education and that they are qualified to enter a collegiate institute, high school or technical school. The Chinaman who comes here with no particular object in view but merely says that he proposes to enter the common school should not be allowed to come in under the provisions of this Act. Where a young Chinaman is coming in to get an education there should be no head tax paid.


George Eulas Foster: I think with the members from British Columbia that if these mn are allowed to come in, not being students, to attend the public school for a year or two and a half years and then get a rebate of the tax, it is an evasion of the Act. If you are going to have an Act you must have the Act enforced and there is no use of allowing evasions. But you can protect yourself against that evasion and you can let that be free without any idea of age. The rest is not so hard in practice if you keep sight of this evasion that has been spoken of. The Chinese and Japanese governments have been in the habit of sending their youths to other countries. They provide for them and they see that they are educated. That is easy. The great commercial companies have also been sending a number from China and Japan as well. Since modern engineering and other branches of science and knowledge have come to the front numbers of their young men are sent out to study engineering and other subjects; they arrange for * them and there should be no difficulty about

that. But when a mere Chinaman simply comes in here without any machinery behind him to put him through college, dumps himself into a common school, and remains there a year and a half and gets a rebate of his tax, that is an evasion of the Act and there should be a restriction placed upon it. But I would not put any restriction upon the age of a student who came in provided he were a student.


Mr.   MAOPHERSON@: I think that striking out section 7 of the original Act would remedy the trouble to a great extent.


Duncan Ross: My attention has been called to subsection 3 of section 7 :
Persons of Chinese origin claiming on their arrival to be students, brut who are unable to produce the requisite certificate as hereinbefore provided for, shall be entitled to a refund of the tax exacted from them on the production within eighteen months from the date of their arrival in Canada of certificates from teachers in any school or college in Canada showing that they are and have been for at least one year bona fide students in attendance at such school or college.


George Eulas Foster: That is any school.


Duncan Ross: That clause should go out, and also the section at the end of the clause saying that students under 17 years of age attending any school shall be exempt. I think the minister should insist that only bona fide students who come to this country for the purpose of acquiring a higher education should be admitted.


George Eulas Foster: With no limitation as to age ?


Duncan Ross: With no limitation as to age. I am quite willing that a Chinaman of 14 or 15 years of age who has a certificate from his own country that he is coming here to be educated in any of our colleges or universities should be admitted without any restriction, but clause 3 in the present Act and in the amendment suggested gives an opportunity to escape the head tax.


Mr.   OEXYER@: As my hon. friend has pointed out, at the present time the law intends and expresses the intention to admit children, and even, as in practice, grown people to attend even a primary school, and it was to limit the evil of general attendance of Chinese at the primary schools of British Columbia, thereby avoiding the head tax, that it was proposed to place the limit of age at 17. The amendment I offer to-day continues the principle of the free entry of Chinese to attend primary schools but provides that students attending a higher educational institution who would be of more mature age would also he admitted free. It would appear from the expressions of opinion that have been given Mr. FOSTER.
that what is really wanted is to admit only those who desire to attend a higher educational institution and to make every one else subject to the head tax. If I understand that to be the condition, of course it is a radical change in the principle of the Act as it has been on the statute-book. I suppose I may take it for granted that that is the desire of those representatives who are most interested in this question. If so I think it would be well, as this is not in the department <of any member of the government who is in this House to ask that the section stand for the present until I have an opportunity of consulting the minister in whose department this more especially is. I would bring the conclusion to the House at a later date.


George Eulas Foster: How would it do to have two categories, in the first would be students in universities, colleges, technical and scientific institutions. Any Chinese who is a student in any of these institutions ought to have the right to come into this country. The other category would be Chinese proposing to pursue a course of study in colleges, universities, scientific and technical institutions in this country, under regulations to be fixed by the Governor in Council. That would take in both classes and I think would he generous. It would avoid just what hon. gentlemen have complained of, an infringement or evasion of the law.


Mr. GALLIHER.: As far as the word 'student' is concerned, as used in the original Act and the regulations framed to meet it, there is probably a misconception. The meaning of the word ' student,' as I understand it, as applied to a person going from one country to another for the purpose of education, is some one who is an established student, who wishes to perfect his education in some particular line or lines in some technical school or institution. I think that is the only meaning of the word ' student ' that we can reasonably give as applied to a person going from one country to another, not, as it might he, a boy coming into the country to receive the most elementary English education. I think while the change from the existing regulations is radical we are by it arriving at what really should have been the original regulations, and in that way I do not think it is a radical change. It is a change meeting exactly the view and the meaning attached to the word ' student.'


Robert Laird Borden: As a matter of draughting, I would suggest that a better form, if this suggestion is carried out, would be : Persons coming or returning to Canada for the sole purpose of attending as bona fide students at any university, college or technical school in Canada. I think that would better express the idea than the word ' student ' which as used at present is ambiguous.


Robert George Macpherson: I would like the minister to appreciate the fact that the cause of all the trouble has beeu the working out of the Act, owing to subsection 3 of section 7. The elimination of that subsection would to a great extent cure the complaint.


Frank Oliver: I think that while the wording proposed by the leader of the opposition would probably meet the case, it would be as well to allow this to stand until I can consult the minister concerned.
I would therefore move that the committee report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



CONSTRUCTION OF DRY DOCKS.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 119), to encourage the construction of dry docks.- Mr. Fielding.
William Stevens Fielding: When the Bill was last before the committee we disposed of all the clauses except the concluding one which repeals certain earlier legislation. That clause was held over at the suggestion of the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) who is not at the moment in the House. He suggested that this might have the effect of terminating contracts outstanding and made under the existing legislation. The point had not been brought to my attention, and I thought it well to hold the Bill over to have it investigated. I have caused inquiry to be made and I am advised that the point is covered by the Interpretation Act in the Revised Statutes. The law officers have looked into the matter and are quite satisfied that the repealing of the clause will not have the effect suggested, inasmuch as the Interpretation Act covers the point fully.


Herbert Brown Ames: Section 3 authorizes the government to give assistance to an incorporated company. Does the minister interpret that to mean that assistance might also be given to a municipal corporation which has undertaken to build a dry dock as a municipal work ?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think the words of the Act as it now stands would include a municipality, though if any municipality expressed a desire to build a. dry dock, I see no reason why it should not be dealt with in the same way as an incorporated company.


Herbert Brown Ames: I do not know that any municipality has that intention; but in reading the Bill carefully, it came to my mind that, at the present time, when the trend of public sentiment is so much towards the municipal management of public services, an occasion might arise when a municipality would deem it advisable to construct a dry dock, and I do not think that under tire terms of this Act it
could avail itself of the aid proposed to be given. Would it be worth while inserting an amendment to place a municipality in the same position as an incorporated company in this respect ?


William Stevens Fielding: I am possibly not so much enamoured of government ownership as some hon. members are. I realize that it would be largely a matter for a municipality itself to determine. If a municipality desired to avail itself of the privileges offered under this Act, I certainly would offer no objection. There is nothing of the kind at present proposed, and I do not know that it would be wise for us to delay the Bill for the purpose of amending it in that [respect. If the occasion arose, I think there would be no difficulty whatever in securing the desired legislation.


Herbert Brown Ames: Then the point is made in the admission of the minister that it is not his purpose deliberately to rule out the municipal corporations from the advantages of this Bill. The necessity not having arisen, it has not been dealt with so far ; but if the necessity should arise, there will be no inherent objection to give a municipality assistance in the same way as a private company.


William Stevens Fielding: I can see no objection whatever from the Dominion point of view. That would be a matter the municipality of course would have to determine for itself.


Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY.: In view of what the minister has said in answer to the member for Montreal (Mr. Ames), I desire to put myself on record in pointing out this. Assuming that a company has commenced operations, has secured the investment of a large amount of private capital, has procured a subsidy, and is in the course of constructing ships and'doing the repairs for which a dry dock is intended, and a municipality on the same lake, within fifty or one hundred miles, should make application for a subsidy for the purpose of building a dry dock and also for the purpose of putting in a repair plant, does the hon. gentleman think it would be fair to encourage a municipality to enter into competition with the private corporation doing business in that way ? It seems to me that it would not. Suppose, as has been the case, that one or two companies on the upper lakes had started ship building, which includes the repair of injured or damaged ships, and build a dry dock and procure a subsidy under this Act. As a matter of fact, it is not a money-making proposition at the present time. No dividend has been paid by any ship-building company in the province of Ontario. Suppose that a municipality on the upper lakes makes application under this Act for a subsidy to construct a dry dock, with the necessary repair machinery attached thereto, would it be fair that it should receive a subsidy to

enter into competition with a private corporation with private capital involved in a similar undertaking ?


Herbert Brown Ames: In reference to that, I think the Bill explains itself. The power is entirely permissive on the part of the Governor General in Council. It is necessary, before such an application can be considered and dealt with, to prove that a drydock is needed in the public interest. It would certainly not be needed in the public interest to be placed in immediate juxtaposition to an operative enterprise of the same kind, nor to be brought into competition with it. I had more in mind the case of a town like Port Arthur or Fort William. We know that Port Arthur is a very progressive town in its municipal enterprises. Suppose that town should decide that it would be advisable to have a dry dock-and I understand that there is no dry dock at that end of Lake Superior at present-under this Bill would the town of Port Arthur be entitled to expect from this government the same treatment that would be given to a private corporation ?


William Stevens Fielding: I think that the first part of my hon. friend's remarks is a proper answer to my hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. L. G. McCarthy). Whether an application came from a private corporation or a municipality, the question would arise, is there a need for this dock, is there another dock in the vicinity, would it till a want or be simply creating an unhealthy competition ? The government might not grant a subsidy, whether the application came from a private corporation or from a municipality. I think that private interests have ample protection in that way. As to Port Arthur, I can only repeat that while we have not contemplated such a procedure, if Port Arthur should see fit to establish a dry dock, I do not see why it should not be put in the same position as any private corporation undertaking the same class of work.


Mr.   I@: I would suppose that the same considerations would influence the government whether the dock was proposed to be built by a municipal corporation or by a private company. They would have to take into consideration the capital invested in both cases, and deal with either in the same way.


William Stevens Fielding: I entirely concur in that view.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I wish to express my regret that the government, instead of adopting this form of encouraging the construction of dry docks, has not rather applied itself to building dry docks itself where dry docks are absolutely necessary in connection with our transportation system. Take, for instance, the city of Montreal. It is not probable that in that city, where we require Mr. l. g. McCarthy.
a dry dock and have required one for a very long time, a private company will undertake to build a dry dock. The constructs of such a work by the government itself has been promised for a long time, and is absolutely necessary in connection with our transportation system, as that system was viewed by the commission appointed some years ago by the government. It is strange that when this government names commissions and those commissions make reports, the reports are not carried out. On the contrary, generally when the report calls for the remedying of some immediate grievance or for the effecting of some improvement absolutely necessary, we hear nothing more of it. That is particularly the case with regard to the report of the transportation .-commission. That was a most valuable report made by men who gave a great deal of attention to the matter, and any one who reads it must be satisfied that the recommendation of that commission ought to be carried out without delay. Some of them have been carried out but many have been left entirely aside. The Minister of Finance, knows that we have heard almost nothing of that report since it was made. Indeed it is with some difficulty now that one can get a copy.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Did the hon. gentleman ever figure out how much it would cost to put into effect all the recommendations of that commission?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: After a rough calculation, I came to the conclusion that if instead of building useless and uncalled for wharfs, purely for political purposes


Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON.: Where?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It- is not necessary to define, but no doubt my hon. friend could find some in his own province.


Alexander Johnston: Will you name them?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Certainly not, I am not to be caught in that way, because the hon. gentleman would take my words down and then denounce me in that particular plage. But every one knows that it has been the custom of governments since confederation to expend money on public works in order to gain political advantage.


Alexander Johnston: Where?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I shall not name any particular place. In reply to my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) I say that if instead of spending all that money-often very uselessly, often to please the sitting member-if instead of building public works where they are not required at all, we took that transportation question seriously to heart and carried out all the improvements recommended by the transportation commission, we could do it without

the country at all feeling the cost. Even if we carried out the suggestion of the commission to make certain ports free ports, the country would not unduly feel the burden, provided we left aside other works not required except for political advantage. I come here particularly to the question of dry docks. In their report the commissioners made certain representations not carrying with them the expense referred to by my hon. friend from Simcoe. Take the question of a dry dock in Montreal. The absence of a dry dock at the head of ocean navigation causes very serious damage to our transportation system. It causes an increase in the working charges. No doubt if we had a good dry dock in Montreal at the head of navigation, where steamers could be put for repairs, it would have the effect of diminishing the charges which weigh on the St. Lawrence route, and which are 50 per cent higher than on other ocean routes. The commissioners refer to this on page 25 of their report. I have here the French version which is the only version I could obtain. The report reads :
Your commission understand that the government has under consideration the question of the construction of a dry dock at Montreal city. Such a dry dock ought to be at least 1,000 feet long and be able to .accommodate one of the largest vessels or two of the smaller ones. The commission understand .that the government is studying also the question of making -a new entrance to the Lac hi lie canal with a higher level, according to the plan generally known .as the Gallery plan. That is why your commission does not judge it necessary to make a special report on this particular subject.
At that time we had a plan known as the Gallery plan, which met the entire approval of the Department of Railways and the government. That plan did not call for expropriation. It involved the construction of a suitable dry dock upon government property, just at the entrance of the Lachine canal at the head of ocean navigation, whereas another plan, which had been very much urged on the government, calls for a large expropriation in the east end of Montreal. No company In Montreal will undertake to build a private dry dock. If a company did build one even with the subsidy contemplated by this measure, it would not he what is required. A dry dock should he made a part of our transportation plan. It requires to be owned and operated by the government so that no injustice will be shown done to the steamship lines that require to use it. Instead of holding out inducements to people to rush into the construction of dry docks, we ought to have taken as a basis the report of the Transportation Commission and furnish those ports wherever they are needed, with dry docks built entirely at our own expense and controlled by us. It is regrettable that the government does not take up the suggestion of that report and carry them out in their entirety. It could not carry them all out in one year, but as members of the committee are aware, that report-made by very competent men who gave a great deal of time to this work and ' certainly incurred very moderate expense- furnishes a complete plan of operation from the Pacific to the Atlantic. The making of Montreal, Quebec, Halifax and St. John free ports is recommended as something urgent and necessary. It would be an immense saving in Montreal if it were made a free port, and no doubt that same remark applies to the other ports I have mentioned. A dry dock in Montreal is absolutely necessary at the head of navigation.


William Stevens Fielding: I understand my hon. friend to say that this Bill is going to encourage people to rush into the construction of dry docks. If that be true, some one will rush immediately into the great city of Montreal and there build a dry dock.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That will not happen in Montreal because the men interested in shipping say that a dry dock in Montreal should belong to the government, be under government control and form part of our-


William Stevens Fielding: If people will not rush into this operation in the great city of Montreal, with all its teeming promise, there is not much chance of their rtlshing into it in other parts of the Dominion. I think my hon. friend's fears in that respect are rather magnified. This Bill, in one form or another, has been on our statutes a number of years and we have not found people rushing in. We are offering a pretty liberal inducement; and my own view is that in any part of Canada where there is real need of a dry dock, this Bill affords ample encouragement. And in places where the commerce of the country is not sufficient, or where there is'already sufficient dock accommodation there is not much probability of people going into the construction of dry docks merely for the sake of the financial encouragement.
The policy is not a new one. It has been on our statutes many years. We are adapting it to present conditions and are not introducing any new principle at all.
If I may be permitted to reopen section 2:
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, ' minister ' means the Minister of Public Works.
I would ask to have that reconsidered for the purpose of adding these words :	' A
dry dock includes floating docks.' We have been advised that, as a matter of law, the dock, in our present statute, would cover a floating dry dock, but it is thought well, when re-enacting this measure, to make that more explicit. In the modern system

of dock building, it is sometimes found more convenient and advantageous to construct a floating dock and we.wish to enact that if a floating dock be deemed desirable, it shall not be shut out from the privileges of this Bill.


William Humphrey Bennett: For how many years will the subsidy be i^ayable ?


William Stevens Fielding: Twenty years. That is provided for in section 6.


Herbert Brown Ames: I would refer the minister to clause 8, concerning which I desire to ask a question. This section says :
Whenever it appears to the Governor in Council that any dock constructed, or enlarged and extended, under the provisions of this Act is not in a condition of repair and working order

I wish to ask whether the provisions of this clause can be brought into effect if the dock is in good working order but is not being worked ?


William Stevens Fielding: That is our understanding of the meaning of the clause ;-we are so advised.


Herbert Brown Ames: If I might make a criticism,
I would say that it does appear to me that the wording hardly carries out that meaning.


William Stevens Fielding: I should say that a condition of repair and working order meant everything necessary for the working of the dock. I had not in mind the point raised by the hon. gentleman, but I think that the words of the Bill cover it.


Herbert Brown Ames: I think the hon. minister might make it clearer. A case may arise where a company has a dry dock in perfect order so far as its state of repair is concerned, hut found to be unprofitable and not worked. The company might still contend, I think, that the subsidy was payable because the dry dock was in running order.


William Stevens Fielding: I can quite see that a company might not wish to keep a large staff at all times, for vessels do not come every day. But I think the test would he if an application were made bona fide for the admission of a vessel and refused. If they could not or would not admit a vessel,
I should say that would bring them within the terms of the clause. I submit that to the hon. gentleman's consideration.


William Humphrey Bennett: While I agree with my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Leighton McCarthy) that the business of a dry dock is precarious, yet, for many reasons,
I think the minister should add the words ' or municipality ' in clause 3. There is a good dock in the town of Collingwood which originally was assisted by the municipal corporation. I live in a pretentious town where a great northwest trade is centering owing to the action of the Grand Mr. FIELDING.
Trunk and also of the Canadian Pacific Railways. Still, it is doubtful whether private parties would embark in the enterprise of constructing a dry dock. And there are times in the lives of municipalities when they feel it incumbent upon them to take up enterprises of this kind. If the words ' or municipality ' were included in the section, it might be an incentive to municipalities to take up the operation of dry docks. I understand the minister to say that if a mupicipality contemplated such action, the Act might be supplemented by the necessary legislation hereafter. But while this legislation is being passed, I think now is the time to make this provision. I agree with the hon. member for North Simcoe that it is sometimes a hardship for municipal corporations to enter into competition with private individuals, but we know that in these days of progress and push corporations do that in many lines.


William Stevens Fielding: The Bill is in the same form in this respect as the law which has been in force for many years, and I think the hon. gentleman ought to be willing to leave it in that form. If any municipality should desire to exercise this power and should come to parliament, its aspirations would not be disallowed. But I would not like to make the change at the table, for, sometimes, changes made in this hurried way do uot work out satisfactorily.


Herbert Brown Ames: Referring to clause 12, it seems to me that, inasmuch as there .is a possibility under this Act that the government may be called upon to expropriate a dry dock and take over the whole enterprise, there ought to be not only the annual statement of receipts and expenditures, but also an annual statement of assets and liabilities. Inasmuch as the government stands as the possible eventual owner of the proposition with the obligation of carrying out whatever liabilities may have been incurred,
I think this statement should he given.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ames) will see that the company that takes advantage of the subsidy offer does so only with regard to the repair branch of its business. Does he think it would be fair then to compel the company to file with the Department of Public Works, and open to inspection, its whole financial statement beyond what it is required to file under the law of the province in which it operates ? I do not think we should attach to this a penalty other than that of making their statement. The repair branch of the shipbuilding business, as the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) said, is the most remunerative part in proportion to the outlay, but the shipbuilding part is the greatest part. I do not think, therefore, that a clause should be attached to the Bill making the company file a statement in regard to its whole business when

tlie subsidy that is granted under the Bill relates only to a part of the business.


Herbert Brown Ames: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Leighton McCarthy) ought to ask for a modification of section 12 as it stands, for it requires any company in receipt of this guarantee or subvention to give an account annually of the receipts from every source and the expenditure for the year. Their entire business is covered by that. It is only a step further, and a natural step I think, that a statement of the assets and liabilities should be given to the government who are really their financial backers and who may, if the enterprise is found unprofitable, find themselves saddled with the whole property and under obligation to work it.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: What I had in mind, without having considered-or having had time to consider-in detail, the suggestion of the hon. gentleman, was the case of a company that obtained a subsidy under the law as it has been in force for twenty-years. Such a company obtained its subsidy under certain terms, and has to comply with those terms. If the hon. gentleman thinks his suggestion wise and does not make it retroactive, I would not object. The company in my own constituency has not paid a dividend on any of its stock. I do not know what financial statements it desires to file publicly in addition to those it must file under the provincial statute. They have complied with the terms under which they received the subvention. But, if the hon. gentleman's suggestion were not made retroactive, it would not be a hardship. If it is thought to be wise legislation to change it so that any company which comes to the government for such a subsidy knows that it has to comply with these conditions, well and good. But I do not think it ought to be made retroactive.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) Is in error in one respect, when he says that the ultimate purpose might be to take over the dock. That is hardly correct.


Herbert Brown Ames: I did not mean to say ultimate purpose. I said the outcome.


William Stevens Fielding: We would only desire to take over the dock in case of non-operation, then we would desire to turn it back into the company's possession if they were able to operate it as quickly as possible. That clause is even broader than the hon. gentleman thinks. It requires not only a statement of the receipts and expenditures of the company, but of the operations of the company, and I would understand that to mean the affairs of the company generally. I do not think any harm can be done to any public company by requiring it to make public its affairs to that extent. I think that clause is broad enough to cover what the hon. gentleman has in mind.


Herbert Brown Ames: I had in mind something like this : Together with annual statements of assets and liabilities of the company.


William Stevens Fielding: If we get that every year, we will get the history of the whole concern.


Herbert Brown Ames: I refer more to what is the result of the annual stocktaking. There may be appreciation or depreciation of the assets of the company, which do not appear in a statement of receipts and expenditures. But I think once a year we ought to be in a position to know what is the financial standing of that company, inasmuch as we are so largely interested.


George Eulas Foster: There should not be any objection to that.


William Stevens Fielding: There is no objection to its purpose, if we can get words which will make it any clearer. Say :	Setting
forth the financial affairs of the company, instead of the operations of the company.


George Eulas Foster: A financial statement ought to take in what you want.


Herbert Brown Ames: Setting forth an annual financial statement of the company.


William Stevens Fielding: There is no need to say ' annual,' because the first part of this section says it is to be done annually. I have no objection to saying :	' Setting'
forth the financial state of the company.'


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The minister has said that the policy of the government is not to build any dry docks itself, but to proceed under the system of giving subsidies to private companies. Do we understand that the government has entirely given up the idea of constructing any dry docks itself ?


William Stevens Fielding: For the present this Bill represents our general policy. Perhaps in an exceptional case we might depart from that policy. But in any such case we would have to'consider it on its merits.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I ask the question because in Montreal, since 1896, we have always understood from those who were supposed to speak on behalf of the government there, that we would have a dry dock built by the government. Its construction by private enterprise is almost an impossibility. We elected the Minister of Public Works, the late Mr. Tarte, upon the cry in his division that the government were going immediately to build a dry dock. We elected, in a very hotly contested election, Mr. Pre-fontaine, who was then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, in the county of Maison-neuve, upon the announcement by him that the government intended to carry out the suggestion of the Transportation Commission and give us a dry dock without delay. What was known as the Gallery plan was fully looked into by the Transportation


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. Has the minister considered whether this Bill would affect existing contracts between the government and any company receiving a subsidy ?


William Stevens Fielding: We have considered the question, and we are advised that any existing contract made under preceding legislation is not affected by this Bill, certainly that is our intention. It only relates' to contracts made hereafter.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC-GUARANTEED BONDS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 171) respecting the government guaranteed bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
William Stevens Fielding: In introducing this Bill I gave some general explanation of its purpose, and as some hon. gentlemen now present were not present then, I may repeat the explanation. In the first place, it is necessary to observe that this does not deal in any way with the obligations of the government that now exist. It does not in any degree enlarge the obligations, it simply deals with the methods of handling the securities which have been already authorized by this House. The general Railway Act contemplates that a railway company shall have power to pledge its bonds as well as to sell them, and that is only a reasonable power. The legislation respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific apparently contemplated that a similar power might be given, but there is an absence of express authority to pledge the bonds, and it has been thought desirable that that authority should be expressly given by an Act of this parliament. Therefore, it is proposed, that if the company, finding the money market unsatisfactory, deem it inadvisable to sell their bonds at once, they shall have the power to pledge them with any bank and raise money in that way. That is a power that is given to any railway company by the General Railway Act unless there should be an express stipulation to the contrary in the special Act. What we are proposing, Mr. MONK.
therefore, to do in this instance is just what has been done with regard to every railway company by the General Railway Act.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Are the bonds not pledged to us already?


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I thought they remained with us as a guarantee of the execution of the obligation.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) is referring to the securities deposited for the fulfilment of the contract. These are not touched by this matter. These are the securities which the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company desire to issue for the raising of money for the construction of the road. They have already issued a considerable portion, they are now approaching the time when they think they want to issue more. They say that the money market may or may not be favourable, that if the market appears favourable at the precise moment they wish to issue them they will sell them to the best advantage, but if the market condition be deemed unfavourable they wish the right, which every other railway possesses, of taking these bonds to a bank and saying :	We want so
much money on them and by and by, if the money market is more favourable, we will offer them for sale. That is all we are proposing to do by this clause.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: What is the total amount of these bonds?


William Stevens Fielding: 
Herbert Brown Ames: I would like to ask the minister if these are the bonds that represent 75 per cent of the cost of construction which the government have to guarantee interest on.	.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: 
William Stevens Fielding: No. In the first place, a portion of the bonds has already been sold, and as respects the balance they cannot sell or pledge them without the consent of the government.


George Eulas Foster: To what amount have they been sold?


William Stevens Fielding: 
Herbert Brown Ames: At what average price?


William Stevens Fielding: I think they were sold to the Rothschilds at a price which netted about 92J and that the Rothschilds offered them to the public at 95. They were 3 per cent bonds and they netted about 92J.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Could the minister tell us the amount of these bonds that has been disposed of by the Rothschilds ?


William Stevens Fielding: We have no means of knowing that. I think the company effected a very good transaction at the time; I understand that the Rothschilds did not make a great deal of money out of it, but. of course, that is their own affair. I have no means of knowing how many of these bonds they have sold or whether they have sold them at all. There is a section of the Bill which arises from a decision which has been given in England. It would appear to us that the company should have power to pledge its securities, awaiting favourable turn in the market and that, if it were able to do so, it should redeem these securities from the bank and sell them at the right moment. But it appears that a decision has been given in the English courts that securities pledged in that way to a bank have practically been issued under the terms of the Act, that the power of the company to issue them ceases, and that when the company obtains these bonds again from the bank it has no power to sell them. It has exhausted its power. The point is a very technical one, but it has been so decided In an English case and it has appeared well to make it quite sure that the company has power to pledge its bonds, that when it is in a position to sell them it may be free to do so, and that the pledging of the bonds shall not in any way prejudice its right to sell.
The only other provision of importance in the Bill is that providing for the granting of what I may call letters of credit, which correspond substantially with the letters of credit which issue from time to time in the case of our several departments. If a department has a million dollars voted by parliament for a public purpose a letter of credit may be given for some portion of it, which allows the department to spend the money from day to day, without, in every instance, having to pass an audit, and then, at the proper time, these accounts are audited and the letter of credit is paid off. That is the way in which a large portion of the public business of the Dominion is carried on. Now, it is desired, in the same way. to give the company in advance a letter of credit, not as against any fund that the government have, not as against aqy fund in the consolidated revenue of Canada, but as against the proceeds of the bonds which have been sold for the purpose of paying for construction, or as against the proceeds of the bonds pledged. The moneys derived from the sale or pledging of these bonds must be deposited to the credit of the Minister of Finance and Receiver General, and as the work goes on certificates are given by the engineer and the money is drawn out of this account.


George Eulas Foster: What particular advantage is that to the company? The money must be held in trust.


William Stevens Fielding: The money must be first in the possession of the Receiver General, either from the sale or pledging of the bonds, but it has been found that there is some delay in obtaining the audit-the examination and the certificate of the engineer-and the company has no working capital. It has been anxious that we should allow it to spend some portion of this money subject to audit at a later stage.


George Eulas Foster: 
William Stevens Fielding: That is correct.


George Eulas Foster: This will allow them to expend the money and have the certificated account of the expenditure given at a later date?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, up to the, limit of $1,000,000. So that, in that respect it^ i's analogous to our own letter of credit. The complaint is that the delay which is necessary and unavoidable in the case of a government examination and audit, and the certificate of the engineer, has been found inconvenient to the company in dealing with its contractors and workmen. They have no working capital and they have asked us to facilitate their operations by allowing them to withdraw a certain sum of money, not out of any government fund but out of the fund produced by the sale or pledging of their bonds. At a given period their accounts will be audited and as far as the money is properly applied to the purposes of the undertaking the accounts will be certified by the chief engineer and they will stand to that extent against the advance which has been made. Now, it might be said that the company might apply this money to some purposes which are not strictly those of the undertaking, to some purposes, which, perhaps, the chief engineer, on review of the expenditure, might take exception to. He might say: This is not a proper charge, or it should be charged to something else. We recognized that possibility and therefore we make the stipulation that before we shall make any advance to this company for the purposes stated on what I might call a letter of credit they shall give us the agreement of the old Grand Trunk Railway Company, the parent company, to be responsible for the advances so made. If we had advanced them $700,000 and the chief engineer were to come in and say: I can only certify to $650,000, there is a $50,000 difference in the balance which should not be charged. Then, the old Grand Trunk Railway Company must

forthwith, instantly, make good that deficiency and deposit it in the fund from which the money was drawn. We think that in this way we are facilitating the operations of the company to a reasonable extent and that we have obtained absolute security against any possibility of misapplication of '(he fund.


George Eulas Foster: You are not only facilitating but you are cheapening.


William Stevens Fielding: By giving them the money at that time I suppose it would avoid delays. I think it very desirable that we should help them in that manner.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How often are the accounts audited ?


William Stevens Fielding: Monthly.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Does the Grand Trunk Railway Company, in exchange for this accommodation, ' deposit with you any guarantee bond ?


William Stevens Fielding: Before we exercise the power given under this clause a written contract in proper form must be given by the old Grand Trunk Company, agreeing that if there be any deficiency under the arrangement proposed they will make it good. They must come under an obligation by a contract satisfactory to the Department of Justice before we will put this clause of the agreement into force.


Herbert Brown Ames: Are there any accompanying securities for the fulfilment of the agreement ?


William Stevens Fielding: No. In the first place we have no reason to doubt that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company will act in all good faith, and the most that could happen would be that in reviewing the accounts at the end of the month some items might be in dispute, the engineers might differ as to where something should be charged under the terms of the contract, and in that case the old Grand Trunk, not the Grand Trunk Pacific, must come under an obligation to make good the amount immediately without delay, and with interest for the time during which the money is improperly held. I think it is sufficiently guarded and that the purpose in view will appeal to the judgment of the committee.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Will the decision of the auditors be final ?


William Stevens Fielding: The auditors are those of the Department of Railways and Canals and the certificate is to be given by the consulting engineer of the government, who is especially assigned to that work, Mr. Col-lingwood Schreiber.


Herbert Brown Ames: When the bonds are pledged, will the government exercise any power of supervision over the terms of redemption ?


William Stevens Fielding: 


William Stevens Fielding: The terms upon which the bonds may be sold or pledged, are subject to the approval of the government.


Herbert Brown Ames: I understand that when these bonds are sold or pledged the money derived therefrom is placed in the hands of the receiver general ?


William Stevens Fielding: In a special account.


Herbert Brown Ames: In a special trust account, but it is then payable on account of work done on the certificate of the superintending engineer ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: It is proposed to give that additional guarantee of a million dollars free money so as to allow them some latitude in financing ?


William Stevens Fielding: Not in financing in the ordinary sense of the word. When my hon. friend said financing I thought he had in mind something in relation to the sale of bonds, &c.


Herbert Brown Ames: I meant payment of debts as they go on in the construction of the road.


William Stevens Fielding: This $1,000,000 would not be advanced to them unless there was at least $1,000,000 to their credit in the hands of the receiver general. We cannot give them any money out of the ordinary funds of the government at all, we can only give them money out of the fund created by the sale or pledging of the bonds. It is a separate account and only then can we advance moneys.


George Eulas Foster: I do not see any objection to the Bill on the general lines laid down. What it does is to facilitate the payment of their men and contractors and it serves also to cheapen the cost of the work to the constructing company, to the railway company itself. Otherwise they would be (Obliged either to pay more for delays or to finance in the banks and have ready money to pay. To that extent it is an advantage to the company. On the other hand it costs the government nothing and the government, so far as we can see, have well secured themselves against any possible loss. The amount that could be mal-expended in the course of a month would be a small amount at the most and the Grand Trunk ought to be sufficient security in that respect.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is quite correct.


Herbert Brown Ames: Do the moneys in the hands of the receiver general at the credit of this work as the result of the sale or pledging of these bands earn interest, and if so, to whom will that interest be payable ?


William Stevens Fielding: The money earns interest and it is placed to the credit of the

account in the same manner as the proceeds of the bonds ; but of course, on the other side, the bond interest has to be paid and it becomes a matter of discount. It earns interest and the interest goes to the general credit of the undertaking.


Herbert Brown Ames: Are we out that interest ?


William Stevens Fielding: No, it is not our money at all. We are simply trustees. There is not a copper of it raised out of the money of the Dominion of Canada.


George Eulas Foster: When $1,000,000 of the bonds are sold or pledged the money goes into the hands of the receiver general. Is the money used by the government in its various operations ?


William Stevens Fielding: No.


George Eulas Foster: Is it kept in a special fund ?


William Stevens Fielding: It is a special account, we keep it as a trust fund for that purpose only.


George Eulas Foster: It is invested ?


William Stevens Fielding: No, it is deposited in half a dozen banks.


George Eulas Foster: The government does not use it ?


William Stevens Fielding: We do not mis it with our affairs at all.
On section 4-not to affect bonds mentioned in deed of trust.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister know the quotation of these bonds now in the British market ?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not, but they are of course quite low, in the present condition of the market.
On section 5-issue of credits for payment of contractors. &c.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister append the agreement with the Grand Trunk Railway Company, referred to in subsection 4 ?


William Stevens Fielding: We have not such an agreement yet, but we intend to demand it before we exercise the powers under this clause.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.

Hon. GEO  P.@: GRAHAM moved third reading of Bill (No. 118) to amend the Railway Act with respect to telegraphs and telephones, and the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


William Barton Northrup: I beg leave to move in amendment :
Where it is complained by or on behalf of the Crown, or of any municipal, railway or
other corporation, or of any person aggrieved, that any agreement with the Crown, or between corporations or persons, for or in respect of the providing, constructing, reconstructing, altering, installing, maintaining, operating or using any railway which is under or has become subject to the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada, or for or in respect of the structures, appliances, safeguards, equipments, renewals or repairs of the same, or in connection therewith, has not been or is not being complied with, or where it is so complained that any statutory or other duty or obligation in regard to any such matters aforesaid, has mot been or is not being complied with, then in every such case of failure to comply with, fulfil or observe such agreement, obligation or duty, either by a contrac-ing^ party or by any person or corporation which has acquired or owns or is in possession or occupation of, or is operating the railway-the board shall hear all matters relating to such agreements, obligation or duty, and to such alleged violation or breach or non-compliance, and shall make such order as to the board, having regard to all the circumstances of the ease, may seem reasonable, expedient and just, and in isueh order, may in its discretion, direct the company or person or corporation which made or violated or failed to comply with such agreement or which has acquired or owns or is in possession or occupation of or is operating the railway, respecting which such agreement was made, or such obligation or duty exists, to do such things as are necessary for the proper fulfilment of such agreement, duty or obligation, or to refrain from doing such acts as constitute a violation or breach thereof or non-compliance therewith.
Looking at clause 26a as it stands, it does not give you any power to deal with any breach of agreement or contract to operate a railway. It seems to me that it could hardly have been the intention of the minister to have provided for the number of breaches he has-none of which are ever likely to occur-and to have omitted to provide for the one common breach, namely the failure to operate a railway. Bonuses have been given all over the country and agreements made with municipalities by railway companies to operate on certain terms, which have not been carried out ; and under this clause you cannot meet those cases because it says nothing about operating a railway. The agreements mentioned in this clause are agreements
For the provision, construction, reconstruction, alteration, installation, operation, use or maintenance by the company

Of what ? Not of the railways but of any structure, appliance, equipment, work, renewals or repairs upon or in connection with the railway.'
It seems quite clear that the clause would not give the board any jurisdiction in the case of any contract made for the operation of a railway under the circumstances I bave stated. The clause is defective in this respect, that it only gives a right to

the board in case a contract is made by a certain railway and that railway is still In possession of and operating the railroad in question. But the amendment I have moved would give the board jurisdiction in case a contract was made by any municipality, corporation or person with a railway and that railway afterwards passed into the hands of other parties. It has been unhappily the custom for railways, after obtaining large bonuses on condition of their entering into certain covenants, to fall into financial difficulties. Take the whole country through and you will find that railway after railway has been swallowed up by combinations of larger railroads ; and when the House is dealing with so important a question as giving the Board of Railway Commissioners power to enforce contracts in connection with railway companies, it is almost farcical to say that the board shall have full authority to make any order against a company which has ceased to exist, or has parted' with its assets, and refuse to give the board any jurisdiction over the company which has gained possession of the road and is enjoying the very money granted by a municipality in consideration of a certain agreement. The amendment I have submitted meets this difficulty. I would give the board jurisdiction in the particular cases in which a court of law could not assist a municipality, but in which the municipality, after having given its money in consideration of a certain covenant, is unjustly deprived of the benefits by the railway company with which it made the agreement passing into the hands of other parties.
Yesterday this amendment was opposed by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) and by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ayles-worth). We have on record their reasons for objecting. The Minister of Railways had but one objection, and that was the objection to any retroactive legislation. I quite agree that retroactive legislation may be very objectionable, but cannot go so far as my hon. friend, and for this reason. Every piece of legislation we have had touching the Railway Board has been retroactive. The very clause in the Bill before the House, 26a, is just as much retroactive legislation as the amendment I am moving. lit gives the board the power to enforce agreements made between municipalities and railway corporations. That is dealing with something which took place heretofore. What meaning could you attach to the word * retroactive ' which would warrant you in saying that this clause, as it stands, is not retroactive and that my amendment is. I submit that when a new board is constituted, that board must be given the right to deal with conditions at that time based upon covenants and contracts made before that time. Therefore while my amendment is retroactive, the Mr. NORTHRUP.
clause itself is just as retroactive, and the minister cannot consistently object on that ground.
Then the Minister of Justice objected that the amendment was intended to meet a certain stated fact and he laid before the House what were the facts he assumed it. was intended to meet. But unfortunately the Minister of Justice did not at all give the facts of the case. I do not think I could fairly controvert his reasoning if he had stated correctly the facts. But however cogent his reasoning was, it was wholly inapplicable to this particular case because the facts were not as he stated them to be. The minister assumed that a municipality had made a contract with a certain railway, that that railway had afterwards been sold to another, or in some way had become the property of another, and that now the government was asked to secure from the second railway company the money which had been paid to the first. And the Minister of Justice said: Surely that money was paid over by the government, it must have been paid on certain terms and conditions, these terms and conditions must have been complied with at the time, and, as they were complied with, it would be most unreasonable to ask the second railway to give back the money that has been paid to the first. That was a strong case, Mr. Speaker, if it had any relation to the facts before us. But it had not. The case I make is this :	The government is
the trustee of the people of this country. 1 take it that the Prime Minister and Minister of Railways and Canals, while not legally bound in the same way, yet are as plainly morally responsible for the way they handle the funds of this country as an executor of an estate is responsible for the way he handles the funds in his charge. I admit that, up to the 10th of February last, it wmuld have been unreasonable to find any fault with the preseut government for not collecting from the Grand Trunk the money which it had received as bonus in connection with the Belleville and North Hastings Railway. But from that date they knew that the Grand Trunk had fraudulently-and I use the word advisedly-obtained $21,000 of the money of the people of this country. Even so long as they had not plainly refused to take steps to recover the money of this country thus obtained by fraud, the Minister of Railways and Canals and the Prime Minister might possibly be said to be free from blame. But the matter comes before this House in connection with a Railway Bill in which the Minister of Railways and Canals endeavours to clear up everything to this date, endeavours to give the board an opportunity to do justice as between man and man, as between corporation and corporation, and as between the railways and

the government. Yet tlie Bill does not afford means of having this wrong righted. It looks to one as if there must he much stronger influences brought to bear upon the government than the desire to do right between the people and the railways. I am not here to make insinuations or to impute motives, but when we find the minister .admitting' that a grievance exists and should be righted, when we find the right hon. Prime Minister saying that a grievance exists which should be righted, and when a( Bill is brought down dealing with the subject, under which Bill, properly speaking,;, that grievance should be righted, and when it is pointed out that it does not meet the case, and when an amendment is brought in which nobody pretends will not meet the case and remove the grievance and yet the government refuses to accept it, one is compelled to look abroad for an explanation why it is that the government deliberately refuses to take steps to have money paid hack which these people have held for years and on which they have not the slightest claim. The Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) speaks of the statute of limitations applying, so many years having elapsed since the transaction. There are several answers to that. In the first place, as against the Crown, the minister will not contend that this limitation applies.


George Perry Graham: I said that. I said it did not apply against the Crown.


William Barton Northrup: Then, I do not see why the minister should raise that question here. If there was any effect in raising it as an objection


George Perry Graham: If the hon. gentleman will allow me a moment; he is leaving out a very important part of the case and discussing only the government end. He might, if he were really seized of the importance of it, undertake to give the municipalities who paid the bonus the same opportunity. It was with that in my mind that I was speaking of the statute of limPat'on. But he has not applied himself to that part of the case.


William Barton Northrup: If the hon. gentleman takes such an interest in the welfare of the municipalities, he will allow the amendment to pass and then the municipalities will be able to look after their rights. But in my remarks in this House I was particularly appealing to the hon. gentleman to do what was right as between the government and the people. The amended clause will give the government power to compel this railway to pay back the $21,000 it obtained from the government and will give the municipalities power to compel the railway to pay back the bonuses unfairly obtained from them. So far as the municipalities are concerned, the difficulty of their position is-and it puts them in a very different relation from that which the gov-342
eminent occupies-that they have, to deal with the Belleville and North Hastings Railway and not with the Grand Trunk Everything was supposed to be fair and above board as between the Belleville and North Hastings and the municipalities. So, the argument of the Minister of Justice would apply to a great extent to the municipalities when they come to get this money back, and I am not sure that the board would say that the Grand Trunk had to pay, if the board considered that, under all the circumstances-and, perhaps, .some circumstances might he elicited similar to those which occurred in connection with the government bonus. But I am speaking now particularly with regard to the government end of the question. I take it that the Minister of Railways does not raise it as an objection that the statute of limitations would apply. It is not disputed, and it never had been disputed, that the Grand Trunk improperly received this $21,000. In [DOT] the papers which the minister has under his hand, brought down to this House aud read by hon. members, it is shown that the Grand Trunk received in the name of the Belleville and North Hastings Railway a bonus which was paid by the government to the Belleville and North Hastings Railway-the very cheque made out in that name. And, though this company had been out of business for years aud had been wiped out of existence by two successive Acts of parliament, yet that cheque, representing the money of the people of this country, was endorsed over and deposited to the credit of the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada. I think I am justified in saying that the minister is aware of these facts, as they have been before the House for months. No pretence of denial of these facts has ever been made. When it is said, and no denial made, that the country is deprived of $21,000, and that this money has gone into the hands of the company which took possession of the road, I think I am justified in asking the House to amend the clause. All I am asking is that the clause shall be so amended that power shall he given to the Railway Commission, if the government chooses to apply to them, to order the payment of the money of which tlie country has been deprived. The amendment gives the board power, if they see fit, to make such an order as they deem reasonable or just in the matter. Under the circumstances, I do not think it is necessary to take up longer time in discussing the question or dilating on the facts. The facts are so far undenied-I think I can fairly say that they are unquestionable. The only remaining point Is, when the government introduce a clause which they themselves admit will not give them power to go before the board to redress a wrong which the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways both admit to exist, I think I am justified in submitting an amendment



which will confer the power upon the hoard to redress that wrong. I hope, on consideration, the amendment will meet with the government's approval and with that of the House. Should this he the case, I hope the government will see its way clear to take the steps necessary to have this money which has not been earned paid back into the public treasury.


William Findlay Maclean: Before the minister replies I would like to call his attention to a grievance of this character that exists in the riding of South York. The Canadian Pacific Railway is not operating their main line, the line that was bonused by the government, for five miles in South York.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: It is hardly proper to discuss that unless by way of illustration.


William Findlay Maclean: It is an illustration right to the point. The people have made complaint of it several times, and this seems to be an opportune occasion to bring it to the attention of the minister. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company, or the companies that have been acquired by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, received large bonuses for the construction and operation of a railway, and in the city of Toronto, namely, from Leaside Junction to West Toronto, a distance of five miles, that road is not operated in the sense that passenger trains are run over it. If the board have not now power to control and operate that portion of the railway, I would like to see it given such power.


George Perry Graham: I do not intend to reply to my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup), because I admit that there is a legal side to his argument, and I prefer to let the Minister of Justice make reply after he has read the remarks of my hon. friend. I am a little sorry that my hon. friend thinks there is some very strong influence behind this Bill that prevents us accepting certain clauses that he suggests. He does not generally impute motives to people, but he came very near it on this occasion. If I wished to retaliate, I might ask my hon. friend why it is that he has never become seized of the importance of this question until very recently. [DOT]


William Barton Northrup: I never heard of it until last year.


George Perry Graham: It is strange that my hon. friend, when such vast interests are at stake, and seeing the vast importance this matter is to the people in his constituency, has not heard of it, though it has been in existence for twenty-one years. Surely he does not want us to think that this matter is of such vital interest as he tries to make us believe, and that he is living, metaphorically, within a stone's throw of this railway for twenty-one years, and still never heard about it until this year. Now I do not


William Barton Northrup: want to make a speech along that line. My hon. friend, without directly imputing motives to the Minister of Railways and Canals, thinks he must be under some strong influence which prevents him from accepting this clause. I may say to my hon. friend that there is no influence behind or in front of the Minister of Railways and Canals, except to get a Bill that will be practicable, a Bill that will work out something that the people want, a Bill that will not be loaded up with a lot of surplus matter to entail work upon the commission, work which the commission was never appointed to undertake. Now this commission had its origin in the idea of regulating the traffic of the day, of seeing that the commerce of the country was carried from one point to another with the least possible delay and at a minimum cost. Since that idea had its origin, we have put a Railway Commission to work, and we have given it power to settle difficulties as to crossings, and difficulties of many other kinds, something which the commissions across the line do not handle at all. Now by this amendment it is proposed to place upon the shoulders of the commission the duty of investigating contracts twenty or thirty years old, all over the Dominion of Canada, and if they are going to spend their time in doing that, they will have to throw all other considerations aside, and we will be voiding the real object we had in view in appointing this commission, that is, to see that the commerce of the country is moved quickly and cheaply.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is not that, under your Bill, the very thing you are talking of?


George Perry Graham: What we are talking about under the Bill is the enforcement of an agreement between municipalities and companies.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But there is no limitation as to that in your Bill.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend wants to say that the statute makes a limitation of time.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No, I do not.


George Perry Graham: Well, it does. But my hon. friend from Hastings wants the House to pass an amendment that will go back beyond what might be called the statute of limitations, and in contradiction of the statutes that now exist in cases of this kind.


William Barton Northrup: I submit there is not one word in my amendment to carry back the powers of the court to any date anterior to the original clause. They are exactly on the same footing.


George Perry Graham: I do not at all agree with my hon. friend. He has proposed an amendment, not to deal generally with cases, that is not his intention; he says his intention is to deal with a specific case that happened twenty-one years ago. The amend-

ment is in reference to an agreement between municipalities and a railway company, and my hon. friend is not going to mix that with this Bill at all. His object is to make it possible for this commission to investigate a case where the government gave a subsidy twenty years ago to accompany, and the company to-day is not carrying out the contract under which that subsidy was granted. Because my hon. friend wanted to get his amendment right, he copied the amendment I have proposed and hitched his idea on to it.
Now this case happened in November, 1887. The department was authorized by an order in council to enter into a contract with a company for the building of this road. Now governments pay subsidies on the performance of a contract. The charter provides what the company shall do for its charter. I do not know about the older charters, but at the present time we are very careful to put the word ' operating ' on all the charters. I do not know whether it is in the old charter or not. But the charter states what the company must do, or else lose its rights under the charter. Now in that Act that penalty was attached to the company if it did not carry out its obligations, it had to lose its powers under the charter. But a contract for a subsidy Is something else. The department gets power to enter into a contract for a subsidy. What does the company have to do? It has to build a certain number of miles of railway to a certain standard, and when it does that, the government pays the subsidy without any reference to operation at all. That is not part of the contract. That is not part of the Act passed in the House. The House passes a Subsidy Act by which we pay a certain company a certain amount of money on condition that the company build a certain number of miles of railway up to a certain standard.
I am not here to defend the company at all, but I want to try to point out to my hon. friend the difficult position that he asks us to assume when he proposes that we shall amend this Bill to make it apply to particular cases. Legislation made specially for some particular case is not in the interest of the people as a general rule. While it may do good in one case it may be the very reverse in some other case, and my own opinion is that it is a mistake on the part of my hon. friend to insist that for the purpose of meeting a particular case that has been in existence for twenty years, a case in which the municipalities themselves never took any action to have the company carry out its agreement with them and a case in regard to which my hon. friend, although he lives in the same county, has never taken one step to protect the rights of the' people until within the last six months, this Bill should be amended in the direction which he suggests. We are en-3424
larging the powers of the Board of Railway Commissioners. We are not changing the Railway Act per se, but we are passing an Act saying what the commissioners can do. Is it in the interests of the public, when this commission has been appointed to protect the people with regard to rates and with regard to the speedy delivery of goods that we should amend the Act constituting them a tribunal for the settling of disputes, which have arisen between municipalities and railway companies and between the government and railway companies twenty years ago ? If the government has any action against the Grand Trunk Railway Company the government can proceed against the Grand Trunk outside of this commission. No statute of limitation runs against the government, as my hon. friend says, and if the government has a case against the Grand Trunk there is nothing to prevent the government taking that action. Why load up this Board of Railway Commissioners with work altogether foreign to the object for which it was established ? I am not sure whether the government has a case. As I pointed out a few moments ago the contract is made with the company to pay a subsidy under certain conditions. If the company that got that subsidy, or some other company, succeeding to their obligations, built a railway up to a certain standard and a certain number of miles in length, certified to by the government engineer, they are entitled under the statute to the payment of the money. I do not believe that under the statute the government could collect from the Grand Trunk Railway Company. That is not a legal opinion, perhaps, because I do not profess to be able to give a legal opinion, but I say that we should not undertake to transform the Railway Commission into a court of law to deal with all these old cases. If we are going to undertake that, then my hon. friends who have been urging strongly during the session that the commission should act promptly with regard to rates and better service will have to wait because the time of the commission will be occupied for months and perhaps for years in settling these old questions.
My hon. friend from South York has a ease and one of the hon. members for Perth has another case of some twenty or thirty years' standing. If you are going to require the commission to try all these cases you are going to defeat the object which parliament had in view when it created this commission. As to retroactive legislation, in discussing this question yesterday I did say that retroactive legislation was a mistake, but I added the words * unless under extraordinary circumstances.' There are cases where we ought to have retroactive legislation, but there is a difference between retroactive legislation which deals with con-

tracts tliat are still alive, for instance, with municipal contracts of this class. We have the power to see that agreements between municipalities and companies are carried out. My hon. friend says that this is a contract which would require retroactive legislation to apply to it. That is so in a way but it does not bear any comparison at all with the cases which have been mentioned. These contracts are still alive. They are in existence. Take the Hamilton Radial Railway which was mentioned by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) yesterday ; the contracts between the municipalities and the company are kept alive by the renewal of the charter of the Hamilton Radial Railway Company and these contracts are alive by the legislation of this session. Other contracts with municipalities are live contracts at the present time. But, here is a contract which is not a live contract legally.


William Barton Northrup: Twenty years has not elapsed. This contract is still alive.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend takes the ground that the contract is still alive ?


William Barton Northrup: Certainly.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps legally speaking he may be right. The contract between the Belleville and North Hastings Railway Company and the government is not alive because he says that the Belleville and North Hastings Railway Company was dead long ago.


William Barton Northrup: The company is dead but the contract is alive.


George Perry Graham: Then my hon. friend must be wrong when he says that the Grand Trunk Railway Company fraudulently got the money if they got it under the name of another company whose contract they took over.


William Barton Northrup: They did not take it over. They fraudulently represented themselves as the Belleville and North Hastings Railway Company and they fraudulently got the money.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend cannot say for one purpose that they took over that contract and for another purpose that they did not.


William Barton Northrup: I never said they took it over.


George Perry Graham: Well, that contract is not in existence if they did not take it over.


William Barton Northrup: It is still there.


George Perry Graham: The piece of paper is there but this contract of the Belleville and North Hastings road, if the Grand Trunk did not take it over, according to the hon. gentleman, is not a live contract.


William Barton Northrup: If my hon. friend departed this world leaving a promissory note outstanding he would not find that his departure had any effect upon the contract.


George Perry Graham: 


George Perry Graham: If the party who died did not leave anything to pay the note, the note would be in existence, but it would not be in existence in so far as value is concerned. In so far as the value of the contract with the Belleville and North Hastings Company is concerned my hon. friend does not attach any value to it and therefore it is not alive. In reference to the question of my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean), I would like to get more particulars about that case. I am inclined to think that that commission have it within their power to deal with these matters. But, what I am objecting to, and I do not want to be drawn away from this point that I am trying to make, is that my hon. friend, for the purpose of having the commission take up and revive a case that, as I say, has been dead in spirit for many years, should ask us to employ the commission at that kind of work merely to meet one case. That case is not very important as evidenced by the fact that my hon. friend lived within twenty miles of the locality interested and never took any action with respect to it for twenty years. If that be true then I think my hon. friend is asking us to make an amendment to this Act which cannot be justified from a practical standpoint and is absolutely unwarranted perhaps from a legal standpoint. There may be some other arguments to be advanced with respect to its legal aspect when my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) rises to discuss the matter. I do not want to take up any more of the time of the House because my hon. friend the Minister of Justice will take up the discussion of the legal question, and I wish to allow him an opportunity to do so.


William Barton Northrup: The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) referred to my not having taken any interest in this case although I have lived so near to the locality. That is perfectly correct and the explanation is this : We knew that the Belleville and North Hastings Company had practically ceased to exist and we did not suppose there was any recourse whatever which would enable us to enforce the bargain between the government and that company. Only a few months ago, owing to some mines there being about to have that road operated, I moved for a return of the papers, and it was only at this time that I learned that the Grand Trunk had taken over this transaction. It was for the first time that I learned that we really had some rights that could be enforced if the government chose to enforce its rights.


George Perry Graham: Does my hon. friend think that the Grand Trunk should take over the liabilities of the Belleville and Hastings ?


William Barton Northrup: No, but I think if the Grand Trunk obtained money under the cir-

cumstances, the government is entitled to get it hack.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the debate.


William Findlay Maclean: Would the Minister of Railways say when he will bring this up again ?


George Perry Graham: Would next Tuesday do?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
Sir WILFRID  LAIJRTER@: Six o'clock.



ADJOURNMENT-INQUIRIES FOR PAPERS.

George Eulas Foster: It was arranged some time ago that a copy of the evidence taken before the Cassels commission should be laid on the table for the benefit of the House. I inquired of the clerk to-day and find it has not yet been provided. The commission sat weeks ago and they are sitting again to-day.


William Stevens Fielding: There must be some mistake. I think the copies of the earlier proceedings were laid upon the table. It may not "have been kept up, but if not it should be.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did the First Minister think of the letter to which I drew his at-tion ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I am sorry to say I thought about it, but that is about all ; i have not acted.


George Eulas Foster: What is the work for tomorrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: We will take a couple of Bills standing in my name, the Bill respecting Dominion Notes and the Bill respecting the Bank Act and then Supply, with the estimates of the Minister of Public Works. Other Bills which are not contentious may be called if the ministers concerned are present, but I would not like to be more definite.
At six o'clock, the House adjourned.

Thursday, June 18, 1908.