Document Information

Date: 1905-03-10
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, House of Commons Debates, 10th Parl, 1st Sess, 1905 at 2263-2296.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

2263

….

SUPPLY—PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.

Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Carleton, Ont.). Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair, I take the opportunity of pressing once more upon the attention of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) the matters which I took occasion to mention yesterday. What he said in reply to my inquiry at that time was very excellent in its way. He cited constitutional authorities as to the course which should be adopted upon the formation of a government and he read certain quotations from a great authority on that question, but none of his remarks touched at all or were even relevant to the real question which I asked. It seems to me that in a matter of this kind the inquiry is one worthy of some attention by the right hon. Prime Minister when it is made in a respectful and serious way, as my inquiry was intended to be. The circumstances are very unusual. A measure of the greatest possible importance not only to the Territories of the Northwest which are now being constituted into provinces, but to the country as a whole, is brought to the attention of parliament and the right hon. Prime Minister introduces that measure. When he places that measure before the House he says to the House as emphatically as if he had declared it in express words that the measure had been submitted to, had been

2264

considered by and had met with the approval of every one of his colleagues. That is the situation as I understand it. I have yet to be corrected in that apprehension of my right hon. friend’s conduct in introducing this Bill. Well, afterwards it transpires that at least one member of the administration had not considered, and more than that, had not even seen the measure which was brought down by the Prime Minister, and it is an open secret that another member of the administration, then on his way from Europe and expected to arrive in Ottawa within a few days, was not made acquainted with the provisions of the measure as far as we are aware. In making that statement, I am, of course, not making it of my own personal knowledge, and if I am wrong in my conjecture in that regard I shall be glad to be corrected. But the importance of the situation is this, that the two hon. gentlemen to whom I have referred were gentlemen who had allied themselves with the right hon. gentleman in 1895 and 1896 in regard to a very similar question. The hon. ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), in 1895 and in 1896, used language in regard to one of the questions embraced in this measure, language which I have under my hand, but which I shall not read to the House to-day because the views of the hon. gentleman are pretty well known. His language was not only of a pronounced, but, in some respects, even of a violent character and it would do no good to place it before the House to-day. There is no dispute and there never has been any dispute as to the attitude of the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior in that regard. Yet, he is one of the hon. gentlemen who was not made acquainted with the intentions of the government in bringing down this measure. But, there is another hon. gentleman, the hon. Minister of Finance, to whom I have already referred, and in so far as we can gauge the circumstances and in so far as we can learn from the silence of the administration after the statement has been made across the floor of the House, he was also absolutely ignorant of the provisions of the Bill which the right hon. hon. Prime Minister introduced within two or three days of the date when that hon. gentleman expected to return. Now, I have referred to the opinions of the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior. I would like to add also that the opinions of the hon. Minister of Finance, acting as an ally, as the chief of my right hon. friend in the campaign made in Nova Scotia in 1896, although not expressed perhaps in so violent a way as those to which I have just referred of the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior, nevertheless, are of a very pronounced character. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance conducted a very able campaign in support of my right hon. friend in 1896 in the province of Nova Scotia. He was regarded as the leader of the Liberal ranks in that province

2265

at that time and the exertions which he then put forth met with their fitting reward in the tender to him of the position which he now holds. This hon. gentleman was acting as the ally and, I suppose, under the direction of the right hon. gentleman in the east as was the hon. member for Brandon in the west of Canada. He pronounced himself in no equivocal terms upon this question. It was thought by his friends in Nova Scotia that the speech which he delivered at Windsor in the county of Hants on the 6th of March, I think it was, 1896, was the ablest deliverance made in that province in support of the policy of the Liberal party at that time, and was perhaps the best exposition of their policy that had been made by any man in Canada up to that time. I will quote a few words not for the purpose of criticising them, not for the purpose of assenting to them, but simply to support my position that my hon. friend had very pronounced views to the knowledge of the Prime Minister on this question which makes it all the more strange that the provisions of this Bill should have been withheld from him, if, as a matter of fact, they were so withheld. Said the hon. gentleman on that occasion to which I have referred:

Why should we not believe that Manitoba will be reasonable in this matter? The Manitobans are not African savages. I will venture the statement that the true interests of the Roman Catholic citizens of Manitoba will be better advanced by the policy of conciliation than by the policy of coercion. This Remedial Bill which the government are trying to enforce upon an unwilling parliament, even if it should pass, cannot settle the question. It would be an attack on provincial rights. . . . If Roman Catholics are ever to obtain a solution of this question which is worth having they must obtain it through the good will of the majority of the people of the province to which they belong.

Further on in the same speech he said:

I ask the people of Hants county and the people of Nova Scotia to stand by the principle of free schools in the case of Manitoba just as they would stand by it in their own province. . . . We in Nova Scotia know the value of a system of free public schools. We have shown in the past that while we may differ on many questions we are practically a unit in support of that system. . . . If the Dominion authorities should attempt to interfere with our school system, if they should attempt to impose upon this province a system which they are trying to force upon Manitoba, we would expect to have the sympathy of the friends of free schools elsewhere, and we would expect the people of the western provinces to give us their sympathy and support in such a condition. Let us to-day give them our hearty sympathy and support in the struggle until we find that they are not amenable to reason.

Further on after giving credit to Sir Charles Tupper for establishing public schools in Nova Scotia, he continues:

2266

What can we say of the position of that gentleman to-day who instead of standing up as the champion of a free school system and resisting those who attack it scrambles into parliament through the unfair influence of the Roman Catholic pupils of the county of Cape Breton, and is now devoting the evening of his life to the work of destroying the free school system of Manitoba and forcing upon that province a system which he would not dare to attempt to force upon the province of Nova Scotia.

Further on in a letter to the ‘Casket’ newspaper published in Antigonish he said:

The uproar is upon us, already the blaze of religious strife has been kindled and is being vigorously fanned every day by the efforts to coerce the province of Manitoba.

In the speech at Windsor to which I have just now referred he used this further language:

For twenty years the Roman Catholic minority thus had the privilege of a separate school system. The result of that system proved exceedingly unsatisfactory to the people of Manitoba. . . . Ample evidence has been adduced to prove that the separate schools were not efficient schools.

Then, one more passage from his speech which is of some importance at the present juncture as embodying his views:

I believe that the people of Manitoba if let alone will settle this question for themselves. Why should we not believe this? We know from our own experience in the maritime provinces that it has been found possible to maintain a free school system and to administer it so as to make it acceptable to the people of every class and creed. We hear no complaint of the Nova Scotia School Law. The Manitoba school system is substantially the same as Nova Scotia.

My object in quoting this language of the Minister of Finance is not to criticise or to discuss it; it is simply to show that when the right hon. gentleman accepted the aid and support of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) and when he invited him to enter his cabinet, he knew that the hon. gentleman had used that language, and had made these speeches in Nova Scotia. Thus, the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) had full knowledge of the views which the Minister of Finance entertained in regard to certain provisions similar to those in the Bill before parliament. I wish to once more call the attention of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to the fact that upon the eve of the return to Ottawa of the ex-Minister of the Interior (Hon. Clifford Sifton) and of the Minister of Finance (Hon. W. S. Fielding) he has seen fit to introduce to parliament a Bill in such manner that parliament had every reason to believe, was bound to believe, and indeed every one of us did believe, that the provisions of that Bill had received the assent of every member of the administration. Under the circumstances, that was undoubtedly a grave departure from constitutional usage. I do not

2267

know of any modern precedent for conduct of that kind with regard to a measure of any importance, and I think it my duty to once more inquire of the right hon. gentleman what was the overmastering reason which led him under these circumstances to introduce that Bill to this parliament without giving to the people of this country, and especially to this House of Commons, the information that two members of the cabinet, members who above all others, it seems to me, should have been consulted with regard to the provisions of this measure, had not even it submitted to them, were not even consulted with regard to it, had not even seen it or read it. There must be some explanation for so extraordinary an act. The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has not vouchsafed any. I do not want to make explanations for him, I do not want to suggest any explanations. Explanations are being suggested throughout the country, and I would think that it is not only due to this House and to the country, but due to the right hon. gentleman himself that he should, without any further delay, without any further attempt to avoid the issue, inform the House as to the real circumstances under which he took this step in defiance of all unconstitutional usage.

There is one more question which I would again like to ask the right hon. gentleman, and I think that in doing so I am not transgressing my duty. I ask it in the same respectful way and for the purpose of information; it is this: The right hon. gentleman in his speech introducing this Bill referred to the aid in its preparation which the government had received from the members of the Executive Council of the Northwest Territories. What I would like to know is whether or not the educational clauses of this Bill were submitted to, were fully discussed with, and met with the appropriation of members of the Executive Council of the Northwest Territories. In the last place, I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman a question which I have not already asked but which seems to me to be very pertinent in view of his reply of yesterday. How long does he propose to carry on the affairs of the country without filling the vacant portfolio of the Minister of the Interior? One would suppose that when a measure of the importance of that which has been proposed to parliament, a measure especially affecting the Northwest Territories of Canada, has been introduced and is about to be discussed in parliament, that we should have the advantage of the experience and knowledge of some gentleman of the Northwest Territories, occupying a position in the administration, or, at all events that we should have the benefit of the advice and experience and knowledge of some gentleman filling the

2268

portfolio of the Department of the Interior, appointed to that portfolio for the very reason that he is well qualified to fill it. These three questions I venture to again bring to the attention of my right hon. friend, and I trust that he will be pleased to give to the House, at my request, that full and sufficient information on the subject to which I think the House is entitled.

Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister). My hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) has to-day asked one question which he has not previously put and as to which I am quite ready to give all the information I have at present. My hon. friend desires to know how long the vacancy in the portfolio of the Minister of the Interior will be left unfilled. I have only to submit to my hon. friend and to the House that there has been no undue delay in filling it. The vacancy occurred only ten days ago, and I do not think it could be expected that in so short a time as that the government could come to a conclusion as to whom they should call to fill such an important office. I hope before long I shall be able to give to my hon. friend the opportunity to give his assent to the appointment we shall make. I do not know whether he will respond to the invitation, but at all events we shall certainly afford it to him.

With regard to the other two questions I do not think that I am warranted in giving more information to my hon. friend than I have already given.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. That is none.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER. That is not much; but I would submit that strictly speaking my hon. friend is entitled to none at all. The conferences which took place between the government and the representatives of the Northwest Territorial government were carried on confidentially, and I do not know whether I have any authority to give any information about them to the House; no record has been kept of this information; the conferences have been absolutely confidential.

With regard to the other question, which my hon. friend has now put for the third time, I am sorry to say my mind has not changed. I think, with all due respect to my hon. friend and to the position he occupies, and to this House, that I have given all the information the House was entitled to. I can see plainly that my hon. friend is shaping his course carefully; he is going ahead bit by bit, he is taking no plunge, but every day we can see a little more where we are finally to be led. Yesterday we could not see where he was to place his batteries, but to-day we can see where they are to be placed. He endeavoured to show that there is a difference between the position occupied by two

2269

members of the Liberal party and by the Liberal party itself to-day and the position occupied by that party in 1896. My hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) did my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. W. S. Fielding) the honour of quoting him. I am not at all jealous of that honour which he has paid to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. I compliment the minister upon it; but he might have quoted some of my speeches on the same question. I took some part in that discussion. I intend to take some part in the present discussion. My hon. friend is re-echoing the attempts that have been made in the press to show that there has been a great change from the position taken by the Liberal party in 1896 in the position taken by them in 1905. Now we shall have an opportunity by and by of discussing that question; when we come to the second reading of the Bill I will endeavour to discuss the question with my hon. friend, and we shall discuss it on both sides of the House. I do not admit that there has been any departure at all in the conduct of the Liberal party between 1896 and 1905; but I am sorry to say that hon. gentlemen on the opposite side are always in the wrong. They never can interpret the constitution as it is. In 1896, the position which we took and maintained before the country was that it was not right for the federal parliament to try to impose on the province of Manitoba a system of schools which the province of Manitoba had rejected, acting within the plenary exercise of its powers. If there had been a system of schools in the province of Manitoba in 1870, when it was admitted to confederation, then, Sir, the minority would have been entitled to those schools by the judgment of the courts; but the courts decided that there had been no such system of schools, and therefore the powers of the province of Manitoba were not in any way curtailed. There is a difference, therefore, in the position of Manitoba in 1870, as exposed in 1896, and the position which we are confronted with at the present time. But I will not discuss this question with my hon. friend to-day—I do not think the time is opportune.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I did not discuss it.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER. In my estimation my hon. friend came very near discussing it. He was very guarded, but introduced it in a gentle way, just to create the impression that there was a great difference between the position taken by the Liberal party in 1896 and its position in 1905. My hon. friend understands his business too well to have introduced it so bluntly as to state it in that way, but he led to a conclusion which was inevitable. I do not think the present is the time to discuss that question, but I assure my hon. friend that we

2270

shall take the opportunity of doing so at the proper time and on the proper occasion.

Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER (North Toronto). Mr. Speaker, it was a candid admission of my right hon. friend when he confessed that he had not given much information to the hon. leader of the opposition in response to his question of yesterday and of to-day. It was a charming bit of persiflage that the right hon. gentleman made an exhibition of in those few words—airy, light, well-chosen, skimming all around, but avoiding carefully any expression which would go to shed light upon the grave and serious questions which my hon. friend beside me had raised. Now, I do not intend to be led away by this little diversion into a discussion of matters which are not at present before the House. I want to reiterate, in the first place, the position taken by the hon. leader of the opposition. He quoted from statements that had been made by the Minister of Finance, and could have quoted from statements which had been made by the late Minister of the Interior, to show the right hon. the premier that he knew thoroughly well, when these hon. gentlemen were in his cabinet, and when just lately he introduced his Bill for discussion in his cabinet, that these hon. gentlemen had well-known and pronounced views with reference to the question of education as it would develop in these new provinces. That is the only purpose my hon. friend had in view. The quotations which he made drove that fact fairly well home, so that the right hon. gentleman could not say that he did not know, in the absence of these two gentlemen, that their opinions had been firmly formed and plainly expressed. The startling thing about it was this—and it was not explained away by all the charming discursiveness of my hon. friend yesterday. The question is: what is the constitutional practice when a Bill, having been discussed in the cabinet and agreed to or supposed to be agreed to there, is launched upon the House as the utterance of the government as a whole? That is the question, and the startling thing about it is that the premier introduced a Bill for discussion in his cabinet, knowing the views of these two gentlemen in their absence, and with a haste that has not yet been explained. Engaged as it were, in a race for a goal with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of the Interior, he beat them by about two days and twelve hours—he got in ahead, and he launched his Bill. Now, the country and this House had no warrant for believing anything else than that that Bill in its entirety had been assented to and had the cordial agreement of every member of the cabinet. That is the point the country heeds, and that is the point my hon. friend the leader of the opposition makes. What has happened in this case is, I believe, unprecedented in the history of this parliament, and it is a

2271

matter not of curiosity, but of right, that both this House and the country should know why this was and what it meant. Now, let me say a word or two with reference to the changed methods of my right hon. friend. Take, for instance, the British North America Act. The clauses in it with reference to education were framed to do what? To give legal effect to an agreement between thoroughly constituted bodies who under that agreement went into the pact of confederation. Each had a House with elected representatives from the people enjoying all the powers of a representative assembly. Those provinces came together as independent constituents, and they did not attempt legislation until they had made their agreement and asked that it be embodied in an enactment. Come to the case of the Manitoba Act. In Manitoba there was no representative body such as an assembly; but how carefully the men of that time were minded to consult the constituent elements of that northwest country. Delegates were sent; the men were assembled; their views were got; the views were sent here; the views were communicated to the British government, and it was upon that tacit agreement or real agreement as to the wants and wishes of the constituent elements of Manitoba that the legislation was based which became fixed in law. How different has been the action of the right hon. gentleman in this matter. Whom has he consulted? Why, I think it is stated in his own speech that there were some reasons why he should not have granted autonomy two years ago or one year ago, and what are the reasons he gave?

That as we were on the eve of a general election, the time and occasion would be more propitious and more fitting after the general election when the Territories would have the benefit on this floor of a larger representation. These views were generally accepted. The elections have taken place and immediately after the elections, or as soon as was practicable thereafter, we invited the executive of the Northwest Territories to send delegates here to confer with us upon the measure which was to be introduced so as to admit them into the confederation. We have had the benefit of the presence of Mr. Haultain, the premier of the Northwest Territories, and Mr. Bulyea, one of his colleagues, and we have had the advantage of several conferences with them. We have had the advantage also of the presence and advice of several of the members from the Territories.

Now, in profession, what does this mean? It means that before this Bill was agreed upon and given to the House, the right hon. gentleman wanted to have all the representative opinion he could possibly get from the west. Did he consult it? There are 500,000 people living in those two provinces, according to the statement of my right hon. friend. Is it on record

2272

that he consulted those people before introducing this Bill? There were a certain number of old and new representatives from the Northwest present in this House. Did the right hon. gentleman consult them with reference to this clause? If he did, did they approve of this clause? If they did approve of it, why all this bother since? Why has the right hon. gentleman been held up? The right hon. gentleman also had an accredited representative of that Northwest country in the person of the Minister of the Interior, a gentleman who had travelled the west, who knew the west, who, before and from his first entry into this parliament had taken a very deep interest in this very subject. Did my right hon. friend consult him? If so, how comes it that in a race for time, after he had beaten his Minister of the Interior by a few hours, that minister rose in his place in parliament and said to his chief: I never saw that clause until I read it after I came here? Yet if there was any note in the right hon. gentleman’s voice in 1895 and 1896, it was this. He will find it embalmed in ‘Hansard,’ in the pages of his press, in the hearts of his admirers, in quotations everywhere. What was it? Translated into a few English words, it was this and nothing more: I want my people in Manitoba to have separate schools, but I want them to have those schools by the voice of Manitoba itself. I desire to see these privileges retained for them, but I desire still more not to violate provincial rights. That was his note. There was none more dominant. How has he changed? To-day he is an autocrat. To-day he rushes the Bill. To-day he rushes the members of his cabinet, the representatives from the Northwest, and the representative council from the Northwest for he has not been able to state that he did confer with that council—a representative body if there ever was any—and that it ever gave its assent to this clause. In all these cases the old spirit has departed, the old method has been laid aside, and to-day we have in their stead the work of the autocrat, caring nothing for his Minister of the Interior, caring nothing for his Minister of Finance, caring nothing for the representatives from the west, caring nothing and consulting in no way the 500,000 people for whom we are legislating. That is a change to which I call the attention of this House.

There is another peculiar circumstance in this connection. On the introduction of a Bill, the usual method followed is simply to explain it, but when my right hon. friend was taxed with going beyond an explanation, he defended himself by saying that he did give and only intended to give what was a full explanation of the Bill. What is the purpose of having a Bill explained, especially an important Bill of this kind, on its introduction? It is that the House and the country may become seized with its

2273

salient points so that before they are called upon to make up their minds to it, they may have the information necessary. I submit that it was not a lucid explanation of the Bill which my right hon. friend gave but an impassioned argument in its behalf. On the one hand he professed the greatest concern that no old cries should be renewed, that no old issues should be called up, that the demon of discord, which had been laid in 1896, should not be roused again at this time, but I submit that the argument he used when he came to that clause was one he should not have made had he desired to live up to his profession. On what ground did the right hon. gentleman advocate his Bill? It was not explanation but an argument which he gave? He advocated it on the ground that separate schools were superior to public free schools or secular schools. He raised an issue which there was no need of raising at all, an issue which, in the earlier part of his speech, my right hon. friend declared he did not intend to raise. But he forgot that intention and he raised the question of the respective merits of public free schools and separate schools, and gave the horrible example of the United States as an argument against public schools. There you have his argument and his illustration. He tortured the British North American Act of 1867 and the British North America Act of 1871 in order to get a legal ground—what for? For an explanation of his Bill? No, but to make strong his argument for the passage of his Bill. He tortured the shades of George Brown of illustrious memory, until I could almost hear the squeaking ghost of that eminent statesman flitting through the passages here, tortured and injured by the violent wrenching and twisting which the right hon. gentleman gave it. And in all these ways, instead of making a lucid explanation of the main feature of his Bill, he entered into an impassioned argument in order that his Bill might gain the assent of this House and the country. Well, the right hon. gentleman has had to eat the fruits of his mistake. Just then, under the glamour of his speech, under his successful avoidance of certain points, under his equally successful exclusion of certain other points in that Bill, every man behind him applauded to the echo; and if a vote had been called for then, every man would have risen to his feet—perhaps with one exception—and have voted for the Bill. He rushed the House for the time being, but he failed to rush it permanently; and the disorganization and confusion of these ten days is abundant proof that the right hon. gentleman went further than prudence and good statesmanship justified. He taunted my hon. friend beside me (Mr. Borden) with deftly shaping his course. Well, I hope his course is more deftly shaped than that of my right hon. friend. He lightly told my hon. friend that he was seeking for hills of vantage and

2274

strategical points, forsooth. There are hills of vantage but there are also valleys of humiliation. And it would be interesting to know who will head the procession through the valley of humiliation. Will it be the sturdy young Napoleon of the west with downcast eyes and drooping colours? Or will it be my right hon. friend who in 1895 boasted that he possessed the courage which did not promise until he had made up his mind, but once his promise was made stood immovable as a rock.

Now, all these are questions which we cannot but be interested in—questions raised in this House and in the country. There is one other thing. Shall I speak of it? Not content with rushing his Bill, not content with throwing aside his colleagues to rush his Bill, not content with proceeding without taking care to ascertain the sentiment of the west, not content with making his speech on the merits of the Bill and confounding it with a lucid explanation of the measure, the right hon. gentleman tried to rush the country as well. One of his colleagues in another place prepared a pamphlet, a remarkable pamphlet in some ways. It purported to be a ‘brief history, from official sources, of the legislation respecting the separate schools since the year 1863 in the united province of Canada, and in the Dominion since confederation.’ Now, as I said before, I have no fault to find, nor has any one in this House with the publication by the government of official information that will shed light upon this question. But this pamphlet is a partisan pamphlet. It does give the facts taken from ‘Hansard,’ but it does also colour them, and it does also argue the points involved. How does it colour them? I do not suppose, for instance, that Edward Blake or George Brown, or any of these old worthies, some of whom have passed away, others of whom are still with us, in making their speeches, italicized certain parts of them, or altered them in double-leaded columns, to make the arguments impressive. But in the quotations from the speeches of these gentlemen every sentence that favours the contention of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is italicized or given emphasis which points the argument. It is not necessary for me to go into details. But when it comes to George Brown’s momentous sentence, the maker of this pamphlet is not satisfied with italicizing it, but he puts it in bolder type, italicizes it and double-spaces it, in order that it may catch the eye and make the impression the compiler intended to make. And, when that is all done, here is the argument with which it ends—not a quotation from Blake or Brown, not an abstract from ‘Hansard,’ but an argument from the pen of the maker of this pamphlet:

Under the Territorial legislation, the rights of the minority have in the past been recognized. It would be a breach of faith and a violation of the British North America Act to

2275

disturb now the rights and privileges granted by the parliament of Canada thirty years ago and enjoyed by the minority up to this time.

Now, I say that this is not a very important matter, but it is significant. I say that no government has a right—and it is poor politics, I think, for any government to assume that it has the right and act upon that assumption—in giving what purports to be official information from the records, to endeavour, by the means I have explained, to point out the argument and lead to a partisan conclusion with regard to a measure that has been introduced.

Now, I have no more to say on this occasion. These are just some thoughts which occur to us. We wish them to sink into the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite. We have no wish to dictate their policy; but we would fain give them something for reflection, for calm and, if possible, fruitful meditation. This is our contribution, made with the best of intention and in the best of spirit, and in the hope that it will contribute to the benefit of the hon. gentlemen opposite.

Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey). In my judgment, we are face to face with a most extraordinary state of affairs in this parliament to-day. We propose to put through an important measure affecting the destinies of practically half a continent under the leadership of a government that has not a representative of that half continent among its members. Under constitutional government, as we understand it, and as it has been carried out, the cabinet is composed of heads who have received the endorsation of the people before they enter upon their work in that cabinet. And these cabinet ministers are chosen from the provinces according to the population or importance of those provinces. For instance, Ontario in the past has nearly always had five members in the cabinet, Quebec four, the maritime provinces at least three, one of whom was allowed for New Brunswick, another for Nova Scotia and, until recent years, one for Prince Edward Island. Thus every part of the Dominion was represented in the cabinet; and when important questions came up in which any portion of the country was particularly interested, its representatives in the cabinet were supposed to have influence in swaying the government in regard to that matter. That has hitherto been the case with regard to Ontario and Quebec, and either of those provinces would rebel to-day if an important measure affecting its interests were before parliament and it were deprived of its due proportion of representation in the cabinet. But to-day we have practically half a continent without representation in the cabinet, notwithstanding that an important measure is going through that vitally affects the interests of that half continent, and that will seal its fate for the future. The only representative in the cabinet of that part of the country has become so dissatisfied with the

2276

measure that he has publicly declared that it cannot receive his support, and, rather than remain in the cabinet and assume any responsibility for the measure, he has resigned. The government have not dared to put themselves in touch with that great section of the country by appointing another member in his place. Is it because of the unpopularity of the measure or because no one can be found who will take the responsibility of it, as an in-coming member of the cabinet would necessarily do? Or is it because of the dearth of public men from that country and the impossibility of finding any one in the ranks of the government supporters sufficiently intelligent to be a cabinet minister? It cannot be the latter, because the government has many supporters from the Northwest, some of whom would be a credit to a cabinet. We are driven, therefore, to conclude that it is because of the unpopularity of the measure, and because the government dare not ask the Governor General to appoint a new minister and, by an electoral contest, allow the people of the Northwest to express their opinion upon the measure.

If they did so, in that election which must take place, this measure would undoubtedly be discussed, every phase of it would be discussed before the people, and the people themselves would have an opportunity to express an opinion on it. The government are in the humiliating position to-day—I am justified in saying so in view of what has transpired—that they dare not risk their reputation by appointing a new Minister of the Interior and sending him back for re-election before this measure goes through. So that great country is not represented in this cabinet, that great country is without a representative to voice their views with regard to this important measure. Is that not constitutional government run mad? Is that according to the principles of the British constitution that we have heretofore carried out in the Dominion of Canada? I say it is the very reverse. The government are today in the humiliating position that they dare not put a minister into the cabinet and ask him to go to his constituents and get their endorsation of his appointment and of the measure that is before the House to-day. Now in view of this condition of affairs what ought the government to do? In my judgment they ought either at once to fill that position, and give the people an opportunity of endorsing the appointment, and let this measure be discussed by the people themselves, or they ought to withdraw the unpopular part of their measure; because, if I know anything about the sentiment of this country, especially of that part of the country which this measure will affect more than any other, it is I might say almost unanimous against the Bill, or at least the school clauses contained in this Bill that the right hon. gentleman has submitted to the House.

2277

Mr. SPEAKER. I presume the hon. gentleman does not propose to discuss the Bill at this present time.

Mr. SPROULE. If you will first allow me to commence the discussion of the Bill, I shall then be happy to be called to order.

Mr. SPEAKER. I judged that the hon. gentleman was coming very close to a discussion of the Bill in the latter remarks he made.

Mr. SPROULE. I mentioned the Bill as several speakers before me have done, and I assume I have a perfect right to do so, without discussing the principles of the Bill. I am merely referring to the Bill as a reason why the government do not fill the vacant portfolio, and I am asking them to fill it so that the people may have a chance to express their opinion of it. When that is done we will say that the government are acting according to the principles of constitutional government. I need not say anything with regard to another portfolio that has been practically vacant for a long time; while we are voting large sums of money for that department to spend we are not carrying out the principles of constitutional government both during this session and last session. Until the government bring themselves in accord with the principles of constitutional government as carried out in Great Britain, we are justified in drawing their attention from time to time to their failure to do so, and in asking them to put themselves in accord with these principles which they have always declared they are desirous of upholding.

Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.

National Transcontinental Railway—surveys, construction and other expenses, $1,328,500.

Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals). I am asking for this money to meet the necessary expenses in connection with the work of the National Transcontinental Railway Commission. The details of that sum are as follows: For salaries of commissioners and headquarters staff, $100,000; for headquarters rental, $13,500; head office, stationery, furniture, light, telephone, telegrams, travelling, incidental and unforeseen expenses, $25,000; for wages of men in connection with the different survey parties, $600,000; head office, district and divisional engineers’ salaries, $100,000; supplies and commissariat, $425,000; outfit and instruments, $20,000; freight and travelling expenses of engineers and transport of men, $45,000. These sums make up the total.

Mr. FOSTER. Now suppose we raise the question, first, a very important one, before any of this money is voted, as to what information this House is going to get. We have tried on several occasions

2278

to get it, but have not been able to. The thing has been thrown backwards and forwards like a rubber ball. We have incurred a large expense, and we are now to face a million and a third, and we have not a scintilla of information as to what this commission has done, or the results of its labours, if it has done anything. If it has not done anything it has not justified its existence because the expense heretofore has been very great. If it has done anything we want a complete statement placed before the House as to what it is that it has done. We have debated the question casually time and again and it has been called to the attention of the right hon. Prime Minister and also the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals as to the fact that information does get out, but it does not get out to the members of the House of Commons and the country, because there is no medium of communication between that commission and this House. We would like to have this matter settled first before we vote any money.

Mr. EMMERSON. The commission is constituted under the Act of this parliament and it has certain work to do. It is to be presumed that it is attending to its duties. Now, until it has accomplished certain work, until the work is completed, there can be nothing to report. For instance, the presumption is that in the first instance it will have to look after the surveys. It is to have a road surveyed over the whole route. It will be taken for granted that that will take a certain time, and it will be taken for granted that there are certain preliminary surveys to be made. Now, until there is something to report, until it has the work completed which will enable it to lay before the Governor in Council a statement of the result, we could not naturally expect that the information would be placed before the members of this House. We must not anticipate too much. My hon. friend, I think, shows too much anxiety for this information. The information cannot be in existence. It is true that the general statement may be published in the press that the surveyors are meeting with success in finding a route, but until the finished work of the survey is placed before the Governor in Council it would not naturally be placed on the table of the House. My hon. friend, I think, has become somewhat involved as to the question of the means of communication between the commission and this House. There is no question as to the medium of communication. There was a question however as to the medium of communication between the Railway Commission, another and an entirely different commission, and this House. The question was as to whether the Department of Railways and Canals had any connection with that commission or any control over it. On this the terms of the Act seem to be silent. There is an implication in certain of the sections as

2279

to the position of the Department of Railways and Canals in its relationship with the commission, but there is no direct statement or declaration as to the medium of communication between that Railway Commission and the House. But, Sir, in so far as the Transcontinental Railway Commission is concerned, it is an entirely different body, and it is recognized by the Act that as soon as it reaches certain conclusions it must submit to the Governor in Council the results. Until it has done that I do not think any question can arise as to either its shortcomings or as to its not fulfilling the duties imposed upon it. I think my hon. friend has mixed up the two commissions as respects the medium of communication. The work started out and the commission has gone on with that work. It is only a few months since that commission was constituted. The results of the first year’s operations and the results of the survey could not be given because they have not yet been completed. They would only be preliminary anyway and these preliminary surveys are not yet finished.

Mr. FOSTER. I do not know that the hon. minister has thrown much light upon it. We made an appropriation for the work and purposes of the commission last year. The greater part of it has been expended. Something must have been done with it, but in so far as we are concerned we do not know whether it was thrown into the Bay of Biscay or where it went. We do not have any too profound a confidence in the commission that these hon. gentlemen have created. Neither has the country. I do not think any commission ever was created with such important interests entrusted to them which commanded so little respect or confidence in the country at large. There is not a man on it who can claim to be an expert in any way or sense. There is not a man I know of who has had any peculiar or especial training or experience to enable him to undertake such a business as that. I am quite sure that no great railway corporation in this country would have picked any one of these men. I make that assertion and I let it go to this House and to the country and the good sense of the country and the House can say whether it is true or not. None of them had any special training. None of them had any of that large business knowledge, none of them had any of the technical and special knowledge, which, I think, are necessary to the men to whom will be entrusted the expenditure of nearly $100,000,000 of the people’s money. Another thing which is almost equally important is that to them will be entrusted largely the construction of the road in its grades, curves, and location, because, I suppose, the government have confidence in them, having appointed them, and the government will take their recommendations. The government are not experts.

2280

They have not time to attend to it. This commission is specially charged with that work. The government have confidence in them, the government will take their recommendations so that there is not only the expenditure of $100,000,000 placed in their hands, but there is the location and building of a road which for all time will be one of the channels or media of communication in this country. As to its location, as to its grades, as to its curves, as to everything of that kind this commission have something to do, and I do not think as I said before that we have so much confidence in the commission that we can allow an expenditure of money to the year’s end if we are to have no knowledge at all as to what has been done with the money we have given. The hon. minister says that you cannot ask for information until the work is completed. That is right in part and only in part. We do not want to ask for anything which cannot be had but we do want to know whether we are for ever and for all time to be bandied to and fro between an unwilling minister and an unresponsive commission so that between the two we get no information at all. That is the way the question strikes me. Now, how does it strike the hon. minister?

Mr. EMMERSON. I will tell my hon. friend how it strikes me. If my hon. friend can claim to have the sympathy not only of this committee but the sympathy of the whole House, I venture this assertion: That there is not a man in Canada who will stand up and make the same statements in regard to the commission as those which were made by my hon. friend. In the first place he has assumed that these men must necessarily be experts in the matter of construction and in the matter of engineering skill. I gather from his words—

Mr. FOSTER. I cannot help what you gather. I am only responsible for what I said.

Mr. EMMERSON. I give the ordinary meaning of the English language. In the first place, let us take the chairman of the commission. I venture to say—and I challenge successful contradiction—that there is not an abler man in this House than that gentleman. He is not only an able lawyer but he has had large business experience and has had the management of a railway. He has had wide experience in railway transactions, he has had large experience in the business of the country, and I am sure that Mr. Wade as chairman of that commission has the confidence of not only those who know but the confidence of parliament. The others are all able business men; they are men who have made their mark in their different sections, who enjoy the confidence of the people who know them, and I repeat that as a board you can rake Canada over and I do not

2281

think you could select an equal number of men who would stand higher in every way in point of integrity, ability and attention to their duties, than the men who constitute that commission. It would not be parliamentary for me to say that my hon. friend was not sincere in giving utterance to the sentiments which he did, and therefore I do not say that, but I am sure that a little reflection will lead him to conclude that in his desire to find something to say against the item, he has perhaps gone beyond what was justified by the facts. There was a vote of $500,000 last year; I can give a statement of what was expended month by month since the appointment of the commission. I can give not only the expenditures but the liabilities incurred in each particular month.

Mr. FOSTER. If the minister wishes to make a financial statement on this matter let us have it made all at once, so that it will be assembled in ‘Hansard.’ Will he give the names of the commissioners, their salaries and travelling expenses; the names of the staff, their salaries and travelling expenses; the rental of their quarters, and the provisions he has made in the way of private car conveniences for their transportation, because I suppose that some provision of this kind must be made. Then if he will give us the surveyors or surveys that have been sent out, their components and the sections of country that they have taken, we will be able to form some idea, with all this information, of where their activities are being employed and what ground they are covering. As to my own statement I listened with a great deal of interest to my friend’s characterization of it; I do not retract a word of what I have said.

Mr. EMMERSON. I would not expect you to; you are too hardened a sinner.

Mr. OSLER. I understood the minister to say that this House can get no information in connection with these surveys until they are completed. I suppose the surveys will not be completed within three years from now at the earliest. Are we to vote money year after year for these surveys, amounting in the aggregate to $10,000,000 at least and not receive any information as to the progress that is being made or any information that is of interest to the country until the whole surveys are completed, and in the hands of the government because that is in effect what the minister said? We want to understand this, because it is a most serious state of affairs if we are to understand the minister in that way.

Mr. EMMERSON. My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Osler) has put a strange construction on what I said. My statement did not involve that we should wait until the whole line was surveyed. A gentleman like my hon. friend (Mr. Osler) must realize

2282

that these survey parties have certain areas to cover and each district engineer would have a certain territory under his jurisdiction, and when he has completed his work his report would come in and it would be the subject matter for submission to the government of a report to this House. That does not say that the report shall be delayed until the whole line is surveyed, and until somebody else in the wilds of the north should have completed his survey.

Mr. OSLER. I think that is what will be understood from the minister’s remarks.

Mr. EMMERSON. My hon. friend connected as he is with the board of directors of a railway company and knowing something about the reports on construction that come in, must know that they come in from different engineers, and that one engineer does not cover the whole territory; that it is in divisions and districts, and naturally it would not be necessary to wait for the whole survey to be completed but until something in a concrete form could be reached by district engineers, or by a divisional engineer. There would not be anything for them to report to the commission and therefore nothing for the commission to impart to the government and to parliament.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I would like to ask the minister if he can tell us when the surveys began, where they have been carried on, how many miles have been gone over in attempting to obtain a route, for example through New Brunswick, and so on, covering the ground in that way. We can hardly believe that this work has gone on to the extent of many hundreds of thousands of dollars and that the minister has allowed himself to remain absolutely ignorant in regard to this. I do not suppose the minister expects us to believe that; I do not suppose that position is consistent with the proper discharge of his duty as Minister of Railways, and all we are asking is that even although the surveys have not been completed the minister should be good enough to put us in possession of that information which the minister himself has in regard to these matters. We, of course, know that all the work is not being done by one engineer, the minister says it is being done by several engineers, but let us know what work is being carried on, even although it is not completed, and if any results, even tentative results, if I might so express myself, have been reached let us know something about them. There are reports in the press with regard to these results; are they authorized or unauthorized? If authorized, it seems to me that parliament should be put in possession of the facts as early as the press, especially if parliament is in session.

Mr. HAGGART. There has been an expenditure of $500,000. The minister comes down and asks for a further vote of $1,-

2283

368,000. Surely the House is entitled to a report from the committee as to the manner in which they have expended the $500,000 voted last year, and the manner in which they intend to expend this $1,328,000. If, as the papers state, a first-class line has been found between Quebec and Moncton, the House is entitled to know it. If that is not so, the House is entitled to know that; or if there is any partial information on the subject, the House has a right to have it. We do not expect anything in a concrete form. What we expect, if the surveys are not completed, is information as to the direction in which they are being made, and how near they are expected to approach the gradients, curves and locations which were promised. It is perfectly monstrous to tell this House, as the minister virtually does, that we are not to have the information until after the surveys are complete. That is treating the House with perfect coolness and indifference.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Might I bring to the attention of the minister also the fact that section 30 of the National Transcontinental Railway Act, chapter 71, of the statutes of 1903 is in the following terms:

The commissioners shall make to the Governor in Council through the Minister of Railways and Canals an annual report for the information of parliament, setting forth the receipts and expenditures of the year, and such other matters as appear to them to be of public interest in relation to the said railway, or as the Governor in Council directs. Every such annual report shall be submitted to each House of parliament within fifteen days after the making thereof, or within fifteen days after the commencement of the next session of parliament, whichever first happens.

I remember that we had a long discussion in the session of 1903 as to the terms of this section, which seems to have been absolutely disregarded both by the commission and by the government as well as by the minister himself.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER. How has it been disregarded?

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Have we any annual report?

Sir WILFRID LAURIER. The commission has not been a year in existence.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I do not see anything in the terms of this statute to the effect that the first report shall not be made until the commission has been in existence a year. I would take it to be the fair meaning of the statute that at the first session of parliament, after the commissioners had done any substantial work, a report of that work would be placed before parliament.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I call the attention of my hon. friend to the fact that

2284

this commission, if I remember rightly, was appointed in the month of September last, so that hardly six months have elapsed since it has been in operation. The commission may have reports from engineers who have been in the field. Whether it is so or not I do not know. They may have received interim reports from the surveyors from time to time, but I question very much if when parliament opened in the month of January they had the material for a report. We must have a report at least once a year; it may be advisable, indeed, to have a report oftener; but I do not think the commission can be accused of negligence because they have not yet sent a report.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. If parliament meets again in January or February or March next, and a report is submitted then, it will cover more than one year, and it will not be an annual report in the sense in which the statute demands it. The terms of the statute I think require the commission to give a report of what they have done up to the present time. The fact that there may be no finality to their work is not a reason why they should not report what they have done. We are not asking for a report which contains absolute conclusions as to the line; but inasmuch as they have had $500,000 placed at their disposal, and it appears that they have spent a considerable portion of that, and inasmuch as the administration ask for nearly $1,500,000 more for the coming year, we are justified in asking what they have been doing with the money placed at their disposal at the last session of parliament. That seems to me to be very reasonable, and I should have thought it would have engaged the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals before this.

Mr. EMMERSON. The chief cause of complaint with reference to myself seems to be that I have not obtained a report with reference to plans and surveys. I may say to the House that the chairman of the commission told me that they had in course of preparation a report down to the first of January of this year, but that that report could not contain any information as to the surveys, beyond the fact that they were not complete.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. If they have not completed any surveys, can they not at least tell us where they have been making surveys and what they have been doing with the money?

Mr. EMMERSON. I can get that information myself.

Mr. HAGGART. Have you a report from them at all?

Mr. EMMERSON. No. I have a statement of expenditure.

2285

Mr. OSLER. It is surely an easy matter for the commission to report what they have done up to the 1st of January. That is called for by the Act. I think the House is entitled to it, and I think this item should stand until we have that report.

Mr. FOSTER. Judging from the remark of the hon. minister, he thinks it would fill the bill if he gave us certain information. That will never do at all. What we want is an explicit report of the commission. What has this commission been doing during the six or four months it has been at work? Here you have a very expensive staff, upon what kind of work has this staff been employed during this time? Why should there be any trouble about giving the information? There is nothing secret about it. The directors of railway companies get reports from their engineers. This House is in the position of directors, and we want to know what our servants have been doing. Here is an important section of the Act which the Minister of Railways did not seem to have any knowledge of until this moment.

Mr. EMMERSON. That is not the case.

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, he did not see that it was carried out. It is on a par with the extraordinary lapse with regard to the Railway Commission. There was a law put through establishing that commission, and no provision made for a report by it. That is an omission which my right hon. friend says will be made right by legislation. I think the Minister of Railways should let this item stand until he has a report of the commission, and he ought to have that in a very few days. Has this commission taken over any of the reports made by the Grand Trunk Pacific and adopted them as their own and paid for them?

Mr. EMMERSON. That matter is now the subject of negotiations between the commissioners and the Grand Trunk Pacific. The chairman of the commission assured me only this morning that the report was in preparation and that his view of that section was quite in keeping with my own. I have the information as to the expenditure each month and the liabilities incurred month by month, and also as to the salaries. The only report, practically speaking, which the commission could make now, in addition to the information already in possession of the House, would be a general statement covering the points of survey. if hon. gentlemen opposite think we should wait for that, I have no desire to press this item through.

Mr. OSLER. Another reason why it is important this discussion should stand is this. When this report of the commission comes down, we will see under what headings they made it, and a discussion of this item will be most useful in directing how

2286

the report should be drafted. It will be very important to have the schedules and the different lines of information defined which the House will expect from these commissioners every year.

Mr. LEFURGEY. Are the surveys proceeding from Quebec to Moncton?

Mr. EMMERSON. Yes.

Mr. HAGGART. The minister must have noticed in the newspapers the reports that the engineers have found a location between Lévis and Moncton which fully justifies the expectation expressed by the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) when he made his statement concerning the road. Is there any report in the department the survey of that portion of the road?

Mr. EMMERSON. None whatever.

Mr. HAGGART. Has the minister had a verbal report from the commissioners?

Mr. EMMERSON. No.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Where was the report published to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart) refers?

Mr. HAGGART. In many of the newspapers.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I have seen the report that was so widely published, but it gave no authority for the statements made. Of course, I hope they are true, but it appeared to be a mere newspaper statement and not a quotation from anybody who might be supposed to know the facts.

Mr. HAGGART. It was only a general statement that the surveys had resulted in the finding of a route that fully justified the statements of the Prime Minister.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I have seen in the newspapers, and have heard in private conversation, that between the Quebec bridge and Edmundston, not only was there a fine country, from an agricultural and lumbering point of view, but that it afforded a good location for the railway. But, although I have read and heard this statement, I am not aware that the government had any official information on the subject.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The report I saw in the press purported, directly or impliedly to come from the commissioners. And they went to the length of saying that there was an equally good line from Edmundston to Moncton, and that the people of New Brunswick had really not known the interior of their province, but that it had remained for the engineers appointed by this commission to discover this route through that portion of the country. Of course, these reports may not have emanated from the commission, but the impression one received from reading them was that I have mentioned.

2287

Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I have heard the same with regard to the interior of New Brunswick, but, I am sorry to say, that I could not connect it with any authority in which I could have confidence. Of course, I should be only too glad to believe it. With regard to the other section between the Quebec bridge and Edmundston, that is stated to be a magnificent country.

Mr. OSLER. Has there been a report on the other section?

Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I am not aware that there is any report yet made by the engineers in charge of that survey, but, in casual conversation I have heard the hope expressed—

Mr. OSLER. But not from the surveying party?

Sir WILFRID LAURIER. No.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Are we to understand from the minister (Mr. Emmerson) that the reports coming from the commission will be laid before the House before going to the newspapers?

Mr. EMMERSON. I presume they will come to the government first through the medium of the Department of Railways and Canals, and then they will be submitted to the House. But the gentlemen of the press are eagle-eyed and always on the alert. I do not know what they may gather from this report in its flight. They are certainly not likely to get anything until it reaches the government at least.

In the matter of the first item, we have asked $100,000, to meet the salaries of the commissioners and the headquarters staff. I have been asked for information as to the commissioners and their salary, and it will be opportune for me to give it in connection with this item. Mr. F. B. Wade is chairman and his salary is $8,000 a year. Mr. Robert Reid is commissioner and he receives $7,000 a year. Mr. A. Brunet, commissioner, gets $7,000 a year. Mr. C. A. Young, commissioner, gets $7,000 a year.

Mr. FOSTER. Where is he from?

Mr. EMMERSON. From Manitoba. Mr. Brunet is from the city of Montreal.

Mr. BERGERON. How many commissioners are there?

Mr. EMMERSON. Four.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. There were three at first, but the number was increased.

Mr. EMMERSON. Four under the Act as passed.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Under the Act as eventually passed.

Mr. FOSTER. Would the minister state in what capacity these gentlemen had previously served their country, or, if they had

2288

not served their country, in what capacity they acted before their appointment?

Mr. EMMERSON. Mr. Wade was a distinguished King’s Counsel and a member of this House.

Mr. FOSTER. And that reminds me that he rose in his place here, I believe, and declared that there was no inducement that called him to desert his people whom he represented in this House and who were so loyal to him, and accept a salary as one of the commissioners. He thought the suggestion that he was to be one of the commissioners was a slander and indignantly denied it. I wish the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) were here.

Mr. EMMERSON. I am sure the country is to be congratulated upon the fact that Mr. Wade was induced to accept the position. I have very great respect for the ability of some of the hon. gentlemen on the other side, but I certainly will not place Mr. Wade second to any of them, or second to any one in the country, so far as distinguished ability as a lawyer is concerned, while I think that his knowledge of men and affairs and his grasp of the conditions of this country qualify him in a most eminent degree for the position.

Mr. FOSTER. We will see how far that certificate will carry.

Mr. EMMERSON. Of course, that is only my opinion, and hon. gentlemen opposite may not agree with me.

Mr. FOSTER. Of course, it must be understood that if my opinion of these members as railway commissioners is not high, I say nothing at all but what is respectful of them as men. We must keep the personal element separated from their quality as commissioners.

Mr. EMMERSON. Mr. Wade had experience in connection with railway matters.

Mr. FOSTER. What railway?

Mr. EMMERSON. A railway in Nova Scotia.

Mr. FOSTER. Which one?

Mr. EMMERSON. I do not recall the name of it.

Mr. FOSTER. That is strange.

Mr. EMMERSON. It is not strange that I do not know the name of the railway, nor is it strange that Mr. Wade had experience in railway matters. I believe he managed that road for seven or eight years.

Mr. FOSTER. What road?

Mr. LAURENCE. The Nova Scotia Central.

Mr. FOSTER. Is that a trunk line?

2289

Mr. EMMERSON. My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) of course, has not been in Nova Scotia and knows nothing about that province. The Nova Scotia Central is a road of considerable importance. I am informed that Mr. Wade has managed the affairs of that railway. But I think it will be conceded by hon. gentlemen opposite that Mr. Wade is a very excellent chairman, and fills the position with credit to himself and with great advantage to the country.

Mr. FOSTER. What is the length of that line?

Mr. EMMERSON. I could not say. I only know that he was connected with such a railway. Mr. Reid was a business man of prominence, I understand. Mr. Brunet, I think, was a banker.

Mr. INGRAM. What is Mr. Reid’s line of business?

Mr. EMMERSON. I do not know his line of business. If he has business qualifications, it makes little difference what business he is engaged in.

Mr. INGRAM. He surely must have had some special qualifications.

Mr. EMMERSON. He has business ability, executive ability, judgment and tact. Many hon. gentlemen opposite who have ability in certain lines may not have tact and judgment.

Mr. INGRAM. He is accused of advising others to tamper with a ballot box.

Mr. EMMERSON. I have not heard of that. I think perhaps that is within the imagination of my hon. friend.

Mr. INGRAM. There is no imagination about it, it is a fact, and a sworn fact.

Mr. EMMERSON. Mr. Brunet is a Montreal gentleman, he was a banker there, and enjoys a very high position in the business circles of that city, and enjoys as well the confidence of the citizens for his integrity. Mr. Young is from the west, a well known business man, and for many years a member of the Manitoba legislature. Mr. Ryan, the secretary of the commission, was formerly employed on the Temiscaming Railway.

Mr. FOSTER. What is Mr. Brunet’s age?

Mr. EMMERSON. I do not know whether he goes beyond the Osler limit or not.

Mr. FOSTER. I have understood he was about 62.

Mr. EMMERSON. I hope my hon. friend has no idea of asking that he be Oslerized. I do not know what his age is.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I would ask if Mr. Cowan is solicitor for the commission, and if so, when his services commenced.

Mr. EMMERSON. We are not dealing with the Grand Trunk Pacific, but with the Transcontinental Railway Commission.

2290

Mr. CLARE. What salary does Mr. Ryan get?

Mr. EMMERSON. $2,500. Mr. H. A. Collins is the secretary.

Mr. FOSTER. The minister must not give Mr. Young the go-by. He has given an elaborate eulogy of the other three.

Mr. EMMERSON. I have already said that Mr. Young was a member of the Manitoba legislature for a number of years. Previous to his appointment, he had been down to this parliament several times on public delegations. I think he was largely interested in the grain business. I cannot state specifically the occupations of each member of the commission previously, but only in a general way. If it is the desire of the committee that I should read over the names of all the officials—Mr. Collins, secretary to the chairman gets, $1,020.

Mr. FOSTER. Will the minister follow his plan of making his comments on each one as to their abilities?

Mr. EMMERSON. I think the committee can rely upon the good judgment of the commissioners in selecting their clerks. They select their own clerical staff. Mr. Collins is secretary to the chairman, and gets $1,020.

Mr. FOSTER. Then the chairman has a secretary to himself?

Mr. EMMERSON. Yes.

Mr. FOSTER. Have there been any strikes on that commission so far? We had a very sensational story about the other Railway Commission, that one of its eminent members felt aggrieved because he had not a typewriter all to himself, and it is said that he struck when the Council refused to give him a typewriter. There was rather an ominous cloud hovering over the commission and over a part of Ottawa for a time, sulphurous at periods, I believe; but in due course of time as the recalcitrant hung on, the typewriter was delivered up, the cabinet came to terms and footed the Bill. Has nothing like that happened in this instance?

Mr. EMMERSON. I am afraid that the scandal monger and the gossip have too much the ear of my hon. friend.

Mr. FOSTER. My hon. friend better not commence the scandal mongering business. Let him remember about people who live in glass houses.

Mr. EMMERSON. Now my hon. friend need not make any threats. I do not want any difficulty with my hon. friend, but I want him to understand that I do not run away from him—he might as well understand that first as last. I think my hon. friend, in reflecting in this way on these gentlemen, and asking a question like that as to whether there are any strikes, does

2291

not come up to the high ideals about which he lectures us on occasion. Surely to ask me a question like that is, while it may be humorous—

Mr. FOSTER. I took it as current history, I heard it everywhere.

Mr. EMMERSON. I know nothing about that. Mr. John Neighorn is secretary to the commissioners Mr. Reid and Mr. Young. He gets $900 a year.

Mr. FOSTER. Has the other commissioner a secretary?

Mr. EMMERSON. Have patience. I do not want to go too fast. Mr. Paul Larocque is secretary to commissioner Brunet. He gets $800.

Mr. FOSTER. Does he speak French?

Mr. EMMERSON. I should judge by the name that he does. I do not think he was born in Dublin.

Mr. FOSTER. Is it not very unfair that you should divide one poor mortal between two of these commissioners and give one other commissioner one to himself? Why not one each?

Mr. EMMERSON. My hon. friend forgets that this commission is an independent body and that the commissioners have the right to appoint their own officials. When my hon. friend complains of their action—referring to the government, I assume—he is forgetful of the fact that this is not a question for the government. It is a question for the commission.

Mr. OSLER. It must be a question for the country.

Mr. EMMERSON. It may be a question for the country as to what the commissioners do, but it is not a question for which the government is responsible particularly.

Mr. OSLER. It is necessary for this House to have all the information.

Mr. EMMERSON. Certainly; you are getting it. But, the question was asked: Should we have the right to divide one man up between two and give one secretary to Mr. Brunet? I may point out that that is a question that has been determined by the commissioners themselves.

Mr. FOSTER. But, there must be a limit. If these commissioners were to go on and make absolutely extravagant and uncalled for appointments there must come a time when some one will have something to say about it. This government in the end has to sanction these appointments, has it not? They do come before the government in the end? They must or else there would be no responsibility at all.

Mr. EMMERSON. I want to say that Mr. Larocque does all the French work and all the translation for the whole commission in

2292

addition to the services he performs as secretary to Mr. Brunet. Naturally Mr. Brunet writes his letters in French. Mr. Heidman is secretary to and assists Mr. Ryan, the secretary of the commission. This man does stenographic and clerical work for Mr. Ryan and he gets a salary of $960. Mr. Ronan is a filing clerk and gets $840 a year. The total salaries of the commissioners, clerks and officials whom I have named, amount to $36,060 per year. Then there is Mr. A. L. Ogilvie, general purchasing agent, who receives $1,800 a year.

Mr. FOSTER. What does he do?

Mr. EMMERSON. He purchases the supplies in connection with the commissariat.

Mr. OSLER. Where was Mr. Ogilvie before he became connected with the commission? I do not know Mr. Ogilvie and do not for a moment suggest that he is not a proper man for the place, but this is the most important appointment of the whole commission. This is an appointment that ought to have a man above reproach. It is an appointment that ought to be paid four times that money. I think that the appointment of a purchasing agent at $1,800 a year is entirely wrong. The head purchasing agent is the key to the whole expenditure of that money and he should be a man who is well known, a man who has had experience in that business and he should be very well paid.

Mr. EMMERSON. Mr. Ogilvie was employed in the Department of Public Works here for a great many years and was taken from that department because of his fitness and qualifications.

Mr. OSLER. He should have a much larger salary than that.

Mr. EMMERSON. I quite agree with my hon. friend that a man holding that position should certainly be paid the highest possible salary because it is a very responsible position. Mr. White is the assistant general purchasing agent at $1,200 a year.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Where is he located?

Mr. EMMERSON. I think these purchasing agents are connected with the Ottawa office and that they go out from the headquarters here. Mr. R. L. Landry is a stenographer at $840 a year, Mr. Geo. O’Reilly clerk at $700 a year and Miss Alice Seed, clerk at $300. The salaries of those whom I have last named in connection with the purchasing agent’s department amount to $4,860.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. In the return I have before me there are four purchasing agents mentioned as follows: Mr. A. L. Ogilvie, general purchasing agent, $150 a month; Mr. F. W. White, $100 a month; Mr. F. S. West, $125 a month and Mr. Alton $100 a month. Would the hon. minister be good enough to explain why it is that in the

2293

initial stages of this work so many purchasing agents are required? What do they do? What is it that they purchase? How much do they purchase?

Mr. EMMERSON. The list which I have before me is for the estimate of the salaries of the commissioners and the headquarters staff for the fiscal year 1905, which commences on the 1st of July next. The list which the hon. gentleman has before him is a list of the officials who have been employed during the current year. As I understand the modus operandi in connection with the purchases of this commission, they have certain purchasing agents at different points. There is one in connection with the New Brunswick division. The headquarters of that man is in Fredericton, and he makes the purchases for the different survey parties. These survey parties are located between Moncton and Connors, or the boundary line between Quebec and New Brunswick. Then, in the Quebec division between Connors and the New Brunswick boundary line, at Chaudière Junction they have a man who looks after the parties along that portion of the route. Of course, these men have to make the purchases at different places and give personal attention to them. I think they ask for tenders. They make these purchases and inspect the goods that are offered, and then they have to see to their distribution at the different points where they get into the hands of those in charge of the commissariat departments of the different divisions.

Mr. OSLER. Are these four men independent purchasing agents or are they under the head of the general purchasing agent?

Mr. EMMERSON. Mr. Ogilvie has general supervision.

Mr. OSLER. He has control over all of them?

Mr. EMMERSON. Yes.

Mr. OSLER. Because there is no more difficult position to fill than that of purchasing agent. There is no place where temptation is forced upon a man so much as in the position of purchasing agent under these conditions and it is absolutely necessary to have all the agents under the entire control of one head man. He must supervise all others or else you will get into terrible trouble.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I would gather that the condition is as the minister suggests. Mr. Ogilvie is the general purchasing agent at Ottawa. Mr. F. W. White, is the assistant and then there are two local purchasing agents, one at Fredericton and one at Winnipeg, Mr. Alton, who was appointed December 22, according to this return.

Mr. EMMERSON. Before I get through the list I will probably be in a position to

2294

recall the name. The next official is Mr. A. T. Gow, accountant, at a salary of $1,800; Mr. R. M. J. McGill, assistant accountant at $1,500; Joseph Clement, paymaster, at $1,200; W. R. Saults, bookkeeper at $900; A. Beaudry, stenographer, $840; Rod. Lagimodière, clerk, $720; R. H. Lang, clerk, $720. This makes a total of the salaries of these seven of $7,680.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. There is one other on my list, H. Charlotte, at $840, appointed March 7.

Mr. EMMERSON. The commissioners have furnished this as their estimate of what will be required for the next fiscal year. Then there is John O’Malley, messenger at $600, and E. Lefebvre, messenger, at $240, a sort of office boy. The commissioners ask also for additional clerical help estimated at $10,560, which makes a total of $60,000.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I do not know anything about the necessity of all this clerical assistance. I suppose we are bound to assume it is necessary, but it certainly appears to be very abundant.

Mr. EMMERSON. The work is very great, and from my observation I do not think they have an extravagant staff at all. I am speaking now from personal observation.

We have now the head office staff in connection with the engineers. Mr. Hugh D. Lumsden is chief engineer at a salary of $6,000; M. J. Butler is assistant chief engineer at a salary of $4,500; R. Fitzgerald Uniacke, chief draughtsman, at a salary of $1,800. That is an historic name.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. And a very good officer. I know Mr. Uniacke.

Mr. EMMERSON. A. M. H. Stimpson, is assistant chief draughtsman at $1,500; J. H. Roy, draughtsman, $1,200; Owen P. Schreiber, $720; P. E. Wright, blue print clerk, $360; C. J. Jones, secretary to the chief engineer, $960; Fred. Dillon, chief engineer’s accountant, $960, and Fred. McCourt, stenographer, $840.

There are certain district engineers. There is Mr. Guy C. Dunn, district engineer, $4,000. He has the district between Moncton and the boundary line between Quebec and New Brunswick. W. P. Collins, accountant, $840; J. A. McDougall, draughtsman, $840; D. Harnett, stenographer, $720; C. G. Hobart, draughtsman, $720. That is district ‘A.’

The next is Mr. Doucet’s district, district ‘B’ in the province of Quebec. Mr. Doucet, the district engineer, gets $4,000. S. R. Poulin, assistant district engineer, $3,000; A. E. Courchesne, draughtsman, $840; G. A. S. Campbell, clerk, $600; T. C. Bradley, stenographer, $600; C. F. Ross, commissary officer, $1,200; Jos. Martel, commissary officer,

2295

$1,200; Owen Morency, storekeeper, $720. That makes $38,120 for the salaries of the engineers and officials named on that section.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Why is this district so much more heavily officered than the preceding?

Mr. EMMERSON. It is a longer district.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. What is a commissary officer?

Mr. EMMERSON. That is a man who has to do with the portaging of supplies into the woods for the men. There is a district down there south of the St. Lawrence which is remote from settlement, and there is also the northern district on the north side of the St. Lawrence.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I observe that there is no commissary officer whatever in the staff for district ‘A.’

Mr. EMMERSON. I do not think it has been found necessary; that district is not far removed from the base of supplies. At the Quebec bridge, E. A. Hoare is the engineer in charge at $2,400; H. B. Tourigny, a transit man, at $1,320; E. H. Blockley, a leveller, at $960, and there are five men at $480 each per annum.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I do not understand this item. What are we doing in connection with the Quebec bridge which makes a staff necessary?

Mr. EMMERSON. We guarantee the bonds and it becomes a part of the eastern section of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the responsibility is on the commission of seeing that the work is properly done.

Mr. HAGGART. Have the government taken it over yet?

Mr. EMMERSON. No. It is not yet completed.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I must confess I cannot see why we should have a staff of eight men—an engineer, a transitman, a leveller, and five other men—for the purpose of seeing that the Quebec bridge is properly constructed. If we should have a corresponding staff on the line from Winnipeg to the coast in respect of which we also guarantee the bonds, it would cost the country an enormous amount. Is not this usually done by inspection after the work is completed?

Mr. EMMERSON. The work in connection with the approaches at both sides of the river has to be done by the government.

Mr. HAGGART. I understand that there is a contract, called a subsidy contract, entered into between the Dominion government and the local government and the company constructing the bridge, and under that contract it would be the duty of the Department

2296

of Railways and Canals to see that all the work is properly done. Is the bridge under the control of the Transcontinental Railway Commission or does it remain as it was?

Mr. EMMERSON. The approaches to the bridge are under the control of the commission, but the bridge itself has to be completed. Of course, the subsidy in aid of the construction of the bridge would be entirely subject to the department, but the guarantee of its bonds as a part of the transcontinental railway would necessarily be under the control and management of the commission.

Mr. HAGGART. I understood that the approaches were constructed under the subsidy contract the same as a bridge. How have you taken them over, and in what form has the commission let a contract for the building of them? The approaches and the bridge were to be taken over under certain conditions from the Quebec government and the company which at present possesses it. Have the government taken over it or a part of it?

Sir WILFRID LAURIER. No, the government was not to take over the bridge, but it undertook to guarantee the bonds of the Quebec Bridge Company. That company now has to build not only the bridge but the approaches to the bridge from the vicinity of Chaudière junction to the north side of the river. This is quite an independent enterprise with which we have nothing to do except that we are interested in supervising the expenditure of the money.

At six o’clock House took recess.