Mr. A. C. BELL (Pictou).

Agreeable to notice given the other day, I wish, Mr. Mr. OSLER.

Speaker, to move in reference to the third report of the standing committee on Public Accounts. A great deal of attention has naturally been turned towards the management of the Intercolonial Railway and the general government railway system, and among other matters which engross the attention of members of the House at this time is the working of that road. The committee on Public Accounts have taken cognizance of some of the facts, and certain members who are interesting themselves in the investigation before the Public Accounts Committee, asked to have a certain witness summoned to appear and give evidence. The motion was opposed by the minister interested and other ministers present, and in the end was negatived by a majority vote. Under these circumstances, there was nothing left for those prosecuting this inquiry but to appeal from the committee to the House. I have looked into the question with the view of discovering what precedents 1 could find bearing on it, but so far I can find none whatever. The rule seems to be, as laid down in the authorities

No witness shall be summoned to appear before the committee and be paid his expenses unless a certificate shall have beni first filed with the chairman of the committee, by a member thereof, stating that the evidence of such witness is, in his opinion, material and important.

Technically speaking, that was not done, but a motion for the summoning of the witness was made by a member of the committee, seconded by another member of that committee and supported by verbal explanations in the course of which these gentlemen stated that they considered the evidence of such witness material and important to the investigation. I have looked to see if I could discover any precedent for the action of the committee in rejecting this motion and can find none. Apparently nothing of the kind has ever occurred before in the history of this parliament. On no occasion has it ever been necessary for any member of any standing committee to appeal to the House against a decision of the kind to which I am now referring. In the opinion of those who are prosecuting the inquiry before that committee, which naturally has a majority under the control of the government, there is nothing left for them but to appeal to the House from its decision and ask the House to instruct it to summon the witness in question.

I do not know that I need go into a full explanation of why this investigation is now proceeding. I may say briefly that the figures in the Public Accounts, Auditor General's return, and the report of the Minister of Railways, seem to show that there are matters which the public advantage requires should be looked into, and in reference to which it would not be at all surprising to find that serious deviations from the course

of good government and honest management have been made during the past year.

But, to summarize, I would call the attention of the House to the fact that the amount spent this year, on the Intercolonial Railway, a work which has already cost the people a large sum of money, is very great indeed. Under the head of capital expenditure, we find that nearly $4,000,000 has been expended on that work which must have been regarded very many years ago by the people of Canada as a completed work. Of course, the figures I give include the Prince Edward Island Railway- the whole system which is under the management of the Minister of Railways. The actual figures as given in the returns of the Auditor General is $3,941,406. Now, that is not all the Intercolonial Railway has cost the people of Canada this year. We find that, under the system of book-keeping adopted by the minister, or under his direction I presume, there is suspense accounts by means of which $213,000 which should have appeared, and which would have swollen that expenditure above $4,000,000, has been carried into the following year. That, of course, must be added to the expenditure of the year of which I am speaking. In addition, there is a deficit in the working expenses of the road of this year of $348,186. There is a deficit on Prince Edward Island Railway of $67,883. That is to say, the Intercolonial Railway and Prince Edward Island Railway have cost the people of Canada, for the year ending June 30 1901, the sum of $4,570,536. Such an enormous outlay naturally attracts attention to the management of the Intercolonial Railway. I believe, that, in the public interest, the inquiry should be made as thorough and complete as possible. Moreover, in the interest of the minister in charge and of the government of the country, that inquiry should be made thorough, searching, exhaustive and complete. But when we sought to go on with our inquiry, we are met at the first stage, almost at the very first witness, asked for by the gentlemen who were in the minority on that committee, and who, representing the minority in parliament and in the country, speak for those whose interests are to be protected by that minority, by a refusal to call that witness, though he is manifestly a competent witness, and though the minority declared him to be most material, important and necessary witness, if the inquiry into the affairs of the Intercolonial Railway is to be made what it ought to be. I do not criticise the action of the Minister of Railways and Canals in opposing the calling of that witness. That is not my business.

I suppose he acted in the manner which he thought would most properly conserve his own interest, perhaps his own reputation. That is a matter for himself. But I would call the attention of the House to the fact that he is, so far as I can discover,

the first minister whose conduct has been challenged or inquired into by the Public Accounts Committee, since Canada had existence as a country, who thought it necessary to refuse the request of a minority of the committee to call a proper and material witness. If he is anxious for a complete, exhaustive and satisfactory inquiry, I should think he would be glad to have any witnesses the committee asked for. I shall not go on and discuss the statement made by the minister before the committee, because I think that would be out of order, and, no doubt, he will make his own statement here and now. But, to my mind, that which should regulate and decide such a matter as we are now discussing is the one question, is it in the interest of the people of Canada, is it in the interest of the department whose management is being inquired into, that the witness should be called ? It has not been the rule in the past, to inquire very closely into the scope of the evidence that a witness! would give if called before the committee. It lias, apparently, been the rule in the committee that the greatest latitude should be allowed by those initiating the Inquiries, and they have been allowed to judge what value the evidence of the witness would have if called before the committee. In this case, the person the calling of whom as a witness is desired by members of the committee who happen to be in the minority, and whose attendance is refused by the committee under the direct instructions of the minister, happens to be the man, who, of all others in Canada, outside the office of the Intercolonial Railway and the Minister of Railways, knows most about the matter into which the committee is inquiring. He spent the greater part of his life in a most responsible position in connection with the road. He knows its working and every feature of importance that it is necessarv for the committee to understand. He has an unblemished reputation as a railway man, and a magnificent reputation as a railway engineer; and there can be no doubt that the evidence he can give to the committee if he were allowed to attend and testify would develop no attack on the minister, but the truth and the whole truth in respect of those matters into which the committee thought it well to inquire. The matter is as I have stated. There has been gigantic outlay on the railway, and there is evidence to show that very poor management had been used in controlling the affairs of the railway. In the counties through which the Intercolonial Railway runs, it is a matter of common repute that the road is run more as a political and electioneering machine than as a railway; that, whenever it is necessary In the interest of the government of the day, the resources, the employees of that road are called to the service of the party in power. I could give evidence on that subject if necessary,

but I am not going further than to state that it is a matter of common repute in those counties that the road has been deflected from its purpose and converted into an engine of advantage and gain for the government of the day.

Was it so used by the Tory party ?

Mr. BELL (Pictou).

It cannot be of much service to the Tory party at the present time.

Oh, oh.

Mr. BELL.

We are inquiring into the working of the road at the present time and not in the past. But I say that if, at any time under Conservative rule, hon. gentlemen opposite had chosen to pursue such an inquiry as we have proposed, I cannot believe that they would have been met at the very first step by a refusal in the part of the late government to allow the attendance of a competent witness. In fact, the record of the commissions held during the existence of the late government go to show that the government was most anxious that every possible witness should be had.

I do not think it necessary to go further than this. I hope I have made it plain to the House that here is a matter which suggests the necessity for very careful and thorough inquiry. The minority of the committee charged with the duty of inquiring into such matters have asked for a witness whom they described as one having the fullest knowledge and one of the highest competence. They are refused the presence and assistance of that witness, apparently upon grounds which are absolutely without precedent in this country. I can discover no precedent, and I am satisfied that none exists, that would justify the minister, or the government if the government chooses to support him, in the course that has been taken in this matter. I therefore move, without speaking further on the subject:

That the third report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented to this House on Thursday, March 13th, be referred back to the committee with instructions that Mr. P. S. Archibald, C. E., of Moncton, be summoned to give evidence before the said committee.

I thiuk, Mr. Speaker, I shall have no difficulty in showing that the hon. member (Mr. Bell) who makes this motion has furnished us with no sufficient reason why his motion should pass. I do not intend, however, to be drawn this afternoon into a discussion of the general policy of the government and of parliament, in making the appropriations it has hitherto authorized for the improvement

Mr. BELL.

by these lion, gentlemen to be at their elbow and keep them straight. They have been working away but they have not made much progress. They have been looking into the accounts, but they have not seen anything that would be likely to be of service to them and they have come to the conclusion that the sooner they get their friend, this amicus curiae, the better it would be for the cause they have at heart. That is wholly the situation in which this matter stands. No person has said, the committee have not said, that if, at a future period, it was found necessary that Mr. Archibald, or anybody else should be brought here, he should not be summoned. The committee have not said that if it should be considered later, after we get the officers here, after we get the men who have made the expenditures here, after they have explained what they have done, if it is deemed necessary to go outside into the highways and the byways, the roads and the streets, to drag some one who may have something to tell before the committee and put him on the stand, it shall not be done. But, until we advance a little farther into the inquiry than we have yet gone, I submit that no sufficient case has been made out, that no sufficient reason for such a request as this can be furnished, and I do not wonder that my hon. friend (Mr. Bell) has been unable to find a precedent for it. Hon. gentlemen opposite would be the first to laugh to ridicule any proposition on our part made under such circumstances as these. If any one ever had the coolness, or the effrontery to make such an application before a committee on a previous occasion and it was refused, I do not wonder that it did not come before this House, because any one would know that the House would not, under such circumstances, allow the name of the committee to be used, for such a grossly improper, irregular and unprecedented purpose. As Minister of Railways and Canals I say that I am not afraid of any investigation which my hon. friend desires to make. Let him think what he pleases and try what he dares, I will be found, as a member of that committee, ready and willing to afford every facility for bringing before the committee all persons who have any knowledge of the dealings and transactions under consideration at first hand and not depending altogether on hearsay for what they may know. I am perfectly willing to have this ' enormous expenditure,' as the hon. gentleman characterizes it, thoroughly investigated, and I think I may prophesy that after he has exhausted his energies in this investigation, whatever mistakes he may find have been made by my officers, or by myself, he will be unable to attach any criminal wrong-doing to any of the men who have been filling these re-sponsibile positions in the government service. He may be able to show that we have not exhibited the capacity that we should Hon. Mr. BLAIR.

have exhibited, that we have not been able to watch in detail every item of expenditure, but he will not be able to show that the responsible officers of the railway, from those at Moncton to the head of the system, have not exercised their best judgment and capacity in the management of that railway system. Let me appeal to the House and to ask it whether it would be possible to conceive of anything lamer than the application which this hon. gentleman has made and the motion which he has founded upon it. Are we going to lay down this precedent in this House that any hon. member of a committee may jump up in his place, or that any three or four hon. members who want some friend of theirs brought here to attend any investigation that is going on and who cannot get along without outside assistance, and ask that anybody may be brought before that committee ? Are we going to establish a precedent that all these gentlemen have to do is to get up in the committee, call for somebody to be summoned and that the committee has nothing to say as to the time or occasion or manner of their appearance ? Whatever may be the hon. gentleman's hopes in regard to the passing or the refusal of this motion, I have no doubt we will hear a great deal in the public press about stifling investigation.

Hear, hear.

We always hear that. Hon. gentleman always have the same kind of side cry when they have nothing more substantial to build their hopes on. Whatever course the House may take, I hope it will take a proper and regular course and lay down no principle of action which cannot be justified on the soundest precedent and on the best ground.

Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark).

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) has given us a lecture as to how we ought to proceed in the conduct of an investigation before the Public Accounts Committee. My hon. friend (Mr. Bell) who moved this motion showed without doubt that never before had such a precedent been before the committee or before this House in connection with an investigation into an affair of the greatest importance to this country, because, I say it is a most important matter where the expenditure on a public work in this country was $4,500,000 and more in excess of the revenue, an expenditure which ought to alarm the whole country when taken into consideration with the expenditures that the hon. gentleman has made from the time he entered office to the present day. Our duty is to inquire into such expenditures as these, and in making that inquiry have we not to follow the precedents and rules which have been established and which have serv-

ed as a guide for every deliberate assembly, every committee, as well as for this House and the British House of Parliament ? An hon. member gets up and summons a witness. Another hon. member gets up and declares that to the best of his information and belief the witness he has summoned is prepared to give evidence. Now, we had the extraordinary proceeding of the minister who was on trial before the country entering an objection to the summoning of this witness. It is a matter of public notoriety in the papers of the hon. gentleman's own province and along the line of the Intercolonial Railway that if inquiries were pushed before the Public Accounts Committee as to the expenditure of public moneys on that road, such developments would be made-I am using the words of the papers-as would astonish the country. I am putting it in the mildest possible terms. We are exercising our duty of investigation and are we to be confined to the officials whom the hon. gentleman puts into office, and who, when he puts them in the box, have hanging oyer their heads the fear of dismissal, to whom the minister puts his questions and suggests the answers ? Are we to be dictated to in what manner we shall make this inquiry ? Yes, we have to examine these officials and every one else who is connected with the office, but we are not to go outside at all. We are to be confined to the officers of the department and to the hon. gentleman's officials. I venture to say that such a course was never before dictated to the committee of a free assembly having control over its own affairs. That committee is appointed for the closest investigation of the public accounts of this country, and we are told forsooth, that we must confine ourselves to an examination of the officials of the department. But the Minister of Railways has been taken down. Some of his supporters in the committee had mental reservations in supporting him, notably the member from Yarmouth (Mr. Flint) who hoped that some time in the future the minister might change liis mind and that the witness we needed should be summoned. Ashamed of the proceedings in the committee he now promises to the House that after the officials have been examined, then if it is necessary Mr. Archibald would afterwards be summoned. What we demand is that the committee shall have full power to call witnesses, and that when a member states that he believes that a certain witness is able to give information which shall be valuable to parliament, that that witness shall be summoned. Who is the witness we desire to summon in this case. He is a gentleman who was chief engineer of that railroad for a number of years up to 1897, and against whose honour and record for ability never a word could be said. He was dismissed from his office. What for ? Was it because he was an inefficient engineer in chief ? Not at all. He was dismissed because he would not serve the political purposes of the present Minister of Railways, and because he was too honest and too honourable to do that. We are told that this man is to coach the opposition and that if he was brought up here he might give us some information. Well, it is information we want, and that in itself is sufficient reason why he should be summoned. If the House votes now to sustain the Minister of Railways, it will establish a precedent which will not be in the interest of this country. The Minister of Railways has introduced new manners into this old parliament of Canada, to which this House has been a stranger hitherto. He is bringing in the fashion of dragooning, which I suppose he learned in his little operations in New Brunswick, where it may pass current, but it will not do in this parliament of Canada. There is too much honour in this House for that. The members on the opposite side of the House know very well that what we demand here is simply fair-paly. No precedent can be brought for the House refusing to summon this witness. In England it is said to be necessary that a person should state in writing the reasons why a witness should be summoned before a committee, and I offered at the last meeting of the committee to give my reasons in writing, but the chairman of the committee said there was no necessity for that as the matter could be considered when the report was being considered in the House. The minister says he is not on his trial. He is on his trial. He is on his trial for capitalizing the amount which he paid to the Grand Trunk Railway ; he is on his trial before the people of this country for the enormous expenditure of over $22,000,000, made up of capital expenditure and deficits on the Intercolonial Railway since he took charge of it. Including the amount which he asks us to vote for this year and next year on capital account, his expenditure on capital account on the Intercolonial amounts to nearly $23,000,000, which is more than the whole surpluses during the period the Liberals have been in power. That money which might have been expended in developing this country largely is being sunk in that sink hole by the Minister of Railways, and he now refuses to allow us to summon a necessary witness in order to inquire how his expenditures have been made. I appeal to this House ; I appeal to the country ; I appeal to the supporters of the Minister of Railways. It is the business of the opposition to investigate, and are they to be thwarted in their investigation ? Will this House of Commons sanction that ? And, Sir, if the supporters of the government refuse to do what is right there is nothing left to us but to appeal afterwards to the people of the country, who will, I believe,

insist on our getting fair-play, and insist on having the public expenditure of this country properly investigated.

This is a little matter of business which we might well afford to discuss in a quiet businesslike way. I had not the good fortune to hear my hon. friend from Fictou (Mr. Bell) throughout all of his remarks, but I had the good fortune to hear him in the committee, and I suppose I know his general view. I also know the view of the hon. gentleman from Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) and I observe that he has tried to cover up a weak defenceless position by introducing new and entirely unjustifiable matter. The hon. gentleman has treated tliis as a trial, the case of an accusation. He says that the hon. Minister of Railways, is on trial. If the minister be on trial, who is his accuser ? Which one of these gentlemen opposite accuses him ? The hon. member (Hon. Mr. Haggart) is an old parliamentarian- and he knows the procedure. Let him stand up and put his charge in writing and let us know what it means.

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

I have made the charge here publicly.

The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has made no charge. The hon. gentleman dare not make a charge. The hon. gentleman and his associates have been fishing for a fortnight in the hope of finding some kind of a charge and they have utterly failed. I draw attention to the fact that the hon. gentleman has treated this as a charge and one hon. gentleman in the committee said: there is a charge and whoever heard when a charge is made of any restriction upon the calling of witnesses. There is no charge, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentlemen opposite are no doubt courageous, and they would willingly make a charge if they had any ground for it. But when we see at this very moment that notwithstanding insinuations and suggestions, not one of them has dared to make a charge against tlie_ Minister of Railways, I think the House will understand the position which we occupy to-day. Now, what are the facts ? Sometimes it is necessary to translate a motion. What does this motion say ? It says that if John Smith shall stand up in a committee meeting and say, I move that John Brown be summoned, that motion must pass. That is the whole situation. The hon. gentleman has attempted to add reasons and explanations, and all sorts of things, some of which did not occur in the committee at all, I take the responsibility of saying.

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

What explanation did I make that did not occur in committee ?

The hon. gentleman at a second meeting of the committee began to tell what he meant to have

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

said on a previous day ; but meantime the record was down, and in reply to that I simply said that the record would speak for itself, and the House would judge on the record. I have the record in my hand :

Moved by Mr. Bell, seconded by Mr. Barker, that P. S. Archibald, C.E., Moncton, be summoned to appear as a witness before this committee at its next meeting.

There was no reason given, no explanation, no charge. It was simply as if any man stood up in the committee and said, I move that John Brown be summoned.

Mr. BELL.

Will the hon. gentleman permit me ? That of course was the formal motion ; but was there not in addition to that a statement made by me, and repeated afterwards by Mr. Haggart, that the witness should be called because his testimony in our opinion would be important ? That, of course, does not appear on the record, for this reason, that the shorthand writers who made that record were instructed to put down nothing but motions and the evidence.

If the hon. gentleman is correct, he would be bound to state in his motion his reasons for making it, so that it would be a matter of record, and not a subject of dispute in this House. I do not think my hon. friend made the statements he says he made.

Mr. BELL.

If my hon. friend will pardon me, the authority which I read in the course of my remarks states that no witness shall be summoned unless a certificate shall be first filed with the chairman of the committee.