Mr. LENNOX.

I will relieve the hon. gentleman's mind by giving the rest of the letter :

This is patent to evei'y person travelling over that section of the railway, and if Mr. Pottinger has not seen these huge piles of sleepers rotting it is because he had his eyes closed. This state of affairs has been commented on by travellers who had no interest whatever in our country. As soon as :'t was decided to appeal to the country in 1900, a number of the boss heelers seem to have got carte blanche, to get as many sleepers as they deemed necessary, to purchase votes, and at the same time to allow ihemselves a handsome commission. In my canvas through this country, I saw piles of ties here and there, newly got out, consisting of cedar, spruce, fir, and even ash; that was not the only objection. Some were rotten, some crooked

They were like some of our hon. friends opposite in that particular and probably the gentleman who has been interrupting me.

Mr. SPEAKER.

The hon. gentleman has no right to apply the expression ' crooked ' to any member of this House.

Mr. LENNOX.

In deference to your ruling. Mr, Speaker, I withdraw the expression in the fullest degree, and hope that the hon. gentleman, after this withdrawal, will not look crooked.

and a large quantity were undersized. I

took the trouble to get out of the wagon on one or two occasions and examine some. They were so plainly defective that one could not help taking notice of them. Any person who was in the market could get work on he railway line cr get a contract to get ties throughout the whole campaign. Whan these ties were hicught out they were taken without any objection-it would not do to make any enemies at that particular time.

We have here, whether from a defeated candidate or some one else-and let me remind the House that sometimes a defeated candidate ranks quite as higli as those elected-this fact, which bears out what has already been shown in the committee, that Mr. McManus' inspection of ties was such that the country has suffered an enormous loss. These are some of the facts and circumstances which necessitate a careful investigation. I appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite, who were somewhat premature in their applause of the heroic, utterances of the Minister of Railways this afternoon, to reflect before taking action. They talk about precedents, why, what precedent is required for the plain exercise of a plain duty ? When a different government was at the head of affairs, they wanted no precedent because they never refused any reasonable demands, and if honest square dealing is to prevail it is hard to see how the motion before the House can be rejected. Let hon. members not look at this thing in a narrow carping spirit, but decide it on its merits. Otherwise they will be simply giving the country reason to believe that they suspect the Minister of Railways of not having efficiently managed the railway under his control, and are afraid to have his maladministration exposed to the light.

I appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite for another reason. If they create a precedent by refusing to summon this witness, is their decision not likely to recoil against themselves ? If the indications are to be trusted, at no distant day they will have to change places with hon. members on this side, and the precedent they are now creating may be then quoted against them. I would ask them to rise to the level of their duty by supporting this motion to have the report referred back to the committee with instructions to procure this witness, in the interests of an honest administration of the affairs of this country.

Hon. D. TISDALE (South Norfolk).

I am

at a loss to understand on what grounds the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals and the hon. Minister of Finance object to this motion. Each one gives a different reason why it should be rejected. It seems to me that the whole question is whether we should retain or abrogate one of the most important rules of this House, and whether the opposition should consent to forego its right and its duty to insist on being given every facility for an investigation into the administration of public affairs. The Minis-Mr. LENNOX.

ter of Railways wanted the name of somebody who was making a charge. The Minister of Finance based his objection on the fact that there was no certificate that the witness required was material. But he did not deny that the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) had offered in the committee to give such a certificate and to give his reasons in writing, and that seems to me to entirely dispose of the objection of the hon. gentleman. The only objection that had any point was that which was raised by my right hon. friend, the leader of the House. He said that the record was not complete-that there was nothing in it to show that the hon. member who asked to have the witness summoned considered that witness material. But if not, who was to blame ? If that is not in the records, it is due to the fact that the majority in that committee directed the shorthand writer not to take it down.

If we take the reasons given by the three hon. gentlemen who spoke, except the Prime Minister, we find, not only is there no answer, but such reasons as they attempt to give do not agree. The Prime Minister makes an argument upon the question. If I understood him aright, I do not hesitate to say that I am glad that he spoke as he did, because it makes the issue clear. .1 nile this government exists, for three years to come, at all events, we are not to have a different view from that which we have hitherto held of a well known rule of this House. If I understood the Prime Minister, he agreed with the hon. member for South Lanark that, if any hon. member of that committee stated that he believed that a certain gentleman could give evidence of value to the committee, he had a right to have that witness called. If that is the Prime Minister's direction to his followers, i agree with him. If the view to be taken is different from that, I regret it, and hon. gentlemen opposite will regret it. I would like to know from the Prime Minister if I understood him aright.

If the liou. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) appeals to me. I have no objection to tell him my view. Any member of the committee has a right to ask for the examination of a witness. I do not mean to say that there must be a charge. But, if a member of the committee desires to investigate a matter connected with the public expenditure of the country, he has the right to ask for the examination of witnesses. But it is the right of the committee to ask him upon what he wishes to examine the witness, and to see that that is relevant.

Hon. Mr. TISDALE.

I agree with the Prime Minister in that. If hon. gentlemen on the other side will take that interpretation, they will find hon. members on tills side agree with them. Now, the question arises whether under the circumstances of this case the House shall uphold the ruling

of the committee in refusing to call a witness. The Prime Minister states, very fairly from his standpoint, that the whole case should appear upon the record. But it is not gainsaid here that the hon. member (Hon. Mr. Haggart) sought to comply with all the requirements that the Prime Minister has laid down, but was prevented. If the right hon. gentleman says that the fact that the case does not appear upon the face of the record is to be held as a bar to my hon. friend, notwithstanding that the committee would not allow it to be put upon the face of the record, then I cannot follow him. If it had not been for that, I am frank to say that I would not disagree with the Prime Minister.

Will my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) permit me to say that I dissent from his statement of fact. I do not admit that that statement is correct. I merely express this dissent, but do not wish to take up time, having already spoken.

Hon. Mr. TISDALE.

Do I understand the Minister of Finance to say that what the hon. member for South Lanark states is not true ?

I do not wish to contradict anybody. But if the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) says that the hon. member for South Lanark stated in the committee the purpose for which he wanted that witness and the committee prevented that being put upon the record, he is misinformed.

ticular points which would be of use to the committee.

Hon. Mr. TISDALE.

What the hon. member for South Lanark states as to this matter being excluded from the record does not bear out what I stated in the words I used. But I say that what passed between him and the chairman was sufficient to cause him to believe that, though it was not incorporated in the record, it would be treated by the chairman as part of the report when it was brought in.

That was after it was adopted. You could not change the record then.

Hon. Mr. TISDALE.

But the report had not been brought to the House, and such a report is not completed until it is brought to the House. I am surprised that my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Fielding) should engage in mere hair splitting. He is an older parliamentarian than I am, and he knows right well that such a report is not completed until it is brought down. The very fact that the committee discussed it a second time shows that, under the rules of order, it was still open to discussion. But, so far as I am concerned, the point made by the Prime Minister is an important one. I am glad to hear from the Prime Minister that he is not going to allow his ministers in these committees to do as they please. If the Prime Minister had been there, according to the rule he has concurred in to-day, we would not have had this rule treated as it was.

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

Perhaps 1 may be allowed to explain. What I stated was this: I offered to put in writing the reasons why I wanted the witness called and wished to have that embodied in the report. This was during the second day's proceedings. But the chairman said that perhaps it would be as well that the report should go in as it was. The committee did not refuse to have it put on the record. I never said that it did.

That occurred the day after.

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

Yes. The first day, I went to the trouble of going into details to show why I wanted this witness.

Oh, oh.

Hon. Mr, HAGGART. I beg the hon. minister's pardon. I think the rest of the committee will bear me out, and so would the chairman if he were here. I stated that J wished to examine the witness in reference to the ties, in reference to the braces, in reference to the bridges-I gave half a dozen reasons. I stated that I had had a conversation with the gentleman, and I thought he would be able to give evidence on these par-

That is not a fair statement.

Hon. Mr. TISDALE.

I am in the judgment of the House in what I say. What was the hon. gentleman's (Hon. Mr. Blair's) speech ? I have already stated that I was disappointed in it, and I repeat that statement. There was nothing in his speech. He even wandered off into talk about what the witness might say. He knows as a lawyer that that was quite irrelevant. Therefore, I think I am not severe in saying that he would take the same course in the House as in the committee, and that he should not be sustained in it. I am glad to be able to say, after hearing the Prime Minister, that there is no dispute about the rule and that we know where we stand.

Withdraw the motion.

Hon. Mr. TISDALE.

So far as I am concerned I would have no objection to withdraw the motion, after the statement of the Prime Minister, and if the Prime Minister will agree that the witness shall be called if he is asked for in the proper way.