FLINT (Yarmouth) moved that the fourth report of the Joint Committee on the Printing of Parliament be concurred in.

Mr. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure) moved in amendment :

That after the words 1 Civil Service Act ' at the close of the third paragraph of the report, the fallowing words be added : * And that the salaries of the said officials be continu:d as at present, notwithstanding anything fo the contrary in the aforesaid Act.'

He said : I am requested by the chairman of the Printing Committee, who is unavoidably absent, to explain that the object of this amendment is to cover the case of three clerks who are at present employed in the Printing Bureau, in the distribution office, and who have been up to this time under the control of the committee. By the report of the committee, they are to be placed under the control of the Secretary of State, and to come within the purview of the Civil Service Act. The amendment is to meet any objections which may be raised by the Auditor General to the payment of their salaries.

LaRIVIERE (Provencher). Do I understand that by this resolution these officers will be debarred from any increase if they were held to be otherwise entitled to it ? I can understand the object or the motion in providing that the salaries shall not be decreased, but I do not think the officers should be deprived of their title to an increase if the committee should recommend it and the government grant it.

I think the object of this resolution is to assure these officers of their present salaries in the transfer from one branch to the other. I do not think it would have the effect of preventing an increase, but that will have to be looked into. Of course, there can be no intention of interfering with these officers getting any reasonable and proper increase that they would otherwise receive.

Amendment agreed to ; and motion, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. WALTER SCOTT (West Assiniboia).

In moving the adoption of the second report of the Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament, I am desired by the committee

to bring to the particular attention of the House one feature of that report, which is the following : It was ordered, in the interest of the library, and for the greater convenience of the members, that rule 118 of the House be strictly carried out. That rule provides :

At the first meeting of the Joint Library Committee at every session of parliament the librarian shall report a list of the books absent at the commencement of the session, specifying the names of any persons who have retained the same in contravention of either of the foregoing rules.

As a matter of fact, this particular rule, as well as other rules framed for the government of the library, in the past, have been more honoured in the breach than the observance. The committee have discovered that irregularities on the part of members of parliament in relation to the library are not at all infrequent. The chief irregularities may be stated as follows : Want of promptness in returning new books during the session of the House ; keeping useful books that are not new for an undue period ; taking out books by members for strangers, and mailing the same all over the country ; and retaining of books of reference during many weeks of the session, this being directly contrary to the specific rule. The fact is, that at the present time, a very large number of books which should be in the library are not there, and a very considerable number of books that were owned by the library, and that should be there, have been lost, and a considerable expenditure has to be entailed in buying again these particular books. But the most serious phase of the matter is that books which are required during the session by members are not to be found in the library. Just to show the House the extent to which some of these irregularities have been carried, let me give a list of the number of books not returned by ex-members of parliament and present members. I may say that this is by no means a complete list. The committee were informed that one ex-member of the House had twelve books away from the library, contrary to rules ; another had 17, another 6, another 20, another 11, another 9, another 11, another 39, another 13, another 14, and still another 39. making an average of 19 books to each of this list of twelve ex-members. All of these books have been out of the library for years and are in reality lost to the library. Taking the present members of parliament, one has 7 books out, another 11, another 13, another 10, another 5, another 7, another 22, another 20, another 18, another 7, and still another 7. Thus twelve members have an aggregate of 135 books out, or an average of 11 each. These books have been out of the library in each case more than a year. The Library Committee have thought proper to bring this matter directly to the attention of the House, 1401

and to give the House specific and distinct notice that the rule which I have read, and which is to be found in the rules of the House of Commons, shall next year be strictly enforced. The librarian will be required to furnish a list at the first meeting of the committee next session, and steps will be taken to give the list of delinquents such publication as may then be deemed to be, in the interests of the library and the members of this House, necessary and advisable.

Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).

I, am not going to say anything in opposition to the report or the suggestions contained In it, because I think they are in the right direction. I want to refer to what has been the experience of some members in the past, which may result in an injustice being done them. Sometimes reports are sent out from the library that books are held by members although these books were returned during the session. Either through accident or carelessness these books when returned were not credited to the members against whom they were charged. I know that that has been my own case several times. I know of cases in which the books were never taken out of the House of Commons but simply used in the House and then sent back and not credited. Then sometimes the books may be mislaid in the library and it is not known to the members who returned them whether they were credited to them or not. In many instances there are mistakes of that character, which do a great injustice to members who remain charged with books which were returned.

Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk).

Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to inquire of the government whether a report that a detachment of (troops will be called out on the 24th of Slay for drill and march into the country on the Sabbath, 25tli of May, some five miles from the city and camp there, is correct or not ? I heard this matter alluded to yesterday in some of the Sunday pulpits. If any intention of that kind exists, I beg to bring the matter to the attention of the government and ask the reconsideration of the order, if It has been made. Such a step) would antagonize the sentiment of a very large portion of the inhabitants of Canada, and as this is a Christian nation and we profess some regard for Sabbath observance, I rise to request that consideration be given to the question.

Unfortunately, my hon. colleague the Minister of Militia is not here at the moment and I cannot answer for him as I know nothing about the matter, but I will call the attention of my hon. colleague to it when he comes.

Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Alberta).

There is a matter I wish to bring to the attention of the bon. Minister of Militia and I take this opportunity of doing so, although he is not here at present, in order that it may be brought to his notice when here. I believe that the House understood, from the explanation given by that hon. Minister, some weeks ago, that the Coronation contingent was to be thoroughly representative of the active militia, mounted police and the various contingents which have served in South Africa. Recently I have been given to understand that the representation would be confined to the members of the active militia and mounted police force and Strath-cona Horse. If that report is correct it leaves out the members of the second contingent, the first mounted rifles, the Royal Canadian Dragoons, and the Canadian Artillery. In case the rumour is correct, I would like to say that the second contingent was certainly the most thoroughly representative contingent that went to the front. It was drawn from all parts of Canada and it was the only one that was so drawn. The first contingent did not include any representatives from the North-west. The Strathcona Horse came entirely from the west, but the second contingent was drafted from all parts of Canada, and I should think that that contingent Is entitled to representation at the Coronation as well as the others mentioned.

GALVHEATJ (Temiscouata) moved that the House go into committee on Bill (No. 102) to incorporate the GaspS and Western; Railway Company.

Mr. T. CHASE CASGRAIN (Montmorency).

Because there are two companies, it must he specific :

Of the company interested and of the bondholders thereof.

Now again it goes on and says :

At which meeting shareholders representing at least two-thirds in value of the stock are present or represented by proxy.

I propose to add after the word ' shareholders ' 'of the company interested and of the bondholders thereof ' holding at least two-thirds of the bonds. I think the House will see this is a fair proposition, and that there can be no serious objection to putting this in so as to protect the bondholders if the Bill is to pass, to protect them effectively against anything that may be done against their interests, either by the Baie des Chaleurs Railway Company or by the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company, or the directors thereof. Also :

3. By erasing the words 'and no prescription or statute of limitation should be urged against the payment of said claims by the company, and no valid title shall pass to the company until said claims have been paid to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council.

Now, as to the first part of this amendment, I want to draw attention to the fact that the Bill as amended provides not only for a voluntary sale or lease of the railway, but also for the sale by authority of justice,

by sheriff's sale. In the latter case prescription has been running against a great many of these claims-which it has been stated amount to about $70,000 or more. The prescription has been running under the law of Quebec, under the Civil Code of Quebec ; and this law practically amends the Civil Code of Quebec to the extent that it does away with the prescription, which, under our code, in these cases of wage earners and of boarding housekeepers and hotelkeepers, is acquired by two years. This is done away with, this law amends the civil law of the province of Quebec to that extent. I point out to the House that I do not think any private railway company coming before this House with such an amendment to the civil law of Quebec, can expect their request to be adopted. I call the attention of those who are responsible for the legislation in this House to that very serious question. If it can be done upon this private Bill, upon this measure which is to incorporate a private company for the building of a. railway, it can be done on any other measure that comes before this House. It is a bad precedent to which I call the attention of the law officers of the Crown. As to the second part of the amendment, it is explained by the amendment which I will move in a short time, that is, as to the payment of the claims. I have provided for that by another section. The section as it stands now simply provides that the company shall pay the claims, and that no title shall vest in the company until the claims have been paid to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council. I have substituted another clause, which I think will meet with the approval of the promoters of the Bill, and particularly of those who are interested in the payment of the claims which are provided for by this Bill. To subsection 4 there were added the following words :

But nothing in this section shall in any way affect the rights of the bondholders of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company and of the Baie des Chaleurs Railway Company*

I propose to substitute for that the following saving clause :

Provided that nothing in this Act shall in any way affect the rights of the bondholders of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company and of the Baie Des Chaleurs Railway Company.

The House will see that I have substituted for the word ' section ' in this saving clause, the word ' Act.' Now, it may be said that the rights of the bondholders are sufficiently protected. I do not see it in that light. When the credit of the country is involved all due regard should be given to the rights of the creditors, and every precaution taken to save their rights would be a saving also of the credit of the country. If it can be said that by legislation the rights of the bondholders who have ad-

vanced their money for a railway enterprise such as this can be wiped out, if the security which this country generally offers for such advances in money, can be wiped out, the credit of the country will be diminished to that extent. Then I also propose that the following should be added to section 9 of the Bill :

No valid title shall pass to. the company until the said company shall have deposited in the hands ot the hon. Minister ol Railways and Canals the sum of $100,000 in cash, to be used and employed by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to pay the overdue balances in settlement of the claims mentioned in subsection 4 of the next preceding section. Upon and after the depositing by the company of the said sum1, the Minister of Railways and Canals shall appoint a commissioner, who, after investigation, shall pay to the creditors and claimants the said claims, or so much thereof as may be due, and the remuneration or salary of the said commissioner shall be paid out of the said deposit ; the balance of which, if any after deducting the amount paid out, and the said remuneration or salary, shall be refunded to the company.

The Bill provides for the payment of outstanding balances due for labour, board and materials supplied and furnished for the construction and operation of the railway. These bondholders took possession of the railway in July, 1900, and no claims are now outstanding for the operation and maintenance of the railway against the bondholders ; and a thing which has been unheard of in connection with this railway is that ever since the bondholders have been in possession the railway has been operated to the general satisfaction of the community, and there is not one farthing due for anything in connection with the railway, for supplies, work or board bills, or anything like that. I hold in my hand a copy of a certificate given by the controller of the Post Office Department, in which he says that the mail service has been carried on entirely since July, 1900. This shows that the bondholders are acting in good faith, that they are doing what they are bound to do in carrying out their obligations towards the country. The Bill as passed by the Bailway Committee provides, as I have said, for the payment of the outstanding balances due by company before the bondholders took possession of the road. It is said that no title shall pass to the company until these balances have been paid to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council, but I will call the attention of the House to the fact that it will be in the interest and to the advantage of the company to get these claims settled for as littlte money as possible, and that this has already been done in connection with this very same railway. They were forced under the law of Quebec to pay these outstanding balances and claims, and people have been fleeced because the company, naturally, has every interest in paying as little Mr. CASGRAIN.

as possible of these outstanding balances, and in getting rid of them for as little money as they can take out of their pockets. I call the attention of the government and of hon. members who are specially interested, and particularly the hon. member for Bona-venture (Mr. Marcil), that if the amendment which I propose is adopted, then there can be no such dealing with these people : they will be paid every cent which is due them. I propose that a deposit shall be made with tiie hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, that a commissioner shall be appointed by him to pay these claims, and that it is only-on his report, after he has made an investigation, that these claims have been paid by the company, that the title shall pass. It seems to me that this is an amendment which should commend itself to those who are interested in the payment of these claims before the company takes possession of the road. I have a precedent for this. Some time in 1889, or 1890, a certain part of a subsidy which had been voted by the provincial House, amounting to $28,000, which was due in claims, was to be paid by the government of the province of Quebec, and a commissioner was appointed by the then government, who went up there, paid all the claims, or paid part of the claims to the extent of $28,000 which were outstanding at that time. It seems to me that this is an amendment which should fairly commend itself to those who are really interested in seeing that these people shall be paid. I would ask that when this Bill is sent back to the Railway Committee, these amendments be made to it.

Mr. Speaker, when this Bill was under consideration by the Railway Committee the disposition of the committee, as I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Casgrain) will allow, was to see that in every respect the rights of the existing bondholders, and of every existing creditor having claims upon it, were recognized and protected in the fullest degree. It was tiie endeavour of the committee to attain that end, and when the amendments had been made the hon. gentleman who has now given notice of some amendments to the Bill as reported was asked if they were satisfactory to him, or if he had any suggestions to make, in order to still further secure and protect the rights of the people he represents. The hon. gentleman, at that time, was not able to offer any further proposition, and the Bill therefore went through.

Mr. CASGRAIN.

I said then that I could not, at the moment, on an important Bill of this kind, say that these amendments were satisfactory. When the Bill was passed, I said that I reserved my right to offer any other amendment, which after due consideration I thought should be made. That was the understanding.

Quite so. 1 do not think I have misstated the hon. gentleman's position. I say the hon. gentleman was not then able to make any further suggestion. I do not say that it is not proper for him to make the suggestion which he has made now, but I want to dispel any impression that the hon. gentleman's remarks may have left upon the House, that the committee were in the slightest degree indisposed to adopt any amendment necessary to secure the rights of the parties he represents. That was the feeling and desire on the part of the committee. I think myself that the hon. gentleman is quite within his right and is quite* free, notwithstanding anything that occurred before the committee, to suggest whatever he may regard as important tu further protection to these rights. It may well be that lie might fairly expect that some of his clauses should be adopted by the House. In the first place he wants to have inserted the word 'bondholders,' meaning that the bondholders should be consulted as well as the shareholders of the company in order that the concurrence of a proper proportion ot them should be had before any agreement should take effect for the transfer of this company to the present company. That is not an unreasonable proposition. It may be that it would be a little cumbrous to give to the shareholders who, the hon. gentleman says, have been superseded by the bondholders the same voting power, but I do not see at the moment how you could very well set aside the shareholders, and ns 1 am at present advised I would be disposed to think that it would be proper to add the bondholders, leaving the shareholders their present rights in that respect. As one member of the committee, I would vote for that, so that the bondholders may be able to protect themselves in as much ns they have superseded the shareholders, and in ns much by legislation of this parliament they have been placed practically in control of one of the railways at least.

I do not think that the third clause is as clear as the hon. gentleman assumes it to be. He would urge that no prescription or statutory limitation should be urged against the payment of claims by the company. He thinks it improper to insert that clause in the Bill, and he further contends that it is beyond our constitutional powers, because in his opinion we would thereby be amending the Civil Code of the province of Quebec. 1 may be wrong in the hasty conclusion I have arrived at on that point, but I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman. We are simply providing here as respects certain claims which are mentioned in this section ; which are not the claims of the bondholders or of those who hold securities and have priority on the property of the company. but which are claims enumerated in the Bill and which are mentioned ns claims for labour, the boarding house claims,

material and supplies furnished for the construction and operation of the railway. Those claims are being dealt with not as a matter of legal right, but we are simply recognizing that it would be proper to attach as a condition of the transfer of these railway properties, after the prior securities have been dealt with and before this company shall take over this railway property either at judicial sale or by agreement, that the particular claimants named here shall be paid in full disregarding any prescription which might militate against their recovery in law. Wo attach that as a condition to the transfer of the property. We are not interfering at all with anybody's legal rights, and we do not profess to interfere with the Civil Code of Quebec. We simply impose a condition upon the transfer of this property and if that condition is too onerous the company need not comply with it. If they are willing to take the transfer under this condition, they can do so, but if they are not willing they need not do so. I cannot agree that my hon. friend is right in asking that we should say that the company which takes over this property, shall only be asked to pay what claims are not barred. That would be the effect of his amendment if we adopted it. I would therefore think that clause 3 of the amendment should not pass.

I see no objection to clause 4 of the amendment, but I think it unnecessary, because the only section of the whole Bill which attempts to deal with the rights of creditors, mortgagees, or others is the ninth section. However, if the hon. gentleman thinks that his position and that of this clients would be any stronger. I would not hesitate to change the word ' section ' into the word ' act.'

The 5th clause of the amendment is :

That no valid title shall pass to the company until the said company shall have deposited in the hands of the Minister of Railways the sum of $100,000 in cash.

I think that is unnecessary. My hon. friend has no concern at all with regard !o the claimants who are referred to in the last section ; he is particularly concerned -on behalf of the bondholders, and if there is any conflict of interest, that conflict would be between the bondholders whom he represents and these claimants whom he does not represent.

Mr. CASGRAIN.

I beg the bon. gentleman's pardon ; I am here to legislate and make good law.