Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).

I have a telegram from Dawson making some inquiry as to representations on the areas which are included in the Treadgold concession. The telegram evidently refers to some statement made by the hon. the Minister of the Interior in the House, to which my own attention has not been directed. It states that the hon. gentleman recently informed the House that Mr. Treadgold and his associates were relieved from representation, owing to the faulty construction of the Order in Council of April, 1902, by the Gold Commissioner. The telegram asserts that this is incorrect, and that in September, 1901, the Gold Commissioner returned the representation money to Mr. Treadgold, thus relieving him from representation. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman is prepared to reply now, but if not, would he be good enough to reply to-morrow ?

I gave an answer tile other day in accordance with the information in the hands of the department to (be question put by the hon. member for IM-ctou, N.S. .(Mr. Bell). I would not be in a position to say anything about the details without consulting the records. I shall look at (he 'Hansard' report and make a statement.

I do not see that this Bill has any effect whatever except to bring the proposed railway or undertaking of the company under the jurisdiction of this parliament by declaring it to be for the general advantage of Canada. Of course the Railway Committee had the Bill under consideration, and some reason must have been found for making this declaration. But, it does seem to me that perhaps a little more caution might very well be exercised with regard to companies that come before us for this purpose. It was very frankly stated by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) that the general policy of this government was to bring every railway in Canada under the jurisdiction of the government by declaring it to be for the general advantage of Canada. That wholesale way of dealing with the matter hardly seems consistent with the spirit of the British North America Act. I remember that the Minister of Justice, four or five sessions ago, declared, on one occasion, that this government would not be a party to making declarations of this kind unless the circumstances justified doing so. But, I think my hon. friend's view, then expressed, has been Widely departed from by the government, as proven by instances arising every day in this House. It has been suggested, if I remember distinctly, by' the Attorney General of Ontario, that, before declarations of this kind are made, some judicial inquiry should be made, and some opportunity given to the provinces to state thei" views and have the question determined as to whether or not the particular railway should properly be subject to the jurisdiction of the provincial parliament. I would be inclined to think that the suggestion offered by that hon. gentleman might offer some food for thought to this government. So far as my experience of legislation during the years I have been in parliament is concerned, it has simply amounted to this-that almost any railway in the country can come here and get a declaration of -this kind.

Mr. CLARKE.

And tramways.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Yes, and even tramways can come here and get a declaration that their works should by this means be brought under the jurisdiction of this parliament. I am not contending that there may not be some cases-several cases-in which it is proper to do this ; but the fault I am inclined to find is that we do it without very much consideration, we do it without sufficient reason, so far as I can understand. I do not know whether this matter has been under the consideration of my right lion, friend the Prime Minister (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier), but in days gone by lie lias been a very strong upholder of provincial rights ; and this is one of the cases in which provincial rights, so far as railways are concerned can be very much interfered with, and are being interfered with. And, according to the pronouncement made during the present session, made by the Minister of Railways and Canals, 'if X understood him correctly, it was declared that it was the policy of the government to bring every railway within the jurisdiction of this parliament by declaring its undertakng to be for the general advantage of Canada. Unless better reasons than I have yet heard up to the present time can be advanced, I am not prepared to concur m this course. I take this opportunity of presenting very briefly, my views, because this Bill is for the sole purpose of having the undertaking of this company declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. I do not know whether or not it may properly lie classed within that category.

I am bound to assume that the Railway Committee haVe sufficient grounds for reporting the Bill in this form, and I am not making any criticism on the tindertaking of this company, for I do not know enough about it to justify me in doing so. I merely take this opportunity of bringing the matter to the attention of the government, and particularly of my right lion, friend who leads the government and to say that I think the suggestions that have been made might well justify some different course from that which we have been pursuing during several sessions with regard to this matter.

The PRIME MINISTER "(Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier). I am not aware that the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) has expressed the very broad opinion attributed to him by my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) I will have to consult with my hon. friend the Minister of Rail-! ways and Canals as to that. But pending the discussion I may have with him on the point, I may say that the policy of the government is not at all as apprehended by the hon. leader of the opposition. We have been in the past, and we are still, the upholders of provincial rights, and would hesitate 1 ng before we would lay hands on anything which properly belongs to the sphere of

actions of the provinces. Some twenty years ago-I think it was in 1882, or perhaps in 18S3-the policy was laid down by the government of the day that all railways connecting with the trunk lines of Canada, the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific, should be considered as coming under the jurisdiction of this parliament, being considered works lor the general advantage of Canada. Perhaps there was a good deal to be said in favour of the proposition at tliut time, and there may be still something to be said in favour of it. If a railway connects directly with one of the great trunk lines, unless this rule were to apply, the traffic on the main line would be under the control of the Canadian parliament, and then on the branch line, under the control of the provincial legislature. So far as that goes, I am not aware that the principle which was laid down was ever challenged very seriously in this House. The government is not prepared, Mr. Chairman, to assume jurisdiction over provincial charter's ; but in matters of this kind, the government has seen fit not to interfere with the policy that any railway connecting with the Grand Trunk or the Canadian Pacific should be declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. And, so far as I know, the only reason why the Railway Committee agreed to declare the railway referred to in this Bill to be a work for the general advantage of Canada is that it connects with the Canadian Pacific Rail-,way. If any objection is raised when legislation of that kind is asked, we would expect the parties interested, the local authorities, would apply to us and make their objection. But, when no objections are made-and I understood none were made on this occasion-I do not think it would be wise for parliament to interfere and not grant the power. If there were parties in British Columbia who found fault with this legislation and came here and desired to be heard, it would be our duty to listen to their representations. But I understand that no party in the province chiefly interested found fault, and that is why we allowed it to go on. There are some other cases to which our attention has been brought, for instance, the case of the first order of Private Bills, the Bill to incorporate the Toronto and Hamilton Railway Company ; and we have had that matter under consideration and propose to give our opinion before it is proceeded with any further.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (East York).

The right hon. Premier (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) says that the charge has not been proven that he or his party has interfered with provincial rights. The Attorney General of Ontario has stated in Toronto that there has been an invasion of provincial rights by this parliament, and he has deputed a very learned counsel, so I understand, Mr. Irving, once a member of this House to come here and make these repre-

sentations. The ' Globe ' newspaper has also made the charge that provincial rights, and especially municipal rights, have been invaded by this parliament. In a great many instances attempts have been made by pri-vade corporations to evade provincial rule, to evade municipal control, by means of legislative grants in this House. Another flagrant case was that of one of the power companies at Niagara, which came to this parliament to secure powers that it could not obtain in the province of Ontario, and powers which enabled it to invade the rights of the city of Toronto and other cities, so far as they are concerned. The right lion, gentleman now lays down the doctrine that he and his government have no responsibility unless some local parties protest. I disagree with the doctrine altogether. I hold that the government of the day are responsible for everything that takes place in this parliament, and if there is an invasion of provincial rights, they are responsible for it. Especially it -is the duty of the Minister of Justice to advise this parliament, and to advise committees, and they cannot escape the responsibility by saying that somebody did not appear before the committee or before the House to protest. As I said before, there has been this invasion of provincial rights, the Attorney General of Ontario has so declared, and he lias sent a special representative to Ottawa to put in a protest. We have seen the question raised in this House, and we see the municipalities of all Canada are up in arms to-day against the threatened invasion of their rights by the federal power, and for that invasion the government must be held responsible.

Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).

I have listened with considerable interest to the remarks of the right hon. the Prime Minister with reference to this Bill. I may say that in the Railway Committee the point which was raised by the -leader of the opposition, was discussed at considerable length ; my recollection is that the Minister of Railways then referred to the fact that a protest had come from the province of Ontario as well as from his own province against legislation of this kind. Now to my mind it is a clear invasion of the rights of the province of British Columbia for us to deal with this charter. We know comparatively little of the character of the Bill that we are making a Dominion statute. I have scanned the Bill, it is a statute of British Columbia of 1891. a Bill which contains some thirty-one clauses. The language of that Bill is very different from the language usually employed in railway Bills in this parliament. There also appears to have been an amendment to that charter granted during 1903. The statutes are not available, because I presume they have not yet been issued. Even the files of the Bills in the library do not contain the Bill (No. 38) that Mr. MACLEAN.

amends the British Columbia Charter of 1891. Therefore, we are utterly in the dark as to the character of the Bill, we are utterly in the dark as to the character of the legislation that we are enacting. There is no doubt that this is a live question to-day, how far this parliament is going to interfere with the rights of the provinces. I know in my own province it is a live question, and one that we will hear a great deal more about in the very near future, unless legislation in this House takes a different course from what it has taken in the last few years. I did propose in the Railway Committee an amendment to this Bill, providing that the legislation here sought for should have no force or effect, and should not go into operation until it had been sanctioned and approved by the legislature of British Columbia. In that way I thought we could excuse ourselves for making the enactment which is here proposed, because if the British Columbia legislature, after we had passed the Bill, sanctioned and approved of it, then I fail to see that the same complaint could be made of interference with their rights. I gave notice the following day after the Railway Committee sat that when this Bill came up for the third reading I would move an amendment ; but after hearing what the Prime Minister has said to-day, and seeing that the government is now prepared to accept the whole responsibility of this invasion of provincial rights, I decline to move my amendment.

I have noted two statements made by the hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Henderson). He said in the first instance that he knew nothing whatever of the character of this Bill, and then he proceeded to add that it was a clear invasion of provincial rights. I think, in view of those statements my hon. friend may readily be excused for not moving his amendment.

Mr. W. A. GALLIHER (Cariboo).

This Bill is in my name. I must say I admire the persistence of the hon. member for Hal-tou (Mr. Hendejreon), for he raised liis voice in opposition to it when it was first brought before the Railway Committee, and was referred to a sub-committee to report. The sub-committee reported favourably on. the Bill without amendment. When that report was adopted by the committee, my hon. friend again raised his voice against it. So I say I admire his persistence, although it has been of little avail so far. Now the province of British Columbia is not complaining at all with regard to this Bill. In fact I think if my hon. friend who has just spoken will look at section 216, of the Railway Act, he will see that it is an open question, when a line of railway like this connects with a trunk line of railway run-

ning out of tlie province, whether it is not by virtue of that fact under the control of the Dominion government and becomes a work for the general benefit of Canada. However, we did not wish that there should be any doubt upon the question, and hence the Bill was brought forward. As to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Halton, it would seem to me a strange proceeding for this parliament to pass an Act incorporating a railway company, or declaring an existing railway company incorporated by provincial legislation, an Act for the general advantage of Canada, and after doing so we should say, we will refer it bade to the provincial legislature to see if they are agreeable to our doing it. It seems to me we would be stultifying ourselves. This Bill is similar to a number of others. It charters a railway that will connect with a trunk line, namely the Canadian Pacific Railway. The amendment of 1903, which the hon. gentleman has spoken of, was an amendment with regard to the extension of time, if I recollect correctly.

Eton. Mr. HAGGART.

What is the principal object of the Bill ?

Mr. GALLIHER.

So far as I understand, the railway, if constructed, is to connect with the Canadian Pacific Railway at Kamloops. That I think is the chief reason. As I said before, it seems to me that it is an open question whether the fact of its coming under section 216 of the Railway Act does not make it a work for the general advantage of Canada.

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

We have the opinion of the Minister of Railways that there is no doubt as to what the law was.

Mr. GALLIHER.

I would certainly treat that with all respect.

There has been a great deal of discussion in the Railway Committee as well ds in the House in respect to this phrase ' for the general advantage of Canada,' and our friends on the other side of the House have constituted themselves the champions of provincial rights. It is a curious thing that the party that has always upheld the doctrine of provincial rights are being placed by our friends on the other side in the position of those who are trying to usurp from the provinces certain powers which they possess. This feeling has been worked up assiduously by our friends on the other side and in their newspapers, and the various municipalities are really beginning to believe that there is a determined attempt being made by the government to take away from the provinces and the municipalities rights which belong to them. I received a communication from the municipality of Brantford asking me to see that their rights were not interfered with by this government as if there were a determined 1 202

attempt on the part of this government to deprive them of their municipal rights. I wrote back to my friends in Brantford saying that there was no desire or disposition to interfere with rights belonging to the municipalities and the provinces, that nothing could be farther from the intention of the government than to take away from the provinces and municipalities any rights that belong to them, that the Liberal party would be the last to think of doing that, that they had been the defenders of provincial rights in past years, and therefore, that they could rest in peace, feeling assured that this parliament would not interfere with municipal or provincial rights. I take this position now, that if there is any doubt at all as to what our legal rights are, if we are going to err let us err in favour of the provinces. Let them manage their affairs as far as possible and let us not interfere with provincial or municipal rights. I know it is not the intention of the government nor of any hon. gentleman on this side of the House to interfere in the slightest degree with the doctrine of provincial rights, apprehension in regard to which is being worked up by our friends on the other side of the House, for political purposes. Such an interference is entirely contrary to the principles of their party and contrary to the principles of the party to which I belong.