Mr. J. B. MORIN (Dorchester).

Some time ago I put a question on the paper asking how much the government received annually from the Quebec Central Railway Company for the passage of its trains over the Intercolonial from Harlaka to Levis and any other services. I was asked to move for a return and therefore I beg to move for-

A copy of all statements, documents and papers showing how much the government has received annually from the Quebec Central Railway Company from 1896 to 31st December, 1903: (a) for the passage of its trains over the Intercolonial from Harlaka to Levis; (b) for the storage of its freight; (c) for water supplies; (d) for any other services.

MONK (Jacques Cartier) moved for :

Copy of all correspondence between the post office authorities and Henry Goodrich, of Mount Royal Vale, in reference to his resignation as a post office employee?

He said : This is a motion for papers

in connection with the resignation of a postal employee in the city of Montreal, who seems to have been compelled to tender his resignation under circumstances of very great hardship. The correspondence seems to cover only four or five pages and can be very easily brought down. I would like

it to be brought down as soon as possible so that when the estimates of the Post Office Department are taken up, I will be in a position to expose the grievance in this matter.

Mr. BARKER.

8th. That in order to provide for connection with the Atlantic sea-board all the year round and through an all-British territory route, your petitioners will be prepared to enter into an arrangement with the government for an interchange of traffic, or other satisfactory agreement, with the Intercolonial Railway at Montreal, or to consider such other proposal as the government may submit.

Let me read with that an even more significant clause. I call the attention of the House to the fact that this application is on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific and not in behalf of the Grand Trunk :

9th. That your petitioners would have the advantage of all the eastern connections, in Ontario and Quebec, of the Grand Trunk Railway, and by this means on the completion of the transcontinental line there would be estab-

lished and opened up a complete system from ocean to ocean.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what does that mean ? Here we have the Grand Trunk Pacific proposing to build a line from Port Simpson to North Bay. They point out to the government that they would have the advantage, as they call it-and it certainly would be an enormous advantage-of the connections through Ontario and Quebec of the existing Grand Trunk Railway, whereby, of course, they would reach Montreal. And, under clause S they tell the government that they were ready to make such arrangements that their traffic arriving at Montreal would there be turned over to the Intercolonial. Why, Sir, to say that that is not an important matter for this House to consider when discussing this transcontinental railway is merely trifling with words. There could be nothing more important, I venture to say, in the whole of the discussion we had last year, than the fact that the Grand Trunk Pacific were prepared to build to North Bay or to a point north of North Bay, and that, as to such traffic as should come through Ontario and arrive at Montreal, instead of its being left open to the great risk-the more than risk, the absolute certainty-of most of it going to Portland, they would enter into an arrangement with the government whereby it should go over the Intercolonial to Canadian seaports. Why, Sir, that was the very thing we were spending weeks in contending for, and if that document had been produced, we should have been able to show that the government had had submitted to them. Yet, we are told that nothing in this document affected the question. What did the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) say ?

I want to know was there anything in that correspondence-

That is what he calls this petition.

*-which, if it hatl been brought down would have been of any service to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House ?

Why, what could have been of more service than the production of these two clauses to show that it was within the power of the government to arrange that every pound of traffic that should go over the Grand Trunk Pacific to Montreal w'ould be secured for Canadian ports ? He says :

Is there anything in it which would have helped them in the discussion?

Well, I think if we had had an opportunity of using it the hon. gentleman would have heard the proposal discussed pretty fully.

This document proposed arrangements for the construction of a railway from the Pacific to North I fay. subsidized by the country, and it proposed the use of the Grand Trunk thence to Montreal, with arrangements to deliver the traffic to the Intercolonial Railway for carriage from Montreal to the Atlantic ports through Canadian territory-and

ill] this he thinks did not concern us. Is there anything in it, he says, which could have helped them in the discussion ?

The right hon. gentleman adds :

This confidential letter was in my own possession. This is the explanation which I have to give to my hon. friends.

And that is the only explanation we get for the non-production of a document of such vast importance.

The hon. the Finance Minister, shortly after reading the document in full to this House, said :

We have not been dealing with any scheme touched l.y that document whatever.

He seems to have given so little heed to the discussion with regard to the danger of the diversion of the traffic from Canadian to American ports, that he could not see that these clauses, 8 and 9, had any bearing upon the subject. Well, I must say that when ministers pass over matters of that kind so lightly, I am not surprised that we have found so many ' blunders ' in this agreement from beginning to end. The hon. gentleman says his reason for not producing it was that it was a confidential document. Well, it is true that at the head of the copy of this document which has been read to the House there certainly is the word ' confidential,' but in such a matter as this, had the government any right to accept from any body of people a document containing such a proposition, to entertain that proposition, and to conceal it from parliament ? What right has a government to deal in such a way with public matters ? If the right hon. gentleman did not feel at liberty to treat that proposition ns a business proposal should be treated by the government, why did he not return it to them and say : I cannot entertain it ? He could have done that, and then he could have said to parliament : I did receive a proposition, but it was marked ' confidential and knowing my duty to parliament and to the country I refused to entertain it, and I returned it. There could be no objection to that. But the hon. gentleman, although he says he did not entertain it, told us in answer to the question I put the other day, that it was entertained, that is to say, that it was submitted to the cabinet. We have not yet seen the answer sent by the government to these gentlemen. I presume when the government receives a written application of that kind they do not give a verbal answer. I presume there was an answer to that application. How is it that that answer has not been brought down ? The hon. gentleman read the document to the House after obtaining Mr. Hays's permission, and yet he does not read the answer. Surely we ought to have everything. And what more. I ask, is there behind all this ? Must we drag every paper out of the hon. gentleman ? Are we to cross-examine him ? Surely that is not

treating the House property. Surely we have a right to complain, and X do complain, and I think my complaint is justified after what has passed.

When the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) asked for these papers-specified with the utmost particularity-how is it that on that occasion the right hon. gentleman knowiug that this document was in existence, having in his mind-as he must have had in his mind at that moment-this very paper, knowing it was one of the documents that this side of the House wanted to see. Why was it that he did not then ask Mr. Hays's permission to produce it to the House ? All he had to do, even according to his own view of it, was to send a telegram to Mr. Hays, saying: I am asked to produce all the papers relating to this transcontinental railway. Have you any objection to my producing your confidential letter ?-and the permission would have been granted. But it did not suit lion, gentlemen opposite to produce it. It would have furnished an argument to this side of the House, it would have furnished information to the public of the utmost importance, somewhat adverse to the government scheme, but still of great value to this House, which desired to arrive at an intel-' ligent judgment upon this matter. The hon. gentleman did not choose to ask permission to produce that document. It was only when it suited the Finance Minister to use it, when he thought it would give him some little advantage, that it was produced. The moment the Finance Minister wanted to use it, the right hon. gentleman stirred himself up and got permission. He could have got that permission just as readily before, and could have complied with the order of the House to produce every document and, as he himself said, without any equivocation. I point that out to the right hon. gentleman, and I think it requires some explanation from him. I say again, if he could get that consent so readily, when he wanted to use the paper, why did he not get that consent when he knew this House wanted the paper? The House had ordered him to produce the paper, and yet he would not ask permission of the only man apparently, whose consent was required.

Then knowing that the House wanted such a paper as that, knowing that it was an important document and that it was in his possession, why did the hon. gentleman go out of his way to use such particularly emphatic language as to say to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) : I tell you without any equivocation at all that you have all the papers ? A most extraordinary statement, surely. I have known hon. ministers to refuse to bring down papers in this House on the ground that the public interest required that they should not be produced ; but I never yet heard a minister deny the possession of papers, and then use the fact that the public Mr. BARKER.

interest was against their production as a reason for denying their existence.

The l'ight hon. gentleman, in as plain terms as if he had said there was no such paper in existence, conveyed that to my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier. He was free to say that which he did not say : We

have produced everything but confidential papers that we are not at liberty to produce. He did not choose to do that. He said, we have produced everything. Did any one ever hear of a minister of the Crown saying that he had produced every paper relating to a particular subject and when afterwards he was found in possession of a particular document saying : Oh, I did-not produce that because it was against the public interest ? Did the hon. gentleman qualify his language at the time by saying that he produced only the papers that the public were entitled to ? The right hon. gentleman did not pursue that course. He had no trouble at all about plainly saying that he had produced everything. He put himself in the very awkward position that he practically denied having possession of any other documents than those which he produced. The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) does not seem to have much trouble on that score. He says if you have a confidential document you are not only justified in not producing it but when you are asked a question about it you can ignore it. I think treating the matter in that way would put the hon. gentleman in a very equivocal position. I think it would be a great deal more straightforward on all such occasions for the hon. gentleman to say : I have a document of a confidential character which I am not at liberty to produce. If that had been done we would have known there were documents behind and we would have inquired as to the propriety of the non-production of them on that ground. But we were misled. We were led to suppose that there were no such documents. The hon. Minister of Finance gets over it by saying : You are entitled to ignore it ;

in effect you are entitled to say you have no such document because it is one that you ought not to produce. I do not think I am over-stating his language. 11 will give it exactly as he uttered it. He says at page 3837 of the unrevised 1 Hansard ' :

-and I dispute the contention of the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker), that in bringing down a return or in answering a question in this House a minister is hound to take notice of any documents that are confidential. Such documents must he ignored.

That is the way that the hon. Minister of Finance puts it. In other words we can make you our answer as if no such document ever existed. Surely I need not argue that point. It is not arguable that such a thing can be proper. You may refuse to produce a document for special reasons, but to contend that you may ignore

its existence when you are questioned as to it is anything but creditable to the hon. gentleman who makes that proposition. Hon. gentlemen opposite refused to produce this particular document apparently on the ground that they did not grant the request, that they did not act upon the application. Well that is an extraordinary position for a responsible ministry to take before parliament under our constitution. It is that ministers can receive documents as ministers,- consider them and refuse an application in which the country is vitally interested, and that is to be the end of the question. We need not discuss whether the particular terms of this application -were favourable or unfavourable. The ministers simply decide for themselves that they are unsatisfactory and refuse it. How do hon. gentlemen opposite know but that parliament would take a different view of it ? Are we to be shut off on such a question as this by the opinion of. the ministers ? Is this a star chamber government ? Are they to settle questions of such vital moment to the country as this, and are we to have no opportunity of considering the proposition ? This might be a proposition that the government, fairly and honestly considering it, may have thought unwise to accept, but parliament in its wisdom might have thought that ministers were wrong. Surely this parliament had the right to know what tiiat proposition was. Though it might have been the worst possible proposition, we were just as much entitled to know its terms as entitled to see what that proposition was as if it were the very best. If this thing can be done the right hon. gentleman and his ministers can decide the whole affairs of this country and only let parliament know what it suits them to let it know. I repeat, Sir, that under no circumstances whatever can the withholding of that paper be justified. It is obvious to every person that the right hon. gentleman was ready to use that paper -when it suited the party purposes of the government and that he was ready to conceal it so long as it suited the purposes of the government to have it concealed. Hon. gentlemen on his side of the House could know what were the terms of the proposition that we were debarred from knowing. Does the right hon. gentleman think that is consistent conduct ? Surely, if the paper were confidential, it was confidential for all purposes. How could any person with propriety be allowed to know anything of the contents of a confidential paper concealed from this House ? We first of all were entitled to a knowledge of it. 'Will the right hon. gentleman say that nobody knew of it ? He says that he submitted it to his cabinet ? Was it not communicated to anybody else ? Did anybody else know of it ? Does the right hon. gentleman mean to say that he took none of his supporters into his confidence, none of the gentlemen from the Northwest Territoiries or any other gentleman, that this was an absolute secret to everybody until he got Mr. Hays's permission to read it to this House ?

I doubt that the right hon. gentleman will say so.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

What is that?

Mr. BARKER.

I doubt very much that the right hon. gentleman will say that no person on his side of the House, other than his colleagues, was aware of the contents of that paper until it was read in this House ? Now, that is all I have to say.

I move this resolution with the distinct intimation to hon. gentlemen opposite that it includes every document of every character whatever which relates to this subject matter.

Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).

I have no objection whatever to the passage of the resolution, nor would I have objection to make to the speech which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) delivered, were it not for certain expressions, which if they are to be taken seriously, were meant to be offensive. I do not think that I should go that far with the hon. gentleman, for perhaps he did not measure as he might have done, the language made use of by him. Parliament is entitled to all the information in the possession of the government with respect to public matters, but my hon. friend who is a business man will I think agree, that there is a way and a way of doing business. Not only with regard to public business, but even in private intercourse between man and man, it is the privilege of one man to approach another confidentially, to put his proposition either verbally or in writing, and if in writing it is his privilege to ask that it be treated as confidential. I do not think that proposition will be gainsaid by anybody. If it be a part of the amenities of civilized life : in fact, if it be a condition without which civilized intercourse cannot exist, that there should be respect for the confidence of another, then the hon. gentleman will have to revise somewhat the language which he used. The hon. gentleman, in speaking of the document as he called it can, as I am prepared to call it, which was marked 'confidential ' by the persons who sent it to me as head of the government, said : Had the

government the right to receive such a document, to entertain it. and to keep it for themselves ? I say no. If the government had received, and if they had entertained such a paper, even though it be marked confidential, they could not have kept it for themselves. I assert that most distinctly. But, when that government receives a paper which is. marked * confidential,' and when they do not entertain the proposition therein contained, then I think the government would be quite justified in doing even what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) suggested,

that is, to return the document to those from whom it came. I might have returned the document and perhaps I should have returned it, but that idea did not occur to my mind. At any rate if we had returned the document to its authors, then, according to the hon. gentleman, we would not only have been within our rights but within our duty. However, not having entertained the prayer of that document, and not having returned it to the parties who sent it to me, I believe X was quite justified in not filing it upon record in the department. The prayer of the petition was ignored and there was nothing of interest to the public in it after that. At all events I so treated it. Let me ask now : what rule shall be laid down by parliament in a matter of this kind ? Shall the rule be that when a motion is passed by parliament for papers, then, every paper and every letter which may have been sent to a minister, though marked ' confidential ' shall be given to the public ? Does the hon. gentleman pretend that parliament is entitled to every letter which a minister may receive, whether it is marked ' confidential ' or not ? I do not think the hon. gentleman will go that far. I think he will acknowledge that there must be a certain limit. I repeat that in my judgment, if a paper is marked confidential, and if the prayer of that document is ignored, then under such circumstances it remains a purely private matter, although of course if the proposition in the document be accepted and its prayer granted, then even though marked ' confidential ' it becomes a public document. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) made an insinuation which I want to meet here and now. He said that he doubted if this paper had not been submitted to certain supporters of the government. Well, I do not know what he means by that, although I would think the remark rather offensive, but I have to say to the hon. gentleman as I said the other day : that this document has not been shown by me to anybody outside the cabinet ; that document never went out of my hands and never was shown to anybody outside the members of the government.

Mr. B. L. BORDEN.

Nor its contents disclosed to anybody outside the government V

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Its contents-I am not aware that I ever disclosed them. I will not say that the proposition gor the extension of a railway across the continent may not have been discussed by me with some parties, but so far as my recollection goes at this moment. I do not think that I ever spoke to any person in the world, outside of my colleagues in the government, of the proposition which had been made and which was sent to me in the month of November in the year 1902. I may say, though it is of no consequence to the House, that being in poor health at that time I left for the south in the month of November and did Sir WILFRID LAUR1BR.

not come back until the middle of January, when the negotiations were-I will not say renewed because there had not been any negotiations-but when the new communication was made by the Grand Trunk Pacific, of which the House is aware.

Now, Sir. am I to understand that my hon. friend and his colleagues on the other side, are prepared to contend that when a proposition of any kind is made confidentially to the government, and is not entertained by the government, it is, under such circumstances, a communication which must be made public ? If that be the contention of the hon. gentlemen opposite, I must say that I do not agree with it. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) must not expect that the government could do. must do, or would do what he himself would not do in his own private business. If the hon. gentleman is approached by a party who makes a confidential proposition to him and ask him to treat it as confidential, I have too much respect for his honour to believe that he would divulge that communication and betray that confidence, I am rather inclined to believe that the hon. gentleman would treat it as a sacred secret belonging to the party who approached him. Is it to be expected, in the multitude of business which must engage the attention of the government ; in the multitude of applications which must come daily before the government, there are none which may be asked to be treated confidentially by the party who makes them, but that they must all go into the archives of the government ? Is it to be expected that none of these communications are to be included in the private correspondence of a minister ? I treated this communication as confidential.

I did not think that it was a public document ; I believe that it was not a public document when its prayer was not acceded to by the government. But, when hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House stated in the course of this debate, that the Grand Trunk Company first approached the government and offered to build a railway from North Bay to the Pacific ocean for the ordinary subsidy, and when these gentlemen repeated it again, and again, and again, apparently convincing themselves that it was a fact, then, Sir, I thought it was time to ask the parties who made the proposition if they would agree to have the seal of secrecy removed so that the truth as to their proposition might be laid before the House.

If that document' was not produced in deference to the order of the House because it was considered confidential, why was it not considered confidential until the end of the debate ?

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

It was considered a confidential document all through; but before making use of it I asked Mr. Hays if he would remove the seal of secrecy and give me permission to use it.

Mr. CLARKE.

Why was that not asked before 1

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Because it was not the proposition before the House, but when nay hon. friend and other hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House stated that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company were prepared to build a line from North Bay to the Pacific ocean for the ordinary subsidies, a statement which was absolutely contrary to the facts, then we asked that the facts should be known and laid hefore the public. We think the House is entitled to all information which is in the hands of the government. I have no objection to this motion passing, and I shall take good care to have all the corners swept and all the files searched, and to have the clerks use all the brooms they can use to sweep up all the information we can obtain for the hon. gentleman. But does he mean to say that thisi should include all the private correspondence that may be sent to me or to my colleagues ? Is the proposition to be laid down that private letters, even documents which are marked private, and before the seal of secrecy is removed from them, are to form part of the information to which the House is entitled ? I am not prepared to say so. The hon. gentlemen made use of an expression to which I think I have a right to take exception. He said that I had concealed from the House information to which the House was entitled. I do not agree with him, and I think I have a right to take exception to that expression. I may have been right or I may have been wrong in my judgment. Not only in this instance, but in all instances since I have been at the head of the government, I have regarded it as my duty, whenever a confidential document has been placed in my hands, to keep it confidential until such time as the seal of secrecy has been removed from it. That is the position I take to-day. On this point, let me quote from Todd's Parliamentary Government, as follows :

Considerations of public policy, and a due regard to the interests of the state, occasionally demand, however, that information sought for by members of the legislature should be withheld, at the discretion and upon the general responsibility of ministers. This principle is systematically recognized in all parliamentary transactions; were it otherwise' it would be impossible to carry on the government with safety and honour. Whenever it is declared, by the responsible servants of the Crown, that any information sought for in parliament could not be supplied without inconvenience to the public service, or for other sufficient reasons, the House refrains from insisting upon its production.

This authority, in my opinion, applies to the present case. Ministers receive letters every day which are confidential, though on public matters ; others are private ; others are public without any qualification. They

all go on record. Confidential communications, though relating to the public service, do not go on record at once, though they may later on. There may be circumstances in which ministers of the Crown must take the responsibility of saying whether or not documents which are of a public character should or should not be brought down to the House. They have a discretion in that respect; but I did not claim any such discretion in this case. The hon. gentleman commented, I will not say offensively, but in a manner to suggest something wrong, when he stated that I had not given a candid answer to my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) when last year I told him without any equivocation that all the information had been brought down. I repeat now what I said then. Everything that was on the public files had been brought down ; nothing had been reserved at all. But the hon. gentleman insinuated that I had been equivocating because at that time I had in my possession a confidential document. There was no equivocation on my part at all, because I take the ground that all documents which are confidential, which are not on the files and archives of the government, are in the sole custody of the minister who has received them, and cannot be brought down. Then, Todd goes on to say :

In 1869, ministers agreed to an order for certain papers concerning Fenianism, but finding on close inspection that ' their publication could he attended with no public advantage,' and that ' they contained matter which it is contrary to our public duty as ministers to be parties to laying before the House,' they determined to ask the House to rescind the order, which was done on a division.

On that occasion papers had been ordered, hut the ministers found that it would not be to the public advantage to bring down all the papers which were on file, and they asked the House to rescind the order. Todd goes on further to say ;

And If the government object to produce any documents, on the ground that they are of a private and confidential description, it is not usual to insist upon their being furnished, except under peculiar and imperative circumstances.

Mr. SniuULE. May I ask the right hon. gentleman if it is not the custom, when parliament is pressing for papers which are supposed to be in the possession of the government, and which have not been presented to parliament, for the government to answer that all documents have been brought down except such as are of a confidential nature. That is the usual answer.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon-that is not the usual answer. I do not believe that confidential papers are ever intended to be brought down to parliament until they cease to have a confidential character, and become public.

For instance, if we had entertained this very proposition from Messrs. Cox. Hays and Wainwright, that moment it would have been placed among the archives of the government, and might be brought down. But as it was not entertained, it was of a private character.

Mr. CLARKE.

On what date did this document lose its confidential character ?