Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to ask the government what is the reason for the delay in granting flats to a number of petitions of right, I believe over thirty in all, which were asked for in the month of September and October, 1907, in regard to claims for compensation for lands taken by the commissioners for the Transcontinental railway in the county of Madawaska in the province of New Brunswick. It would appear that although these petitions of right were filed, and fiats were asked for more than three years ago, no fiat has been granted up to the present time. The right of expropriation involves a certain sacrifice of private interest for the public good. When it is exercised, it seems to me that the subject, whether his claim be against a corporation or against the Crown, ought to have the right to make that claim good in the courts. These claims have been standing for three years, and I would like an explanation as to the cause of the delay in issuing fiats.

Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH.

The cases of lands taken in the county of Madawaska along the line of the Transcontinental railway have been a matter of consideration, and of discussion with the hon. gentleman who represents that county in this House by the Department of Justice for a good many months, and there has been considerable difficulty and delay in regard to them caused by the view which has been taken of the applicability of the provisions of the Expropriation Act to lands taken for the line of the Transcontinental railway. I gave to the question the best consideration that I was able, upon the language of the Transcontinental Railway Act, and the provisions enacted by this parliament with reference to the manner in which the construction of that line was to be carried out, and I was of opinion, from such examina-125

tion of its provisions, that notwithstanding the constitution of the Board of Transcontinental Railway Commissioners, land taken for the construction of the line was land expropriated by the Crown, and therefore that the provisions of the Expropriation Act would have application, and that an information filed in the name of the Attorney General for the condemnation of any land which was requisite for that purpose would properly bring the question for consideration before the Exchequer Court. Such proceedings were taken, not with reference to lands in Madawaska, although I think that in some instances of lands taken in that section of the province of New Brunswick, fiats were given or expropriation proceedings initiated upon information. Some cases, however, from other parts of the province of New Brunswick came not long ago before the learned judge in the Exchequer Court for disposition, and he reached the conclusion after consideration that the lands so taken could not be considered as expropriated by the Crown, but that they were taken by the Board of Transcontinental Railway Commissioners for the purposes of their work, and, in that view, that the method of proceeding under the Expropriation Act would not have application. Not considering that that disposition of the matter was a satisfactory one, instructions were given to appeal from that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. Such an appeal has been taken, but has not been heard by the Supreme Court. It will be heard, I have no doubt, at the sittings which begin to-day, and as soon as we have had an authoritative pronouncement on the subject from the Supreme Court, it will be either unnecessary to make any amendment of our present expropriation statute or it will be a matter for consideration whether that course should be taken. With regard to the granting of a petition of right in such circumstances to the land owner, let me say just one word. I have had no reason to change my view that it is more in the interest of the land owner himself that the proceedings for ascertaining the amount of compensation should be initiated by the government-upon information of the Attorney General than upon a petition of right. There is perhaps no great practical difference, but there

is this important difference in the matter of expense to the land owner that if instead of allowing him to proceed by petition of right, the Crown takes the initiative and lodges the information, exactly the same result is obtained, but the Crown is in the position of tire actor or plaintiff, and the burden of the preliminary expense is taken off the shoulders of the land owner and assumed by the Crown. For that reason I have encouraged that course of procedure rather than by giving the land owners fiats for petitions of right and in almost every instance-I know of no exception-that course has met with the approval of the land owners.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

If I might be pardoned, I would like to say that I do not think these men should be subjected to the delay and inconvenience of having fine points of construction of statutes decided by the Supreme Court or any other court. Their lands have been taken, in this case they seem to have been taken three or four years ago, and a cheap and inexpensive method of ascertaining the amount of compensation to be given ought to have been provided in the first instance. If there is any doubt about their right to pursue such a course, that doubt should have been removed by statute long ago. I do not think that these men should be obliged to endure this long delay caused by the proposed appeal to the Supreme Court. They have been waiting three or four years now, and I do not think they should be saddled with one day's delay more than is absolutely necessary.

Mr. BLAIN.

Are the government willing to lay on the table from day to day the very large number of protests sent in with respect to the proposed reciprocity agreement. These are documents which should be in the possession of the House, and we had the promise of the right hon. the Prime Minister that they would be laid on the table from day to day. I have a copy of one with, a very large number of signatures from operatives in the Hamilton cotton mills, and another from the pork packing industry, and I think there is also one from business men in Toronto.

Mr. FIELDING.

These protests are not brought down from day to day, but at several times we have brought down papers called for. Every day something comes in, and not all on the one side. We have not only protests against the agreement but also the other side, but my hon. friend evidently does not desire to have these.

Mr. BLAIN.

I did not draw any particular distinction. I was assuming that Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH.

the bulk of the protests were against the proposition, but I would be very glad if the Finance Minister would lay all the documents on the table, as they would be all equally valuable. We ought to have a definite answer in this matter, and I would like to know whether or not the government propose to have these on the table from day to day.

Mr. FIELDING.

I have not heard the proposition before, and, therefore, am not at liberty to answer it definitely.

Mr. BLAIN.

A few days ago a similar request was made, and the right hon. the Prime Minister promised that he would bring these down from day to day.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

I beg my hon. friend's pardon.

Mr. BLAIN.

On February 14, following a request from the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) with respect to a delegation from the Vegetable and Fruit Growers' Association I asked would there be any objection to have the views of the pork packing industry delegation which interviewed the government submitted to the House so that we might have full knowledge of their statements, and the Prime Minister replied ' no objection, whatever.' Everything will be brought down.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

That does not mean from day to day. I have brought in the proceedings of the pork packers delegation, and am laying it on the table, and intend following this by a report of the delegation of the fruit and vegetable growers. I shall do more, I shall have these printed.

Mr. BLAIN.

Any on the other side

Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved :

That the report of proceedings between the delegation of Fruit and Vegetable Growers and the Prime Minister and members of the government held in the House of Commons on the 10th February inst., be printed for the use of members, and that rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto. Also that memoranda presented by the Meat Pakers of Ontario and Quebec be printed.