*JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved :: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved :: That a Select Committee composed of Messrs. Borden (Halifax), Bourassa, Brock, Calvert,

Casgrain, Clancy, Clark, Demers (St. John and Iberville), Flint, Fraser, Heyd, Hyman, Johnston (Lambton), Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Monk, Seott and Wade be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in the direction of the Library of Parliament so far as the interests of this House are concerned, and to act as members of a joint committee of both Houses on the Library ; and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved for leave to place on the Table of the House certain papers in respect to the capital stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries for the year ended June 30, 1901 (Marine).-Hon. Mr. Sutherland.
Report of the Department of Railways and Canals for the year ended June 30, 1901.-Hon. Mr. Blair.
Civil Service List of Canada for the year ended June 30, 1901.-Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick.


Mr. CLARKE asked :: 1.	Has the government received any application, and, if so, from whom, for permission to erect a monument or memorial to General Montgomery, who unsuccessfully assailed the city of Quebec, in December, 1775, with a force of American troops ?
2.	Has the government granted the prayer of such application 7
3.	AVill the monument or memorial, if any, be erected on property belonging to the government
of Canada ?
4.	Have petitions been received by the government, if so, from whom, protesting against permission being given to erect such monument or memorial ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: My hon. friend, remembers I am sure, the answer which I gave last session to similar inquiries. I have now to inform the hon. gentleman that so far as my memory serves me at this moment there has been no petition presented to the government to have a monument erected to the memory of Montgomery. I am not aware that any protest has come to us. At all events no action has been taken on this matter since last session.



DOMINION CENSUS.-EXPENDITURE.

Mr. CLARKE asked :: What sums have been paid out to date in connection with the taking of the recent census of
the Dominion ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: These figures are in the course of preparation and will be down in a day or two.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The question stands in the meantime.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.



MAIL STEAMERS.-RATE OF SPEED.

Edward Frederick Clarke: What was the average speed per hour made during the year 1901 by steamships carrying British and Canadian mails from ports in the United Kingdom to Canadian porta ; and from Canadian ports to ports in the United Kingdom respectively ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: 

THE TUBERCULAR TEST.

Mr. BENNETT asked :: Is the government aware that at a meeting held on the 5th day of February, instant, in the city of Toronto, the following resolution was passed unanimously by the Shorthorn Breeders' Association:	'We, the members of the Dominion Shorthorn Breeders' Association, at our annual meeting, resolved that the tubercular test is unreliable, unnecessary, and in many cases injurious, and that we urge the discontinuance of the compulsory use of toxine by the Dominion Government Department of Agriculture ; and we also fail to see the object now of requiring 90 days' quarantine, as there is no contagious disease in Great Britain requiring its enforcement to such length of time.'
In view of the above action, is it the Intention of the government to meet the wishes of the said association ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: The government is



aware of this resolution. It is not the intention of the government to act in the direction indicated by the resolution.



RETIREMENT OP JUDGES.

William Humphrey Bennett: Is the Prime Minister correctly reported in the Hansard of April 24th, 1899, as having stated that ' the question of introducing legislation to provide for the compulsory retirement of county court judges in the province of Ontario who had attained the age of seventy-five years was under the consideration of the government.'
If correctly reported, is legislation to such end to be introduced this session ?
If such legislation is introduced, will similar legislation be introduced in reference to the Judges of the Supreme Court of Canada and Judges of the High Court of Justice in the province of Ontario ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hou. Charles Fitzpatrick).: It is the intention of the government to introduce this session, legislation for the purpose of supplementing that already in existence with respect to county court judges. So far as the Supreme Court and High Court of Justice is concerned, the matter has not yet been considered.



RAILWAY COMMISSION.

Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin) asked :: Is it the intention of the government to comply with the resolution passed during the last session relative to the appointment of a commission to inquire into and adjust all differences that may arise between the public and the railway companies of Canada ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I may say to the hon. gentleman that I*hope to make a definite announcement to the House on this subject at an early period.



DURATION OP ONTARIO LEGISLATURE.

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria) asked :: Has the government considered the Act passed at the last session of the Ontario Legislation extending its duration ?
Has it allowed the Act or is it the intention of the government to disallow it ?
If it is not to be disallowed, what are the reasons for non-disallowance ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The government has considered the Act passed at the last session of the Ontario legislature extending its duration. It is not the intention of the government to disallow the said Act. The reason is that the matter is altogether a domestic one entirely within the purview of the Ontario legislature.


Hon. Mr. FISHER.: 



DISMISSAL OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.

Mr. BELL (asked) :: 
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I will have to ask my hon. friend to be so kind as to move for a return for this information.
I.	C. R.-NUMBER OF OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES.
Ml'. BELL asked :
What was the total number of officials and employees, temporary and permanent, and what the total salaries and wages of the Intercolonial Railway on June 30th, 1896, and on December 31st, 1901 ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I will give the same answer to this as was given to the last question of the hon. gentleman.



CONSULAR AGENCIES IN CANADA.

Samuel Hughes: Has the custom of flying the flag of the nation represented at consular agencies in Canada been discontinued ? If so, why ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The custom of flying the flag of the nation represented at the consular agencies in Canada has not been discontinued.



PORT DUFFERIN WHARF.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax) asked :: 1.	What is the total cost to date of the shed on the government wharf at Port Dufferin, Halifax County ?
2.	What is the total amount of wharfage collected at the government wharf at Port Dufferin ?
3.	What is the total cost to date of the breakwater at Hawbold's Cove, Beaver Cove, in the County of Halifax ?
4.	What is the total cost of the wharf at Atkin's Point, Harrigan Cove, Halifax County ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte).: 1.	$214.10.
3.	Hawbold's Cove, Beaver Cove. This department has no record of any work of that time.
4.	Harrigan Cove. Wharf, total cost to date, $1,461.71.
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland) In answer to the second question, I may say that the total amount collected for 1899, was $510.57; for 1900, $138.11, and for 1901, $49.18.



THE CENSUS.-MR. COTE'S CIRCULAR.

Mr. CLARKE asked :: 1.	What was the total number of replies, by provinces, received to the circular issued on or about the 1st day of March, 1901, by Mr. Thomas Cotd, Assistant Census Commissioner, to certain clergymen, asking for the name, the age, and the occupation of every person formerly resident in the parish or territory over which such clergyman exercised spiritual oversight, who had emigrated to the United States during the twelve months preceding the said 1st day of March, 1901 ?
2.	What was the total number of persons so reported as above as having emigrated to the United States from each province of the Dominion during the year ending with the 1st March, 1901 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon Sydney Fisher).: 1.	Seventy replies in all were received, sixty-five from the province of Quebec, one from New Brunswick, three from Ontario, and one from Prince Edward Island.
2.	The number of persons reported by the parish priests as having emigrated to the United States during the twelve months preceding the 1st day .of March, 1901, is 870; twelve in New Brunswick, seventy-nine in Prince Edward Island, 779 in Quebec. There are also 108 families reported as having left the country, but their names and the number of their members were not given. One family was reported from Ontario and 107 from Quebec.


Mr. SPROULE.: I thought the exodus had stopped.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is a very small number.



BRONTE HARBOUR.

Mr. HENDERSON asked :: How much money has the government expended on Bronte Harbour Improvements to date ?
Is it the intention of the government to finally complete the proposed Improvements during the coming summer ?	,
What additional sum will still be required to complete the works ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte).: Up to this date the total amount spent on Bronte harbour has been $11,211,349. If my hon. friend will kindly look at the estimates for this year he will find that the sum of $3,000 has been placed to the credit of that work.



POSTMASTERSHIP OP MILTON, ONTARIO.

Mr. HENDERSON asked :: 1.	How long has the postmastership of Milton, Ont., been vacant ?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to fill such vacancy before the holding of the next provincial elections in Ontario ?
If so, who will be appointed to the said office ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock).: There is no post office 5J
known as Milton in the province of Ontario. There is an office of that name, but it is situated in the united counties of Shelburne and Queens, and the office of postmaster there is not vacant. Perhaps my hon. friend refers to the post office in the county town of Halton, and if he means that, it is known in the Post Office Department as Milton East. If that is the post office to which the hon. gentleman alludes, I will be happy to consider the question so amended and will give the information another day.


David Henderson: It never has been called Milton East.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That is the answer the department gives me. That is the departmental name of it.



BRONTE HARBOUR LIGHTHOUSE.

Mr. HENDERSON asked:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to erect., during the current year, a lighthouse at Bronte Harbour, in conformity with assurances given during the general elections in the year 1900 ?
2.	Has the location of said lighthouse been fixed, and at what particular point will it be placed ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hou. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I have to call the attention of my hon. friend to the fact that this question is out of order, as it embodies a statement, which is a subject of eontrovery.


David Henderson: I will eliminate the words ' in conformity with assurances given during the general elections in the year 1900.' Will the hon. gentleman allow the question to be answered in this form ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland).: There appears to be no file in the department regarding this matter.



THE DUTY ON TOBACCO.

David Henderson: What was the total amount of duty collected on tobacco for the year ending 30th June, 1901 ?
2. How much of this amount was due to the additional duty imposed in the session of 1897 ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE (Hon. M. E. Bernier).: The duty on tobacco collected during the year was $3,337,848.28 ; on cigars, $837,433.69; total, $4,175,281.97. The answer to the second question is; $1,026,265.72 on raw leaf; on cigarettes, $180,551.38; total, $1,206,817.10.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: I will supplement the answer with the following, in regard to the customs duty :-
1.	The total customs duty collected on tobacco (including raw leaf samples) for the year ending 30th June 1901, was $108,649.69.

2.	Of this sum the amount due to the additional customs duty imposed' in 1897 is 815,708.54.



OAKVILLE HARBOUR.

Mr. HENDERSON asked :: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to place in the estimates, this session, a sum sufficient to complete the construction of docks, repairs and dredging in Oakville Harbour ?
2.	What is the estimated amount that will be required for such purpse 7


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. Israel Tarte).: In answer to the hon. gentleman, I may say that he has only to be kind enough to look at the estimates to find that the amount of $4,000 has been placed there to the credit of Oakville harbour.



PROTECTION OP OYSTER PISHING.

Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1.	Have any regulations for the protection of the oyster fishing in the province of Prince Edward Island been issued by the government of Canada during the last year ?
2.	Is the lifting or digging of mussel mud by farmers prohibited in certain rivers of said province within lines defining boundaries ?
3.	What are the names of rivers so protected, and in which of the counties are they situated ?
The MINISTER OE MARINE AND E1SHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland) :
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Trout River, Prince County ; Bideford River, Prince County.



EMPLOYMENT OP MR. ERNEST KEMP.

Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1.	Is Mr. Ernest Kemp, the so-called oyster expert, employed during the present winter on the government steamship * Stanley,' plying between Summerside and Cape Tormentine ?
2.	If so, what are his duties, and is he required to report to the Department of Marine and Fisheries ?
The MINISTER OP MARINE AND E1SHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland) :
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



TRANSPORTATION QUESTIONS.

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria) asked :: 1.	What is the distance (a) from Chicago to
North Bay ?	(b) from Fort William to North
Bay ?
2.	What is the distance from, each, Chicago and Port William to Thessalon 7
3.	How many miles is Thessalon distant from Montreal more than North Bay 7
4.	How many points on Lakes Huron, Erie and Georgian Bay di the Canadian Pacific and the Grand Trunk Railways each touch 7 What are those points ?
5.	What would be the cost of the proposed canal into Lake Nipissiog from Georgian Bay 7
3.	What is the average depth of water in Lake Nipissing 7


Hon. Mr. PATERSON..: 7.	What would it probably cost to double track each of the following roads, and reduce the grades to 5-10 from the lake ports to Owen Sound, Collingwocd, Midland, Parry Sound, Thessalon, Sault Ste. Marie, Port William, Sarnia, Goderich, Kincardine, Port Elgin, Southampton, Wiarton, Sandwich, viz.: the Grand Trunk Railway, Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canada Atlantic Railway 7
8.	What is the distance from, each, Owen Sound, Collingwood, Midland, Parry Sound, the mouth of the French River, North Bay, and Thessalon, to Montreal 7
9.	What ports are there on the 'North Sl.ore ' of the Georgian Bay at which the ' Soo Line ' of the Canadian Pacific Railway touches 7
10.	What is the distances of each of these by rail from Montreal?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. Israel Tarte).: As far as the Department of Public Works is concerned, I lay on the Table of the House a map which we have prepared, which contains a good deal of the information which the hon. gentleman desires. A good many of the things which he is asking for cannot be produced in the House without a motion being made and a statement being prepared. Other departments will answer for themselves.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: So far as the question touches the Department of Railways and Canals, I have prepared a statement in answer to the question of the hon. gentleman so far as it is possible for us to answer them, and, if the hon. gentleman will permit me, I will hand the answer to ' Hansard.'
1.	The distance from Chicago to North Bay is 598 miles and from Port William to North Bay 544 miles (by water).
2.	The distance from Chicago to Thessalon is 368 miles, and from Fort William to Thessalon, 320 miles (by water).
3.	Thessalon is 212 miles further from Montreal than North Bay (by rail).
4.	The Grand Trunk Railway touches Lake Erie at the following points :-
It touches Port Erie, Port Colborne, Port Dover, Port Rowan and Port Stanley and the Georgian Bay at the following points : Wiarton, Owen Sound, Meaford, Collingwood, Penetanguishene and Midland. It touches Lake Huron at the following points :	Sarnia, Goderich Kincardine and
Southampton.
The Canadian Pacific Railway touches at no point on Lake Erie. On Lake Huron it touches at Spanish River, Cook's Mills and Algoma Mills. On the Georgian Bay it touches at Owen Sound.
5.	I cannot say at present.
6.	I cannot say at present.
7.	I cannot say at present.
8.	The distance by rail to Montreal from Owen Sound is 461 miles : from Collingwood, 428 miles : from Midland, 457 miles : from Parry Sound, 384 miles ; from mouth of French River. 433 miles : from North Bay, 364 miles ; from Thessalon, 576 miles.

9.	The ' Soo Line ' does not touch any
point on the Georgian Bay ; but on the north shore of Lake Huron, it touches the following points :	Spanish River, Cook's
Mills, Algoma Mills, Thessalon.
10.	From Spanish River to Montreal, 515 miles ; fi'om Cook's Mills, 528 miles ; from Algoma Mills, 538 miles ; from Thessalon, 576 miles.



CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO THE SOUTH AFRICAN WAR.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle) (Translation) moved for :
Copy of all papers and correspondence exchanged between His Excellency the Governor General, the Canadian government, or any of its members or departments, the officer commanding the Canadian militia, and the British authorities, in relation to the South African war, its conduct and its .settlement ; and the sending or recruiting of Canadian troops to South Africa,-for the three last years.
Mr. Speaker, I must say that some of these documents were brought down during the first session following the sending of the troops to Africa. I make this a general question, in order to cover all documents exchanged between His Excellency the Governor General, the Canadian government and the British authorities, in relation to the sending of the first and second contingent of the South African police force, and of the last contingent; including the correspondence exchanged between the Imperial authorities, the Canadian government and the South African authorities. In short, I ask that all matters concerning the South African question, and relating to Canada directly or indirectly, should be deposited before the House.
I make this motion, seconded by Mr. Monet (Laprairie-Napierville).
Motion carried.

Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle) moved:: Copy of all papers and correspondence relating to the disallowance of chapters 11 and 14 of the statutes of 1900, province of British Columbia, viz.: ' An Act to regulate immigration into British Columbia,' and ' An Act relating to the employment on works carried on under franchises granted by Private Acts.'
He said : I may say that the papers which I wish specially to have laid before parliament are those relating to the request that has been made by the British authorities to the Canadian government to disallow this legislation. Of course, the papers should include all the correspondence that has taken place between the British government and the Canadian government and all the correspondence that has taken place between the Canadian government and the government of British Columbia ; so that we may know exactly where each of these
three governments stands upon the question of disallowance of provincial laws.


Mr. RALPH SMITH (Vancouver).: I desire to second the motion before the House, because the information asked for is of very great importance, as it relates to the question of Chinese and Japanese labour in British Columbia. I would like to take this opportunity of asking the government when they will be prepared to bring down the report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into this question, which report, I presume, is already in their hands.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: So far as I know, the report of the Royal Commission has not yet been handed over to the government. It will be presented to the House as soon as it is received.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle) (Translation) moved, seconded by Mr. Monet (Laprairie-Napierville) for :
Copy of all papers and correspondence exchanged between Canadian and British authorities, with reference to the embargo imposed by the British government on Canadian cattle.
I wish to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) for a moment, while making this motion, Mr. Speaker, and before going any further, I must declare at once, that all correspondence exchanged in the matter, if any, should be deposited before this House ; but if the hon. minister tells me that there exists no corespondence in the matter, then I will let my motion drop.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney A. Fisher).: There is very little correspondence on this subject in the department. I might, however, take the opportunity of saying to the hon. gentleman and to the House that when I was in England last summer I had a number of personal communications on this subject with the hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Minister of Agriculture there. I laid before them with all the force of which I was capable the facts of the case and the reasons which led me to believe that the occasion was opportune for a different treatment of Canadian cattle in the home market from what has been accorded to our animals lately. I was met with the reply that the question was now a question of statute or law, and not in the power of the government or the department to regulate it by order in council or by departmental action. The gentlemen whom I met informed me that they did not believe it was possible to amend the law in such a way as to enable Canadian cattle to enter

freely beyond the ports of debarkation. I pointed out-and I am glad to say that what I said was not in any way controverted- that the cattle in Canada to-day are remarkably free from any disease-that our Canadian cattle to-day enjoy a reputation for health certainly inferior to none in the world, and superior, 1 believe, to those of most other countries. The point was raised, however, that this was not the real objection at the present moment. Hon. Mr. Han-bury said that while he was quite ready to admit that Canadian cattle were perfectly healthy, disease might break out among them at any moment, and in such case the re-imposition of the old embargo would be a difficult matter, as it would cause greater disturbance in the trade and make the condition of affairs worse than if a settled policy were followed. In that view I did not agree, but I was perfectly powerless to influence the decision of the Imperial government. While I was in England many of those interested in the removal of the embargo communicated with me and pointed out that large interests in the old country desired the freer entry of Canadian cattle and the abrogation of the law compelling their slaughter at the port of debarkation within ten days of their arrival. I replied to these gentlemen that while I and my colleagues took every opportunity of urging our views on the government, nothing we could do would be nearly as effective as the efforts of the British people and their representatives themselves. The British people particularly interested did bestir themselves and a number of meetings were held. I had the opportunity of meeting the Board of Trade in Glasgow' and also a deputation from the Board of Trade in Aberdeen, and a number of other associations communicated with me either personally or by letter. This agitation culminated, shortly after I left England, in a meeting between Mr. Hanbury, Minister of Agriculture, and a large gathering called by the Board of Agriculture in Scotland. The meeting took place in Edinburgh, and the views of those who desired the embargo removed were laid before the Minister of Agriculture. But his reply was entirely unsatisfactory. Mr. Hanbury said that so long as he remained Minister of Agriculture, he would neither make nor advise any change in the law. And while the view's he put forward and the arguments he used did not appeal to me as at all sufficient, at the same time they showed tlie evident determination of the British government to maintain the status quo, and as the present British government is likely to remain in office some time longer, we may dismiss the idea of getting any concessions in the immediate future.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Does the embargo apply to cattle from all countries ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: Yes, it applies to all cattle coming into the Hon. Mr. FISHER.
United ivingnom from all countries. The argument was made that Canada was treated just the same as any other country, but Canada was not so treated in the past. In the past Canada enjoyed a privilege which the others did not. That was withdrawn, in the first instance, by the scheduling of our cattle in 1892, and afterwards the law was changed so that all cattle from foreign countries must be slaughtered in the port of debarkation, and Canada and the other colonies were included in the term ' foreign countries.' We are to-day in exactly the same position as all other countries, but previous to 1892 we were in a better position.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I understood the hon. minister to say that there is some correspondence, and as I intend bringing the matter up again before the House. I shall not go further into details. I wish, however, to take objection to the remark of the hon. gentleman that w'e should leave this thing at a standstill. I wms in England at the time the hon. gentleman speaks of, and I know' w'liat he did, I know the lectures he delivered and the efforts he made to have the embargo raised, and I know also how these efforts were seconded by some of the stock raisers in Scotland. Surely at a time when we are told that the attention of the British government and public is so much given to Canadian affairs, wre should not submit to this injustice without making the strongest protest. The reason given by Mr. Hanbury is not the real one, but of course it would not do for him to give expression to the actual reason why this embargo is imposed. A government wedded to free trade would hardly be expected to declare that the reason w'liieh is at the bottom of this restriction is that some wealthy stock raisers in England do not want Canadian competition. Yet, really it is nothing else than a measure of protection against Canadian competition. A few cases of pleuro-pneumonia from Canada, or rather from the United States, furnished a pretense for adopting it. But the disease was stamped out in this country, and there was no further reason of continuing the embargo. Nevertheless the British government passed a statute and branded our cattle as being infected with the disease, although as a matter of fact that disease is much more prevalent among the British stock. And were it not for this statute, w'liieh was passed in order to protect the big stock raisers in England. Britisli stock raisers would take Canadian cattle to improve their stock. If the British stock raisers want protection against Canada, let them frankly say so and not brand our cattle as being diseased and poisoned, while at the same time they are much sounder than the British stock. Returning this summer, I came across with an English stock raiser, and a wealthy English merchant from Birmingham. We talked about this matter.

Tlie merchant said to me : ' Of course, the statute as it exists, is a fine thing for my friend-referring to the stock raiser-it is a great thing for him and for others engaged in the same line of business. But, he added, whenever I want to be sure that I am not going to be poisoned, I do not buy the beef raised by my friend, but make a point of asking for Canadian beef.' I said to him :
' If you are so sure that our beef is better than yours, how is it that you leave your government and the protectors of your stock raisers to brand our cattle-and to announce it to the empire and the world-as being poisoned with pleuro-pneumonia.' I hold, Mr. Speaker, that we ought not to allow this session to pass without protesting by resolution, and without appealing to the British government which is supposed to love us so much, to do something to remove this crying injustice.


David Henderson: This is a vital question to the farmers of Canada. But, possibly, it can be discussed to greater advantage after the papers are brought down in response to the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Bourassa's) motion. I desire to say, however, that I am informed and believe that the lion. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) when in England during the past year, made a very broad statement to the effect that Canada did not ask any preference in the markets of Great Britain, that what we had done in the way of giving a preference to Great Britain was a free gift-we asked nothing in return. Now, if that is the hon. gentleman's view, I think that the appeal of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bour-assa) to the Minister of Agriculture to secure the removal of this embargo will not avail very much. I think that some person who holds a different opinion from that attributed to the Minister of Agriculture will have to be appealed to if Canada is to obtain any advantage in the British market


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is somewhat refreshing to hear the explanation given by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) to account for the refusal of the Imperial government to remove this embargo-it is especially refreshing to one who has been in this House for any length of time, and remembers the attacks that were made on the late government when the embargo was put on. The contention of lion, gentlemen opposite who were then on tills side was that the embargo was due to the fact that the government of that day were too lax in their quarantine regulations governing cattle from the United States, that there was a danger of importing contagious disease with the cattle from the United States, and so we might naturally expect such an embargo to be placed on our cattle going to Great Britain. It was stated that if the government did their duty and exercised a little of the sunny ways for which
hon. gentlemen then on this side were peculiarly noted, there would be no difficulty in getting the embargo removed. They said, in other words, that if able men occupied the treasury benches and made proper representation to the Imperial government, and also improved the quarantine regulation on cattle coming in from the United States, there would be no difficulty in having the embargo removed. The revolutions of time have led to these hon. gentlemen being charged with the duties of looking after this matter. They have, as they say, improved the quarantine regulations between Canada and the United States. And the hon. Minister of Agriculture goes over to Great Britain and asks the Imperial government to remove the embargo. The answer is, practically : We will not do it. Why ? The hon. minister gives various reasons; but, in my judgment, considering the information as it appeared in the press at the time of the hon. minister's visit, the reason for the nonremoval of the embargo was that it was a protection to the agriculturists in Eng-Iand and Scotland. Of course, the representatives of the Imperial government did not state that exactly. But they admitted that there was no disease among Canadian cattle. That being so, there was no object in keeping on an embargo intended to exclude diseased cattle from Canada. But notwithstanding this, the embargo is not removed. The hon. minister tells us that it is embodied in the statute, and the statute cannot be changed. Why cannot it be changed ? We change statutes every year of our lives, and the Imperial parliament does the same. I think there is a great deal in what the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) has said. I read in a British paper sent to me, I presume by the hon. minister himself, that the hon. minister stated to the English people : The preference we have given you in our markets we have given you freely, and we want nothing in return-we do not ask to be placed in a better position in your markets than outsiders are. And this he stated at the very time he was there asking for concessions and consideration. I do not think there is much Imperial policy in that. I do not think the expression of such an opinion will help to build up the inter-Imperial relations that we should like to see exist between the colonies and the mother country. In fact, the hon. minister went over to ask a concession, and when there, declared that he did not want concessions. It seemed to me more like child's play than what might be expected from an intelligent statesman. I do not wonder that the British government did not remove the embargo, particularly when the quarantine regulations which were said to be too lax in 1890 and 1891, are very much more lax to-day. British statesmen are aware of that as well as the Minister of Agriculture. The hon. gentleman, there-

fore, went over to Britain without being fortified as he should have been had lie desired to accomplish anything.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle) moved for :
Copy of all papers and correspondence exchanged between Canadian and British authorities In relation to the repeal of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, and the settlement of the Alaskan boundary.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I shall be obliged to ask my hon. friend not to press this motion. As he is aware, the negotiations regarding the Alaskan boundary are still going on. The correspondence is not complete and is not in form to be brought down. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will withdraw his motion.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Can the right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) say if it will be possible to bring down the correspondence relating to the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am afraid that the two eaunot be separated.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Will the right hon. gentleman be in a position to make another statement about this question before long, or, at least, before the present session is over?


The PRIME MINISTER.: That depends on what turn the negotiations with regard to the boundary may take. If the negotiations are not complete I shall feel it my duty to resist any motion for papers. If the correspondence is brought to a close and if the negotiations are ended, there will be no difficulty about bringing down the papers. In the meantime I am obliged to ask that the motion be withdrawn, or, if not, I shall feel it my duty to ask the House to negative it.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Of course, I quite understand that if the government have made up their minds-and I do not say they are wrong-it is useless for me to insist. For in moving for this correspondence, it is useless for me to hope to secure a majority of the House to support me. However, I will not withdraw the motion before I take occasion to state again that the country expects something-not so much concerning a settlement of the Alaska boundary question very soon, because I think our chances of securing a settlement of that question are further off than ever-but of knowing for what reason the British government have consented to the repeal of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty apparently without the slightest effort having been made to secure Mr. SPROULE.
for Canada a settlement of the Alaskan question. I will not say a final settlement by treaty, for we never asked for such a settlement by a treaty. We have only requested that the treaty which was made between England and Russia and which created the difficulties between England and the United States, after the United States bought the rights of Russia, should be submitted to arbitration. The only thing which the Canadian government, in the name of the Canadian people, asked from the United States government was a consent that this question should be treated exactly according to the same procedure as that followed in the settlement of the Venezuelan question. Certainly this request was in itself a most reasonable one. Not only have the efforts of the International commission been brought to a standstill, but here we had a most favourable occasion, the last of its kind, to ask the United States to consent to the reconsideration of one treaty by England sacrificing some of her conceded rights in another treaty; but Great Britain sacrificed her acknowledged rights, rights given to her by the letter of the treaty, and did not secure for her colonial kinsmen of Canada some consideration, for those rights which she abandoned to the United States, in the form of a consent to an interpretation of the existing treaty by a judicial tribunal. I say the position is most unfair to Canada.
I am not one of those who ask favours from Great Britain. I am not one of those who are in favour of Canada taking risks and entangling herself in British difficulties, and I do not ask Great Britain to be entangled in Canada's difficulties. But surely, under a British government which proclaims that for the love of her colonies, Great Britain is ready to any sacrifice, and under a Canadian government which proclaims that for the love of Great Britain, Canada is willing to make any sacrifice, when it is only a question of obtaining that our rights should be submitted to a judicial arbitration, I think the least we could expect is to be treated as any foreign country would expect to be treated by Great Britain. Have we come to that point that Great Britain can count upon our devotion to such an extent that, even where we had acknowledged rights, she will not make the slightest efforts to have those rights acknowledged ? Sir, it would be most regrettable that) this session should end, and that the Prime Minister and his colleagues should go to the foot of the Throne without the Canadian people knowing whether in fact they have been sacrificed by the British government in this matter.
I do not wish to refer to a past debate, but I have already stated that it was published time and again in the American papers that the only obstacle to the repeal of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty for the past few years, was the refusal of the Canadian

government to consent to that repeal unless the Alaska boundary question was submitted to arbitration. Well, Sir, where are we ? Has the Canadiah government consented to the repeal of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty without the Alaska boundary question being-I will not say settled-but at least considered ? Or is it a fact that the British government has consented to the repeal of that treaty without even consulting the Canadian government ? I think we should know what has taken place.
For six months the Anglo-American commission sat in Quebec and Washington. We had there four representatives of the Canadian government, most able representatives who certainly did their duty to Canada ou that occasion. I may remark that I was a personal witness to the efforts and to the intelligence displayed by the Canadian representatives on the Anglo-American commission. Moreover, we had there a representative of the British government appointed for the especial purpose of aiding the Canadian delegates with the influence and strength of the British government so as to secure a fair treatment of the question with the American representatives. I am not at liberty to say to what degree the Anglo-American commission had progressed in their work; but this X am at liberty to state, that after they had sat for six months


Mr. COCHRANE.: We know pretty near.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No, hon. gentlemen opposite must acknowledge that I am pretty free in my talk with the government, as a rule, especially for the last two years. Therefore in saying this it is not at all with the intention of flattering the government. Hon. gentlemen can easily understand that when thirteen or fifteen subjects, which were afterwards swelled to some seventeen subjects, were submitted to the commission, it was at least possible that an understanding could have been reached on ten or twelve of those subjects, without an understanding being arrived ou the two or three last ones. Therefore it is very possible that, though the apparent result of the commission has been nil, a good deal of work was done nevertheless. In fact I may repeat after what the Prime Minister told us the next year after the adjournment of the commission, that a good deal of work had been done, that the negotiations had been fruitfully conducted until the Alaska boundary question came up and proved the stumbling block which interrupted the work of the commission.
But what happened after that ? One of the Canadian ministers, who was on that occasion one of the British plenipotentiaries, the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Sir Louis Davies, went to London and passed three months there. For what purpose V He was candid enough to tell us
when he came back from England that after the Anglo-American commission had sat for six months, after they were supposed to have had at their back the influence of the British government, he, Sir Louis Davies, was obliged to pass three months in London to convince Mr. Chamberlain's officials that they should not side with the American government, but with us. Sir, I think that was a most unfortunate statement, but X think it was just as well that it should have been made. It is true that it made known to the public of the United States that in dealing with the government of Canada they were not dealing with the British authorities. But it is just as well that the public of the United States and the public of Canada should know that while profuse compliments were being paid to us in the newspapers of Great Britain, and by the speeches of public men in the British parliament, still, when it came to the point of helping the Canadian cause, the British officials sided with a foreign government. It is just as well we should know this, and that we should have it from a high authority, because if you only learned it from myself, no doubt the very loyal gentlemen who are representing here the most loyal element of our population, would say; ' Oh, this is only the Fenian talk of Bourassa ! ' But we know it from a gentleman who was a representative of the British government, and a representative of the Canadian government; and we have it now confirmed by the further fact that the British government has sacrificed us in the Clayton-Bulwer treaty.
Another member of the Canadian government, the late Minister of Justice, Hon. David Mills, published in the British press two very valuable articles stating that in the Clayton-Bulwer treaty Great Britain had acknowledged and secured rights on the continent of America, that those rights she could not sacrifice for the sake of her own honour ; and more than that, if she had any consideration whatever for her Canadian subjects she had no right to abandon one iota of that treaty without at least securing to the Canadian people the acknowledgement of their rights in the Alaska boundary. Great compliments were paid to those articles. The London * Times ' and the whole of the British press, I may: say, thought Mr. Mills's statement of the case was a most .excellent one, but, again, as on the embargo question, as on the question of immigration, and I may say, as upon every question with which we have had to deal where Great Britain had to side either for or against us. we were given compliments but no acts. Compliments were paid to the articles of Mr. David Mills, but eight days afterwards the rights of Great Britain were sacrificed and the rights of Canada were not given any consideration. I do not blame the government for not bringing the corres-

pondence before the House and the country. No doubt as long as the question Is a question we cannot have the correspondence, but when will the question be closed? Are we going to be told year after year that negotiations are still going on ? Negotiations may go on for a long while. The American government have no interest in settling negotiations. They hold Canadian territory. They have everything they want. It is not the interest of the American government to close negotiations or bring them to a satisfactory termination. It is not for the interest of the British government because, in this case as in the case of the Alabama claims and in the Trent affair, in this case as in all past cases, the British government will side like providence with the big battalions. Unless the influence of the British government is exerted to protect Canada we may be sure that we will never see that correspondence. I am ready to withdraw my motion, but I would not have withdrawn it without speaking my mind clearly upon the matter. In this matter I am not expressing only my own mind, or only the minds of those who may be opposed to the British government or to Canadian policy towards the British government, but I may say that the Ottawa ' Citizen,' the leading organ of the Tory party in the capital of Canada, published one of the strongest articles possible when it was announced that the Clayton-Bulwer treaty had been repealed. It said that when the American nation was a small growing nation the British press and public were always talking of it in a paternal, supercilious way, but the moment the American nation became a big nation. Great Britain was grovelling and humiliating herself and trying to do everything at the expense of Canada for that country. The next day another article was published in the same newspaper saying that since 1813 there was not one case in which the British government had not sacrificed Canadian interests in favour of American interests. I leave it to gentle-, men who think we should do so much to prove our love for the British empire to say whether it is not about time that we should have other evidence besides that of the love of the British newspapers, and British speeches,-whether we should not have a little practical love and be considered as having rights that should not be sacrificed on every occasion for the benefit of the United States.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I would not be drawn into a discussion, at this moment, of the question that is involved, not in the motion, but in the speech of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). If he Is not satisfied with the condition of the negotiations which have not resulted in a treaty in regard to the Alaskan boundary and which have resulted in an arrangement in regard to the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, he is quite Mr. BOURASSA.
within his rights in bringing in any motion he pleases of censure on the British or Canadian government, but, on the question of the production df papers, what I have told him about the papers I repeat, that the papers cannot be brought down for the simple and obvious reason that the negotiations are still pending. The speech of the hon. gentleman is, to say the least, out of place. I am not, more than the hon. gentleman, an admirer of British policy on the continent of America. We have heard it before and for my part I am sorry to say that in many cases Canadians have believed that they have not got their fair due in the past perhaps, but while I make no bones at all about this question and while I am quite free to give my own opinion on this question, I hope we have not come to this that we want Great Britain to go to war with the United States, if, may be, negotiations are continued a little longer than we wish them to be on a matter of long-pending difficulty. We want to preserve good relations with our friends and neighbours to the south of us even though on some occasions our patience is sorely tried. I am sure that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) would be the last man to suggest that the British government should act like Mr. Kruger and send an ultimatum to the United States. We want to exhaust all means of finding a solution of our difficulties and we do not want to have difficulties with our neighbours. I believe the House will agree with me that we will do better to wait for a few months, or if need be one or two years and try to secure a peaceable settlement of that long-pending question. I am sorry that matters have been so long delayed as they have been, but at all events, it is preferable, and I think I am speaking the sense of the House when I say that we should endeavour to have a practical and peaceable solution of this difficulty. The negotiations are still pending. I hope that before the House prorogues I may perhaps, make a statement to the House on the question because I may say that the question has been engaging the attention of the British government and of the Canadian government as well.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as it is necessary to preserve friendly relations with the United States no one has any fault to find with what the right hon. the leader of the government (Rt. Hon Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has said, but there is this to be observed that the settlement of the Alaskan boundary may be postponed for an indefinite period. The government has been dealing with this question for some three or four years now and since this time Inst year the right hon. gentleman informs us that not the slightest progress has been made. That position of affairs may continue for ten, fifteen or twenty years. During the whole of that time as has been pointed out, the people of the United States are in occu-

pation of territory which we think belongs to Canada and the simple question is whether or not, during all the time that this matter may remain unsettled without negotiations really being continued at all, we are to be kept out of possession of the papers relating to the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. My right hon. friend will see that this is an extraordinary condition of affairs. I do not fully sympathize with everything that the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bou-rassa) has said, here, to-day, but I do see a great deal of force in the suggestion which he has made. Suppose that negotiations are nominally continued but nothing is done from year to year. My right hon. friend, or whoever happens to be the leader of the government comes down and says : Nothing has been done ; we cannot get anything done. The government of the United States refuses to submit this question to arbitration and so long as it refuses to do that there would be a dead lock in regard to it. During all this doubtful future period are we to be kept out of the papers relating to a treaty which has been abrogated and relating to a transaction which has been closed ? I can recognize the difficulty which the right hon. gentleman has mentioned that possibly the correspondence which has taken place in regard to this matter may include references to the settlement of the Alaskan boundary, but I do not see any difficulties in eliminating from the correspondence that portion which relates to the Alaskan boundary and laying before the House the portion which relates solely and exclusively to the Clayton-Bul-wer treaty.


Mr. P. D. MONK (Jacques-Cartier).: Mr. Speaker, I venture to suggest to the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), if he deems it necessary, to withdraw the latter part of his motion in regard to the settlement of the Alaskan boundary. We have, in the statement of the hon. gentleman, some very important admissions. We have the admission that the commission, if I understand him rightly, endeavoured vainly to have the matter of the Alaskan boundary referred to some outside authority for decision.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We have that admission, and under these circumstances, the commission having failed to obtain that reference, I do not see why the hon. gentleman has not the right to insist upon the correspondence which has passed between the two governments after the commission had ceased to sit, being brought down. It seems to me a logical and proper demand to make. If after that time, correspondence took place between the governments, surely we are entitled to have this correspondence. We should have it. Having that admission from my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa)
it seems to me that we are clearly entitled to have the correspondence which had reference to the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. That is a settled matter; it is a finished matter. I have no doubt that in the British House of Commons that correspondence will be obtained without any difficulty whatever. If the hon. gentleman wishes to withdraw a portion of his motion, I beg of him to leave in that part whicli calls for the correspondence referring to the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. I, for one, wish to see that correspondence, and I do not think that the motion referring to it should be abandoned upon such illogical grounds.


Mr. S. E. GOURLEY (Colchester).: Mr. Speaker. I have never agreed with a single word that the hon. member for Labelle (Sir. Bourassa) has uttered in this House either last year or this, until to-day. In fact he has stabbed me to the heart on many occasions as he has stabbed every right thinking loyal British subject in this country. Perhaps my language is strong, but at all events I wanted to make this statement on several occasions last session. I wish to say now, that this subject must be treated during this session in a more substantial manner. It is the most important subject that is to-day before the! people of Canada. I was glad to hear the Prime Minister criticise the course of the English government. I am an Imperialist after the strictest sect of the Imperialists, but I want to disassociate the conduct of the Imperial government for sixty years from the conduct of the people of the empire, who would always have defended the government in maintaining their rights even at the expense of war. There is enough loyalty and national feeling in this country to have carried us safely over those disastrous negotiations which we have always had with the United States. But we have always found ourselves in the position that the British government has sold out the interests of the people of Canada, for what they supposed to be Imperial interests. 1 say that it would have paid the empire a thousand times, to have fought the question out, and I say that as a Canadian, knowing well that the field of battle would be on Canadian soil. But, Sir, I will go into the trenches and take my wife and family with me and stay there for two years if need be to fight for the rights of Canada. I will stay in the trenches to fight the men who refuse to treat the people of Canada honestly. The day has gone by I hope when there is a cowardly Canadian on the soil of this country. The older men of this House may fear war, but I think that the younger generation of this country are not frightened of war. I will face the problem of war to-morrow rather than feel my spirits crushed by cowardly concessions. The spirit of manhood is more to me than cowardly concessions for the sake of peace.

From 1830 to the day of the Fashoda, we had nothing all over the world but a series of the most disastrous humiliations, and it got so that no true Englishman would dare take up his paper at the breakfast table, without fearing to read of a cowardly concession in some quarter of the world that would make him blush. Old Gladstone gave away the whole empire of Africa. We would have had every square mile of Africa if the English government had not been cowardly. It is time for this House of Commons of Canada to speak out. I claim that hereafter, we in Canada will have as much right to discuss the foreign policy of England as have the men gathered in the House of Commons of England. What right have these people gathered around the steps of the Throne to have any more say than we have here in the discussion of the foreign policy of England. I trust that in ten years the House of Commons of Africa, which I hope to see established, and the House of Commons of Australia, and the House of Commons of Canada; the three speaking together will control the little blockheads that sit in the great hall of St. Stephens when they go wrong. I heard a story a few days ago explaining why it was we had such stupidity in the Commons of England. They say men are examined before they are nominated to a seat in the English House of Commons to see that incipient imbecility is thoroughly well established, and unless it is, they cannot be elected. I claim for the House of Commons of Canada a more intelligent grip of foreign affairs affecting the empire than they have in England to-day.
What we want now is a full discussion in this House so that this ministry will know that the time has come when if they sacrifice one foot of Canada soil we will hang them as high as Haman. If it is necessary to fight the Yankees we will fight them within twenty-four hours, and after six months we will capture their capital and annex their country to Canada.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I have a slight correction to make in what was said by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier


Mr. SPEAKER.: I do not think the hon. member has a right to speak. He has already spoken twice on the question.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It is just a personal explanation.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman has the right to make a personal explanation, but he just stated that he wished to make a correction.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It is an explanation. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) said that I admitted that the commission had not secured the submission of the Alaskan boundary question. I would remind the hon. gentleman that the Prime Minister said Mr. GOURLEY.
that two years ago. I cannot consent to separate the motion in the manner suggested by the hon. gentleman, because I am sure of one thing, and that is that if there is correspondence relating to the repeal of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, it cannot be only in connection with the Alaskan boundary. It may be that I will bring up the matter in another form before the session ends.


Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark).: The remarks of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier are perfectly proper. This treaty has been abrogated for some time past. We have had the opinion of the late Minister of Justice published in the newspapers, and spoken of in the highest terms by the [DOT] London Times ' and other papers in the centre of the empire, in which he states that this treaty should not be abrogated until there was a settlement of all the questions pending between the United States and Great Britain, and especially this very question affecting Canada. Surely we have the right to see that our representations on that question were properly put before the Imperial authorities, before this treaty was abrogated, especially when we have the statements of the member for Labelle, who is the secretary of that commission, appointed by the Imperial authorities with the consent of the government of Canada, that (ireat Britain opposed our efforts to have the settlement of the Alaskan boundary question placed before that commission. This is the astounding statement made in this House of Commons, and yet it is made on the authority of the secretary of that commission.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The statement was made by Sir Louis Davies, one of the plenipotentiaries.


John Graham Haggart: The statement is made on the floor of this House to-day by the secretary of the commission, who has an Imperial appointment in his pocket. We have at least the right to get a statement from the government of this country and from the right hon. Prime Minister, as to whether there is any truth in such an extraordinary statement as that. It is at all events a very sound reason why we should have all the correspondence in reference to this question, and every document in connection with it placed before the people of this country, so that we may not be forced to depend on ex parte statements. We should at all events have a denial, or if necessary an affirmation of the statement made here, with reference to the conduct of the Imperial authorities in this matter.
Motion (Mr. Bourassa) withdrawn.



THE CENTRAL EXPERIMENTAL FARM.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. URIAH WILSON (Lennox) moved for:
Return showing the names and number of men employed on the 200 acres set apart at the Cen-

tral Experimental Farm, Ottawa, as a farm proper to be handled as farm, that is, as any farmer's farm might be handled ; mentioned in the evidence of J. H. Grisdale, Esq., given Thursday, April 11th, 1901, at the morning session of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization. The number of employees and the wages paid to each employee. The total crop of various kinds grown on said 200 acres, and the amount said total crop was sold for.
The PRIME MINISTER.: Stand.


Mr. WILSON.: I do not propose to discuss this question now. 1 only move for information.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I understood the hon. gentleman to ask that this motion should stand. If he wants to move it now, there is no objection.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Ccpy of all papers and correspondence relating to the Coronation of His Majesty the King ; the Imperial Conference which is to be held in London, and the appointment of Canadian delegates to the same.-Mr. Bourassa.
Return showing :-
1.	The amount of money spent each year from June 30th, 1891, to June 30th, 1901, on immigration.
2.	The number of immigrants reported each year to have settled each year in the Dominion of Canada during the ten (10) years from 1891 to 1901, and the total for the ten years.
3.	The number of immigrant agents employed by the Dominion government each year in Great Britain and Ireland from 1891 to 1901, and the total amount paid each year to the said agents, and the amount spent each year for printing and other expenses by the said agents.
4.	The number of immigrant agents employed by the Dominion government each year in the continent of Europe from 1891 to 1901, and the total amount paid each year to the said agents ; and amount spent each year for printing and other expenses by the said agents.
5.	The number of immigrant agents employed by the Dominion government each year in the United States of America from 1891 to 1901 ; and the total amount paid each year to the said agentsj and amounts spent each year for printing and other expenses by the said agents ; and by the government of the Dominion of Canada. -Mr. Wilson.
Return showing :-
1.	The names of all employees in the post office at Belleville, Ontario, on .Tune 30th, 1896, together with the age of each, date of entry in the service, and the salary of each on the said date.
2.	The number of employees dismissed from the Belleville post office since June 30th, 1896, with cause and date of dismissal.
3.	The number of employees superannuated, the date, pf their superannuation, reason for their superannuation, how much superannuation allowance has been allowed to each ; giving the names of all said employees so superannuated who have asked to be superannuated.
4.	The number of employees employed in the Belleville post office on first January, 1902 ; what were their names and the age and salary of
each employee on said date, and date of appointment.-Mr. Wilson.
For correspondence between the department of the Interior or the Minister of the Interior, and Mr. C. R. Devlin, with reference to a letter
that appeared in ' United Canada ' on the 11th May, 1901, and a letter that appeared in the ' Montreal Hearld ' on 18th May, 1901 ; in both of said letters Mr. C. R. Devlin made certain statements regarding members of this House.- Mr. Wilson.
Copies of all letters, telegrams and other correspondence between the governments of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, or any members thereof, respecting trade transportation, cable and other subjects of intercolonial concern.-Mr. Campbell.
Copy of all correspondence, petitions, Orders in Council, and any and all documents in connection with the demands of the Provincial Legislature with regard to the school lands in Manitoba ; moneys derived from sales thereof, together with interest accrued thereon.-Mr. LaRivffire.
1.	Copies of all applications for any portion of the ground covered by the Matson Concession (so-called), or Lease No. 9, in the Yukon district.
2.	Copies of all applications for any portion of the ground covered by the Doyle Concession (so-called), in the Yukon district.
3.	Copies of all applications for any portion of the ground covered by the Bronson & Ray Concession, in the Yukon district.
4.	A memorandum showing the date on which the application in the Bronson & Ray Concession was granted.
5.	Copy of the application for all lay-overs in
all these cases.
6.	Copies of Orders in Council or other authority under which the Minister of the Interior granted any lay-over in these eases ; and copy of the material, reports or other evidence upon which such lay-overs were granted.
7.	A description of the Boyle Concession and a map of same.
8.	Copy of the application for Boyle Concession.
9.	The exact terms of the application in the case of the Milne Concession.
10.	The dates on which this application was made and granted.
11.	Map showing ground covered.
12.	The date when the application for the Siavin & Gates Concession was made and filed.
13.	Copy of Green's original map, with copy of field notes attached in the case of the Siavin & Gates Concession.
14.	Copy of telegram from the Deputy Minister of Interior to E. C. Senkler as to the boundaries of this concession, dated on or about the 5th
June, 1891.-Mr. Taylor.	'

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Lanrier) delivered a message from His Excellency The Governor General.
Mr. SPEAKER read the message as follows
[Stage Direction]
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons an approved Minute of Council, appointing the Honourable Sir Richard Cart-
[Stage Direction]
wright, G.C.M.G., Minister of Trade and Commerce ; the Honourable William Stevens Fielding, Minister of Finance ; the Honourable Joseph Israel Tarte, Minister of Public Works ; and the Honourable James Sutherland, Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to act with the Speaker of the House of Commons as commissioners for the purposes and under the provisions of the 13th Chapter of the Revised Statutes of Canada, intituled :	" An Act respecting the House of
Commons."
Government House,
Ottawa, 18th February, 1902.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: Before the House adjourns I would remind my right hon. friend that the explanations usually given when changes are made in the cabinet have not yet been forthcoming. We have been in daily expectation of hearing the right hon. gentleman explain the reasons for these changes, and particularly why the well known meritorious claims of my hon. friend from Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) have again been overlooked. If the right hon. gentleman will be good enough to give us these explanations now or at some early day, we shall receive them with great interest. We would also like to know whether the changes made are likely to result in any change in the policy of the government.
I would like also to say to the right hon. gentleman that 1 propose bringing to his attention in the House, on the first occasion that offers, the advisability of our passing some resolution regarding the baseless charges which have been made against the British forces in South Africa. I simply mention this now in order that the right hon. gentleman may take it into consideration, and will take another opportunity to urge, if necessary, the reasons why a resolution of this kind is advisable. I believe that such a resolution can be so framed as to receive the unanimous support of this House and would be most happy to co-operate with the right hon. gentleman in the matter.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I shall take an early opportunity of gratifying the rather fastidious curiosity of my hon. friend with regard to the changes in the cabinet. So far as my information goes, those explanations are only given when changes are made that involve a change of policy, ns for instance when a member of the cabinet withdraws because of a difference of opinion between him and his colleagues. Nevertheless I shall waive all technical objections and take the very next opportunity to give my hon. friend the information he desires.
With regard to the other matter which my hon. friend has mentioned, 1 would simply observe that in matters on which it is desirable that we should take unanimous


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: action, it has always been customary for the leader of the opposition, so far, at all events, as my own experience goes, to bring them privately to the attention of the First Minister before making reference to them in the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 4.45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 20, 1902.