[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 148) respecting the Montreal Bridge Company.-Mr. Bickerdike.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 149) to amend the Land Titles Act, 1894. He said: This Bill deals with the registration of properties in the North-west Territories, and is intended to remove certain small technical difficulties in the working of the Act. The first clause is to make clear the meaning of section 87. There has already been one amendment but there appears to be a difference of opinion between some members of the legal profession and the judiciary in regard to the effect of the clause. It appears to have the effect as drafted, of preventing the owner himself with dealing with property which he has authorized an attorney to deal with, while the power of attorney is still registered. This will make it clear that the owner can deal with the property as well as the person appointed by power of attorney. Clause 2 is to save the owner of land unnecessary expense in obtaining a certificate of title in lieu of one which has been destroyed. It does away with the necessity of advertising.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Is the government aware that there is and has been for some time past a vacancy on the Montreal Harbour Board ?
2.	What is the reason of the delay in making the board complete by filling said vacancy ?
3.	Has the position been offered to any one ?
4.	When will said nomination be made ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The government is aware that there was a vacancy, but that vacancy exists no longer. It has been filled by the appointment of Mr. W. E. Doran.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

The PRIME MINISTER moved :: That, commencing with Monday next, and until the end of the session, the House shall meet on that day, and on each subsequent sitting day, at eleven (11) o'clock in the morning; that, in addition to the usual intermission at six (6) o'clock, p.m., there shall be also an intermission every day from one (1) to three (3) o'clock, p.m., and that government Orders shall have precedence at ail such sittings. Members having still the right to ask questions on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: I do not know whether the right hon. gentleman has come to any conclusion about the Bill which was introduced by the hon. member for St. Antoine, Montreal, (Mr. Roddick),
I know that Dr. Roddick is very anxious to have this Bill discussed in this House, and if possible to have it go to the Senate. If this motion carries I do not see that there will be any opportunity to do that. There Is another matter ; what time will this leave for private Bills ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: It was my intention to leave Monday for private Bills, and I suppose we can understand it in that way, that on Monday we shall have private Bills, then questions, and then government orders.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose that if the House understands the motion in that way, it will not be necessary to modify it. There is another matter which I should like to mention to the right hou. gentleman, and that is that I do not think1 there has been any meeting of the Committee on Public Accounts during the present week, owing to the absence of the chairman. While the engagements of the chairman elsewhere are no doubt entitled to great respect, it. would be a simple matter, if he is obliged to leave Ottawa on any other business, to arrange with some other member to act in his absence.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hou. James Sutherland).: I


Mr. SPEAKER.: 

may say that the chairman, before leaving spoke to me, saying that he had consulted some of the leading members of the Public Accounts Committee, and they had told him that they did not wish a meeting of the committee this week, but that if they did, they would notify us. So that it is not on account of his absence that there has been no meeting.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: He is entirely mistaken.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am only stating what the chairman told me. He mentioned especially that he had asked the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) if he wanted a meeting of the committee this week, and that hon. gentleman had told him that he did not, but that if he should want a meeting, he would notify us.


Robert Laird Borden: I can only say that when I was asked what meetings we would want this week, the memorandum I sent back stated that we would want a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee. I do not know whether the chairman received that message. I do not think you can arrange such matters by negotiation without consulting every member of the Committee on Public Accounts. x know that one member spoke , to me on the subject who did very much desire to have a meeting. When the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee feels compelled to leave Ottawa for the space of a week or thereabouts, an arrangement should be made for some member to act in his place. I had this same complaint to make last session, and what I said then, I repeat now, that there is no excuse for meetings of a committee being iput off on account of the absence of the chairman. I do not object to the chairman going away if he has business to take him away, but I do object to his paralyzing by his absence the meetings of the committee by neglecting the very simple precaution of having some one act as chairman in his absence. 1 am not finding fault with The chairman so much as with the system, and I will continue to find fault with it so long as it continues.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I fear that I may be somewhat to blame in this matter. I quite agree with the leader of the opposition, that there is no reason whatever why there should not be meetings of the committee in the absence of the chairman; and in this case there must have been some misunderstanding between some of the members of the committee and the clerk, because when the chairman left he mentioned to me personally that an .intimation would be made to the clerk if any of the members wanted a meeting, and he asked me if I would be kind enough to attend to it for him, and see that a meeting was called. The naming of a chairman to preside at the meetings is a
matter simply in the hands of the committee; that has often occurred. In this case if there has not been ai meeting, it is certainly because of some misunderstanding, and is not the fault of the chairmau. If any member Intimates to the clerk of the committee that he wants a meeting, the committee will be called at once.
Mr. 0. F. McISAAC (Antigonish). The chairman of the Public Accounts Committee requested me to state on his behalf, in case this question was brought up in the House, that before he left he had gone to the hon. member for Hamilton and told him that he would be absent for a few days, but that if he wished a meeting to be called this week, a meeting would be called, and another member would be appointed to act as chairman in his iDlace; but the hon. member for Hamilton expressly told him that he did not wish a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee to be called this week; and that is why a meeting has not been called.


Mr. T. S. SPROTJLE (East Grey).: If this motion passes, it will be impossible for the committee to meet unless it has permission to meet during the sittings of the House. I think the motion should be followed by another to allow all committees to meet during the sittings of the House.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I will attend to that to-morrow.


Mr. II. WILSON (Lennox).: I wish to call attention to the fact that it has been arranged that the binder twine men shall come before the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization on Wednesday to give evidence, and unless it has permission to meet during the sittings of the House, it will be unable to hold a meeting.


Mr. A. E. KEMP (East Toronto).: I have been waiting a whole week to finish up a little matter before the Public Accounts Committee. I am informed that the chairman is away in western Ontario stumping in the interest of the party of which he is an ardent supporter, and 'consequently we can have no meeting this week. It is very unfortunate that the chairman did not stay here and attend to his duties.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: It is not fair to the chairman to have it put in that way, that no meeting of the committee could be held because of the absence of the chairman. If members are obliged to leave, the work of the House must go on. The hon. member for Guys-borougli distinctly told me before he left that he understood that there was no desire on the part of hon. members opposite to have a meeting this week.


Robert Laird Borden: What the Minister of Finance says simply shows the truth of the observation I made, that some one should be designated to act in the ab-

sence of the chairman to whom the members of the committee could go. My hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) was probably away when the chairman left. While certain members of this side of the House might say they did not desire a meeting, some others might desire a meeting. Would at not be a simple matter to arrange that if the chairman is absent, a deputy chairman shall be appointed to act in his place ? It is not likely both will be away, and if they should 'be, we can have a third one. Let us have, in matters of this kind, the simplest and most elementary business methods, such as are employed ini all corporations throughout the country, and avoid little disputes and differences that would disgrace the proceedings of any business corporation. I dislike to have to speak about this thing so often, and, I trust that the Minister of Finance, or whoever is responsible, will see that we need not have occasion to make similar complaints again.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There would have been no difficulty if the hon. member for Toronto had been good enough to intimate his wish to have a meeting of the committee. There would have been means for calling it together, as there is no lack of machinery.


Mr. BROCK.: The chairman had left the city.


Mr. W. SCOTT (West Assiniboia).: I do not wish to offer opposition to the motion of the Prime Minister, but I think this is a proper time to draw the attention of the House to the almost absolute lack of opportunity for dealing with legislation introduced by private members. I have a Bill standing in my name on public orders, which it is quite evident I shall not be able to proceed with. For reasons beyond my control, it was impossible for me to be present at the beginning of the session, but I took the very earliest opportunity, after my arrival, to introduce a Bill for the purpose of remedying what is a very serious grievance in the territories. Tne object of the Bill is to compel railway companies to construct proper fire guards and thus prevent the starting of prairie fires, which every year do a great amount of damage. I do not believe that I missed any occasion when there seemed to bo reasonable hope that the Bill would be reached, but so far it has not been reached, ahd cannot now be reached. Were there any reason to hope that a delay of the present motion would result In my Bill being reached, I would be disposed to ask that the motion be not passed now, but even were we to set two months with a private members' day each week, the Bill would not likely be reached. It seems to me that those who control the business of this House show considerable lack of interest in the legislation proposed by private members. On government days


Robert Laird Borden: the sessions of the House last as late as 1.30 a.m., and on the average last to midnight or 12.30 o'clock, but on private members' days, the House is usually adjourned at an early hour. On the last private members' day the House sat until 1 a.m., and as regards that day there is no complaint, but on the previous private members' day it adjourned at 11 p.m., 9,45 p.m., 9.25 and 10.55. I am a very young member of this House and hesitate to offer suggestions as to the conduct of members, but it does seem to me that some amendments of the rule would be advantageous to the conduct of business in the public interest. I think that public Bills and orders should be put on an equal footing with notices of motion. For instance on one private members day, notices of motion might have precedence, and on the next public Bills and orders. At present experience shows that it is impossible for public Bills and orders to be reached. To show that the grievance I complain of is not an insignificant one, I might mention a few of the prairie fires started from railway trains during last year


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman is not permitted, on a motion such as that before the House, to discuss a Bill which is on the Order paper.


Thomas Walter Scott: I have no intention of discussing the Bill, but may I not be allowed to state some reasons why the motion before the House should or should not pass.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman may refer to the fact that he has a very important Bill on the Order paper, but he should not proceed to discuss the merits of the Bill itself.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It is quite competent for hon. members to ventilate any grievance on the motion to go into supply, and I think my hon. friend would do better to wait for that motion.


Thomas Walter Scott: I do not intend speaking on the Bill which stands in my name on the Order paper, but am simply endeavouring to urge some reasons which may appeal to hon. members as reasons why this House should, or perhaps should not, be held in session two or three weeks longer and this particular motion should or perhaps should not be adopted at present.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The suggestion made by the hon. the Minister of the Interior is the one which the hon. gentleman should accept under the circumstances. It would be much more regular for him to deal with the grievance he complains of when the motion is made to go into Committee of Supply.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me that the hon. gentleman is also perfectly in order in showing the grounds why the mp-

tion before the House should not pass, until the government has made provision for the discussion of a particular measure.


Mr. T. O. DAVIS (Saskatchewan).: In the earlier days of this session, we had several private members' days when the House had adjourned in the afternoon because we had nothing to do. It seems to me that a great deal of time has been taken up with private members' days when the legislation proposed by the private members was not ready. Now other members than the gentlemen who have proposed these measures have their rights. If we keep the House sitting until October, somebody will be late with a Bill and will want more time. There are members who are anxious to get home, and there is no reason why we should be delayed all summer because some members have not their Bills before the House.


Mr. WM. ROCHE (Marquette).: The First Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has not given the leader of the opposition an answer as to the disposition he proposed to make of the Bill introduced by the hon. member for St. Antoine, Montreal (Mr. Roddick). That is a very important measure, and one that has been before the House for three successive sessions. It went through Committee of the Whole three or four weeks ago, and it was at the Prime Minister's own suggestion that it was laid over, with the express stipulation that it would be proceeded with this session. I kuow that the hon. member who introduced the Bill is very anxious to have it proceeded with. It affects the medical profession throughout the whole country, and also the public generally, and it would be too bad to have it laid over. If he cannot extend the same courtesy to the hon. member for St. Antoine, Montreal, as he did to the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), with his Cattle Guard Bill, it would probably be better to have another private members' day.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not think the House will be disposed to have another private members' day merely for one Bill.
I informed the hon. member for St. Antoine, Montreal, that I would endeavour to give him a day for the discusison of his Bill. 1 cannot say anything more at the present time. I will investigate further, and, if the business of the House permits,
I will see to it that a day is allowed when this Bill can be taken up.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Let the government take the Bill up and put it through.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not intend to take the Bill up and make it a government measure, but I am not averse to giving a day for the consideration of it. I cannot say, however, at the present time, whether that can be done. I think I am voicing the opinion of hou. members on both sides 1
when I say that we should have prorogation at an early day. I think the members fiom Ontario particularly are interested in an early prorogation, and, perhaps, I am consulting their wishes better by insisting on this motion. I shall consult with my hon. friend (Mr. Roddick), and if the business of the House permits it, I shall endeavour to meet his wishes and the wishes of [DOT] the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) as well.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House to-morrow go into committee to consider the following resolution :
Resolved, That it is expedient to provide that in addition to the sums now remaining unborrowed and negotiable of the loans authorized by parliament by any Act heretofore passed, the Governor in Council be authorized to raise by way of loan :-
(a.) Such sum' or sums of money, not to exceed in the whole, the sum of fifteen million dollars, as may be required for the purpose of paying the floating indebtedness of Canada, and of meeting any expenditure authorized by the parliament of Canada ;-and
(b.) Such sum' or sums of money as may be required from time to time, over and above any available sinking funds, to pay and discharge the funded debt of Canada, or any portion thereof, as the same matures and; becomes payable, either in England or in Canada ;
Such sums io' be raised in accordance with and under the provisions of that portion of chapter 29 of the Revised Statutes of Canada relating to the public debt and the raising of loans authorized by parliament, and the sums so raised to form part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada ; the rate of interest to be paid on any such loans not to exceed three and one-half per cent per annum.
He said : His Excellency the Governor Gen-ral, having been made acquainted with the terms of the resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.
CLAIM OF J. & C. NOBLE.
Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe).: In connection with a certain amount placed in the estimates to pay what is known as the claim of J. & C. Noble-page 9 of the supplementary estimates-I would ask the government if they will be pleased to lay on the Table of the House all the papers in connection with the submission to the court, the evidence and all the documents. It will be too late now to move for the papers, and if they are laid on the Table, it may perhaps expedite the discussion of the items.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir 1 Wilfrid Laurier).: Yes.



COMMON'S IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton) moved the third reading of Bill (No. 112) to amend the Immigration Act.	[DOT]
Mr. E. F. CLARKE (West Toronto).: When the House was in committee on this Bill reference was made to statements emanating 'from the United States immigration service as well as to satements made by the chief officer of that service in the Dominion of Canada. Some very emphatic contradictions were given to the statements which that officer made as to the character of the immigration that is coming into Canada. The United States officer is, apparently, prepared to stand by his statements. It is a matter of vital public interest that our people should know exactly what kind of immigrants are being sent over to this country by the agents employed in Great Britain and on the continent of Europe, or are being brought here by the steamship companies whose vessels reach our ports. I will take the liberty of reading a letter which the United States special immigration inspector, at Montreal, Mr. Watchom, has sent to my kon. friend from Lennox (Mr. Wilson). It is dated, as hon. members will observe, just two days ago :
United States Immigrant Service.
Office of Special Immigrant Inspector.
Port of Montreal, Canada,
233 St. Antoine Street, April 29, 1902.
Uriah Wilson, Esq.,
Member of Parliament,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-I desire to thank you for six copies of ' House of Commons Debates,' containing your speech on immigration, delivered on the 17th instant. I note that the editions ar9 still marked 'unrevised,' and I would like to state, that if the revised edition contains any material alterations, I should be very pleased to receive the revised edition ol this debate.
I have noted with considerable surprise, aad not a little amusement, the statements made by the hon. Minister for the Interior, and I venture to suggest that the investigation he male at the hospitals here, was not likely to afford him the information he thought to obtain, because the people diseased as immigrants usually are, are almost invariably enumerated amongst ' outdoor patients,' so chat the mere fact that they were not to he found stretched out On hospital cots, &c., is not a serious answer to the statement that they are here in large numbers, and are afflicted as stated to you, when you were here.
During the month ending to-morrow, the rejections at this office alone, for favus and trachoma, will not fall short of sixty persons. At the very moment I am writing to you, there are more than one hundred Greeks, Syrians, and Italians, at this office, seeking permits to enter the United States. Every one of them was refused passage to the United States, by bona fide lines sailing to United States ports from Europe, and the line that carried them to Canada, refused to soil them tickets, until they Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
had changed their destinations from United States points to points in Canada.
I mention this, in order that you may observe how creditable a thing the hon. minister has done, in introducing the measure alluded to in his speech, contained in the above mentioned debate, and how important a thing it is, that it should be passed as speedily as is consistent with the usages of your honourable parliament.
If I am not asking too much, I would esteem it a favour if you send me a draft of the hill in question, in order that I may observe whether It is calculated to accomplish all that is desirable in this connection.
Thanking you again for the copies of Debates, and for your letter. I am.
Very sincerely yours,
ROBERT WATCHORN, Special Immigrant Inspector.
I think the attention of the minister should be directed to the specific statements that this gentleman makes as to the people who are being brought here by the steamship lines, to whom bonuses are paid by the government, people who, this gentleman says, would positively not be admitted into the United States. Certainly, if these statements are correct, they are not desirable immigrants. This gentleman says :
At the very moment I am writing to you, there are more than 100 Greeks, Syrians and Italians at this office, seeking permits to enter the United States. Every one of them was refused passage to the United States by bona fide lines sailing to United States ports from Europe, and the lines that carried them to Canada refused to sell them tickets until they had changed their destinations from United States points to points in Canada.
The letter is not written, as Is evident, in any unfriendly or hostile spirit. The gentleman who writes the letter approves and endorses the action of the minister in preparing this Bill and he urges its speedy passage. But surely the passage of this BUI is not sufficient. There must be more definite instructions given to the immigration agents of Canada on the continent of Europe and in the old land ; there must be a stricter supervision exercised over tbe immigrants before they go on ship board on the other side of the Atlantic so that this country may not continue to be, as has been asserted again and again, a dumping ground, or a place from which immigrants who could not go from European points direct into the United States may scheme to obtain entrance into that country. That condition of things will no be a benefit to Canada if it is permitted to continue. I direct the attention of the House and of the minister to this letter in order that he may be apprised of the statements which are being made by officers who have been sent here by tbe United States government, who have endeavoured so far as possible to implement the inspection which is made by our own officers, and to prevent undesirable immigrants going into the United States through the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. CHARLTON.: What is the place as well as the date of that letter ?


Mr.   CLARICE@: The heading of the letter is* ' United States Immigration Service, Office of the Special Immigrant Inspector, port of Montreal, Canada, 233 St. Antoine Street, April 29, 1902.' This is addressed to Uriah Wilson, member of parliament, Ottawa, Ontario. I direct the attention of the minister to these statements in order that he may take whatever steps are necessary to put a stop to this class of immigrants being brought here by steamship companies and left in the country until such times as they may be able, if possible, to get through Canada into the United States.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: When the statements were published that the result of our present system was to leave in Canada a considerable number of persons who started from their place of abode with the intention of going to the United States, and were rejected by the United States inspectors, by reason of disease or otherwise, I did cause an inquiry to be made ; and the result of the inquiry was that out of 25,000 persons who had passed through Canada in a year, there were, of those who had been rejected by the United States commissioner, some 39 people in Canada. Of these 39 people 21 or 23, I am not sure which number, consisted of Germans who had been rejected on account of some trifling complaint in the children of the family. Our medical inspectors, after examining them, permitted them to go to the North-west, being satisfied that these complaints were not of a serious character, and that there was no just reason to compel them to be sent back. That leaves altogether, according to that inquiry, the difference between 39 and 21, or IS persons. That is the result of the inquiry made by the officers of my department. When the statement was made that there was a large number of persons in the hospitals of Montreal who had been rejected by the immigration commissioners, I caused an inquiry to be made there, and I read the result of the inquiry to the House a few days ago, which showed that according to these reports from the superintendents of the hospitals, there was no foundation for the statement that had been made. I should be surprised to learn that when an inquiry of that kind had been officially made of the superintendents of hospitals in the city of Montreal, these gentlemen would deliberately send misleading reports to the Department of the Interior, leaving out a class of patients which they would know if the facts were as stated in this letter, were the very class of patients in regard to whom the inquiry was made. 1 say I should be surprised to learn that gentlemen occupying the position of medical superintendents of these hospitals would have made such misleading reports. It is, I venture to say, improbable, although not
impossible. Now the fact that I have brought this Bill before the House is, I think, sufficient guarantee that the government realize the importance of the subject, and that we propose, as I said before, to take every possible care and precaution for the purpose of carrying into effect the views the hon. gentleman has expressed as being desirable to carry Into effect in the general interest of the country. As to the statement made by Mr. Watchorn, the United States inspector, having heard the statement only now, I cannot say further than this, that recognizing that it is essential that the statement which he has made should be thoroughly, exactly and strictly inquired into, I shall take immediate steps to have that done, and I shall apprise the House of the result in the fullest possible way.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would ask the minister, when he is giving us the report as to the accuracy or inaccuracy of these statements, to bring down a copy of the instructions he issued to his officials to make the inquiry from the superintendents of the hospitals in Montreal as to the serious allegations that were made.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In discussing this subject the other day I made reference to the fact that a good many of these immigrants were affected with dangerous or contagious diseases injurious to the human family. The minister rather denied my statement, and said there were, it is true, a few instances of such people coming in where they might have trifling ailments, but they were comparatively few in number. What I had reference to at the time was a kind of sore eyes, what medical men call granular opthalmia.
I was credibly informed that a large number of them were affected by it. I have in my hand at the present time the ' Canadian Journal of Medicine and Surgery,' printed in Toronto, the number for November, 1901, and I see there an article by Dr. W. Gordon M. Byers, assistant oculist and aurist of the Royal Victoria Hospital, Montreal. Speaking of this ailment, he says :
Two summers ago there came to our clinic at the Royal Victoria Hospital, a young girl from Glengarry county, Ontario, affected with the most intense condition of granular lids 1 have ever seen in Canada. The conjunctures wore covered with heaped masses of succulent granulations, and the cornese showed a condition of highly vascularized pannus.
Then he says later :
A year later, while away on my holidays, I was asked to see a young boy in the county of Leeds, Ontario, for a chronic disease of the eyes. The appearance was at once suggestive, and on everting the lids I found them1 covered wUh tvpical trachoma fol'liciles. Here too, in spite of thie fact that the parents had put themselves to pains, they had been unable to ascertain the real nature of the condition of their boy s eyes, and at no time had they been advised to adopt even the most elementary precautions against tlie spread of the disease.

Since these patients came under my notice I have thought not a -little of the trachoma Dro-biem as it touches our country, and I am persuaded through information and investigation th-at there is a fainiy large number of unrecognized and untreated cases of granular ophthalmia scattered here and there throughout the Dominion. Thus, for instance, I have been informed by m-edtcal friends that t.he disease is comparatively common in certain districts of Manitoba, and even at our hospital the territory from which our trachomatous patients were drawn was extremely broad, our clinics having been visited by patients from' the counties of Glengarry (two centres), Storm-one, Dundas, Leeds (two centres), Renfrew, Lennox, and Car-leton in Ontario ; and Bronte (two centres), St. Hyacinthe, Missis-quoi, Huntingdon and Ottawa in Quebec.
To those acquainted with granular opthailmia, the years of distressing annoyance to he passed by those affected, and the debarm-ent from ordinary work, let alone the higher pursuits and pleasures of life, it must be a matter of apprehension that cases such as I have spoken of should exist unrecognized and unisolated to act as centres of infection throughout the country.
Then he goes on to say :
It stilil remains for me, however, to speak of one strong prophylactic measure. There is- no doubt whatever that the number of our trachomatous patients is being yearly added to by immigrants to this country. Fifteen per cent of the cases of granular opthalmia at the Royal Victoria Hospital Out-Patient Clinic, during the past six years, was of foreign extraction, and among our patients- with this condition- were Russian and German Jews, and a resident each from England, Ireland, China, Italy and Syria. And I scarcely think that the above percentage properly represents the facts, as- the people most likely to suffer from this trouble are settling largely in our western- districts. As an example of what I say, I may mention that I had it on good authority that the cases of sore eyes among the Doukhobors were probably trachomatous in- nature.
A trachomatous patient is a highly undesirable, for the most part a useless, and a dangerous citizen, and I see no reason why these individuals-or others for that matter suffering from- certain diseases different from- that under discussion

should be admitted to cur country where only strong, active people are needed, no matter how slow the tide of emigration may be.
It was in reference to such patients that I spoke and when our attention was drawn to the fact by the American agent that large numbers of these immigrants had been refused admission to the United States, that they were in Canada only waiting an opportunity to cross the line and that our government made no effort either to prevent them coming, or to send them back. I thought it was proper to call the attention 1 of the hon. Minister of the Interior to it and , to draw the attention of the country to it as well.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to say that so far as the statement of the American inspector is concerned possibly Mr. SPROULE.
the communication to the hon. minister's officers in Montreal and the hospital authorities might have been so worded as not to include out door patients and a misapprehension might have occurred in that way. This gentleman seems to speak from actual knowledge and I should hardly suppose that he would make any misrepresentation of the facts and I am sure the hospital authorities would not misrepresent the facts at all. I quite agree with the hon. minister that this is a matter for investigation. I think the facts must present themselves to him in a somewhat more serious light now than they did the other day when he spoke upon this subject. This inspector says that during the month of April alone sixty persons were rejected by him in Montreal. That would amount to a very considerable number in the course of a year. I think, as he is speaking from a knowledge of the facts which took place in his own office, his statements may be a little more accurate than the reports made to the hon. gentleman in respect to the persons who still remain in Canada and who have been rejected by the United States officers. Assuming that sixty persons were rejected in Montreal by the American authorities would it not be difficult some months afterwards to trace these people and find out how many of them were in Canada ? I have no doubt the reports which the hon. minister has received are perfectly bona fide, but it would seem to me that the statement of a man who has had actual experience of these facts every day in his office might be relied upon a little more closely than investigations made afterwards in regard to the number of these persons who still remain in Canada.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) will agree with me that the only kind of a report that could settle the question at issue and give the House that satisfactory information which it ought to have is a report which will set out the names of the persons that are alleged by this gentleman to have been rejected and the grounds upon which they were rejected, with an exact statement as to what the facts are in each ease. Then we could look at the report and ascertain what the facts are. So far as the remarks of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) are concerned,
I desire to say that" the class of diseases which is referred to in the communication which he has read is a class of diseases with which we have not hitherto had. legally, power to deal, and it is that class of diseases with which we desire to deal under the Act which I have before the House at the present time.
Bill reported ; read the third time, and passed.



CHINESE CAPITATION TAX.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on the following proposed resolution :
That it is expedient to provide that, after July 1st, 1902, one-half of the net proceeds of all taxes paid hy Chinese immigrants shall, at the end of every fiscal year, be paid to the province wherein they were collected.-Minister of Trade and Commerce.
The MINISTER OB1 TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) The object of this resolution is simply to deal with the percentage at present paid by the Dominion to the various provinces. At present the provinces receive one-fourth of the capitation tax. We have been very strongly urged by hon. gentlemen from British Columbia and the government have thought fit to consent to their request to make this percentage one-half instead of one-quarter. That is the sole object of the resolution.
Robert Laird Borden: Is the percentage fixed on any particular basis ? What are the grounds for fixing the percentage ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Members from British Columbia have complained that their province is put to certain extraordinary expenditures more or less on account of Chinese immigration. It is a matter which has been more or less a burning question for a good while between these gentlemen and the various governments, ourselves and our predecessors. When we increase the capitation tax to $100 a very strong request is made to us, that, at least, if we would not increase the capitation tax to $500 we would give British Columbia and the other provinces a little larger slice of the capitation tax and after very fully considering the matter we have agreed to do it. I do not know that there is anything else to be said in regard to the matter.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is there any legislation to be introduced this session respecting this Chinese question ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: No.


Mr. BOYD.: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) what the intention of the government is in regard to those immigrants who come into other provinces ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: All fare alike.


Nathaniel Boyd: These Chinamen land in British Columbia and they are to be found in almost every town and village in Manitoba and the North-west Territories taking the places that might be filled by our own people. I wish to know if we are to receive a share of this benefit that is being extended to British Columbia, or is it just the port where these immigrants land that is to receive the benefit.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The tax on those who land in British Columbia will be divided equally between the province and the Dominion. The tax on those who come to the other provinces will likewise be divided, but the number is comparatively speaking very small.


Nathaniel Boyd: But what is the intention of the government regarding those who afterwards flow into the other provinces ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: We cannot trace them after they once land.


Nathaniel Boyd: It is the place where they land that receives the benefit ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Yes.


Nathaniel Boyd: The governihent should take the suggestion I made into consideration, because these people are to be found in every village and town in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories.


Robert Laird Borden: That brings up the question of what the pecuniary loss to the province is, upon which this Bill is based.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The vast majority of these Chinamen are residents in British Columbia. There are no doubt a few scattered here and there throughout the various provinces, but I should say that probably nineteen-twentieths of them are in British Columbia. The number elsewhere would be almost infinitesimal by comparison.
Resolution reported, read the second time, and agreed to.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY-INCREASED CAPITAL.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 116) to amend the provision with respect to tolls of chapter 1 of the statutes of 1881 respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway (the Minister of Justice), read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman has already stated that a measure in these terms has been submitted to the committee.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: By agreement.
Ml-. CLARKE. Is it a usual provision to insert, that the new stock shall not be sold at less than par ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The company agrees to it. It is done in order that we may have the full benefit by way of expenditure of the total amount of authorized capital.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it a new principle in legislation ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is not a new principle in legislation, but it is confirming an agreement entered into practically between the company and the government.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Was that agreement made contingent on their being permitted to issue the stock ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is made contingent on the Order in Council authorizing the issue.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I presume that principle can be applied to other legislation ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is a matter for the House to determine.


John Graham Haggart: I understood from the government that an Order in Council had been passed by which the cost of the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway was to be submitted to the courts for determination. Has the minister got the Order in Council ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, 1 will hand it to the hon. gentleman.


John Graham Haggart: This is a different submission from what the minister stated when the Bill was introduced. This is as to the effect or interpretation of section 20 of the company's charter of incorporation, as found in 44 Victoria, chapter 1, schedule A. The statement was made to the House that the actual cost of the construction of the road was to be determined bjs this submission in order to find out whether the 10 per cent earnings of the road had been effected or not upon the actual cost of construction. I see now that what is submitted to the courts is only an interpretation of the clause.
Bill reported ; read the third time, and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 1141 to amend the Exchequer Court Act (the Minister of Justice).

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 135) to amend the Petition of Right Act (the Minister of Justice), read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the Minister of Justice to state on what principle the Crown proceeds in withholding or granting fiats for petitions of right. I have had my attention directed to a large number of petitions which were submitted for fiats about two years ago. They relate to contracts between the Crown and persons who carried the mails. The Crown undertook to cancel the contracts under some supposed power contained in the contracts. * Counsel have advised the persons interested that the Crown had no right under the circumstances to cancel those contracts, and that they have good cause for claiming such damages against the Crown as would arise by reason of its having broken the contracts. These matters have been standing about two years. I brought them to the attention of the Postmaster General last evening, but, as the Minister of Justice as well as the Postmaster General is concerned in matters of this kind, I would like to ask him for more information on the subject. I have looked into the cases somewhat hurriedly; but it seemed to me that there was a fair case for the consideration of the courts in respect to a large number of claims, I think thirty or forty-at all events, over twenty; and these people have been held up, so far as any proceedings are concerned, for nearly three years. It appears to me that where there is an arguable case, there should bo no difficulty placed in its way, and I think the House might very well hear from the Minister of Justice at the present time what the policy of the Crown is in regard* to the matter. I have looked into the rule in England, and I do not see anything that would justify the government in keeping these people at bay so long. It seems to me that if there is any tendency at all in this matter, it is to allow the subject the freest possible right to proceed against the Crown. The Postmaster General may think that these claims are groundless, and that he was perfectly justified ini cancelling the contracts; but the real point for the consideration of the House and the country is not what the Postmaster General thinks about it, but what the courts will think about it when these claims are put before them. It amounts to a denial of justice to these people-'because their claims cannot be regarded as frivolous-that they should be held up in this way for a period of nearly three years.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My attention has not been directed, so far as I can recollect, to the cases which the hon. leader of the opposition refers to, and therefore, I would not like to say anything at the present time in reference to them. If they have been before the department for three years, they have probably been disposed of by my predecessor. But the hon. leader of the opposition, I presume, not only wants


Edward Frederick Clarke: to know wliat the reasons may be which necessitated the long delay of the government in granting flats in the cases mentioned, but a statement of the principles which the present Minister of Justice intends to apply in all cases where applications are made for fiats for petitions of right. My hon. friend will understand immediately that that is a question of policy, and therefore, I should not like to state what my personal views are on the subject until such time as I have an opportunity to have those views confirmed by the government. I should not like to say that I would grant a fiat if an arguable case were submitted, if that were my view, because before I state my view, I should like to put it in writing and have the government approve of it, and then place it before the House not merely as my personal view, but the view of the government. I will therefore ask the committee to rise, and when I bring down a statement with reference to the Canadian Pacific Railway matter, I will also make a statement on the point to which my hon. friend has referred; because I quite understand that it is important that the House should have some authoritative statement of the views of the government on that subject.
Mr. CASGIiAIN. I think what the hou. gentleman has just said is perfectly fair and correct. The rule, so far as X have been able to gather it in placing petitions of right before the provincial government and before this government, is this, that when the claim on its face is not frivolous, or when a prima facie claim has been made out, or when there is nothing improper in the claim, the Minister of Justice recommends that a fiat do issue and that a petition be lodged in the court. X think that is the proper rule, which ha^ always been followed in England. My learned and hou. friend the Minister of Justice knows that is the view laid down in Clode on petitious of right. I do not agree with the minister when he says that he does not give his own advice to the House, but would rather submit his views to the government to see whether the views of his colleagues coincide with his own. It seems to me In a matter of this kind that his colleagues should be to a great extent swayed by the Minister of Justice, because after all the thing to be decided is not a question of policy. The question to be decided is not a question of policy. The question is not whether, in the interest of such and such a party, it would be right to grant or refuse the petition, but, whether or not, the petition bears on its face, that stamp of bona fides, which should recommend it to the Minister of Justice as the legal adviser of the government. I have every confidence in the judgment of my hon. friend, and I know that if it were left to him alone, whenever I or anybody else had a bona fide claim before the government, the petition would be granted, but if my hon. friend submits the question to the 124



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
administration it wll!l Ibe .hard for him to get a unanimous opinion. If this is the rule which is to be followed, in many instances those members of the cabinet who do not belong to tire legal fraternity and cannot see with the same pair of eyes as my hon, friend, would likely set up some other reasons than reasons of law against the granting of the petition. I submit that when he comes down again with this Bill, he should give his own views, as Minister of Justice, as to the course he will follow, and the rule he will carry out when petitions of right are lodged with the government.
Robert Laird Borden: I recollect hearing a very eminent authority in the British House of Commons, say, on a question somewhat analagous to this, that the government could have no opinion except the opinion of the law officers of the Crown. My hon. friend holds a position which corresponds with that of the law officers of the Crown in England, and, as has been well pointed out by my hon. friend behind me (Mr. Cas-grain), this is not so much a question of policy, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, as a question of what is right, from the standpoint of justice, with regard to these petitions. I entirely concur in the view that in respect of matters of this kind the government should adopt the opinion of the Minister of Justice, and, I .should also like to point out that, the provision in this Bill maxing it necessary, when security for costs is ordered, that somebody should give security, goes in the direction of granting the fiat with more liberality than in the past. The only reason why so called frivolous petitions were not allowed in the past was that it was not in the public interest to allow a claim to go to litigation for which there was no foundation and public moneys should not be wasted in .contesting such claims ; but, by the very proper Bill introduced by the Minister o,f Justice, providing that iu certain oases, where it seems expedient to the Governor in Council, security for costs should be given, the fiat should be issued, as a matter of course, on that condition being complied with.
I have no objection, to passing the Bill, as I think it is a proper one, but it is understood we are to have a statement from the Minister of Justice on the subject later in the session.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My view, of course, is that of the government, and my hon. friend has correctly expressed my own view with respect to this question, when he says that this Bill was not introduced merely for the purpose of adding something to the legislation already in existence. The object I have in view is to widen the gate, so far as 1 can, consistent with my duty to the Crown.


John Graham Haggart: When the Bill was first introduced, the argument advanced was that it would assimilate the law in Canada



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
to the law in England, where the fiat issues as a matter of right. I understood the Minister of Justice, when introducing this Bill, to say that the fiat would, upon some fixed principle, issue as a matter of right. I think that that is the correct principle. It should not be left to the Governor in Council or the Minister of Justice to say whether a fiat should issue or not, but there should be some fixed rule or principle on which it would issue as a matter of course. In England it is issued almost always as a matter *of course, and when the law was made in Canada the same as that in England, that was done on the understanding that unless there was something very objectionable in the petition for a fiat, the fiat should issue as a matter olf course. I understood from the remarks of the Minister of Justice, when he introduced this Bill, that it was intended to facilitate the granting of fiats. Why should not a man have an action against the Crown just the same as against an individual ? It may be necessary for him to furnish security for costs in the interests of the community, which he might not be requireu to do in a case against an individual, but, upon his so doing, I contend that the fiat should issue as a matter of course, upon a praecipe being filed, just as in the case of an ordinary writ.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 137) to amend chapter 41 of the statutes of 1901, respecting the Administration of Justice in the Yukon Territory, (the Minister of Justice), read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: The intention is to appoint a third judge of the High Court who shall perform the duties of the magistrate at Dawsion. The living allowance now of a police magistrate is S3,000 a year. The intention, as my bon. friend will remember from the amounts in the estimates, is to increase the salary to $4,000 anld reduce the living allowance to $1,800.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



JUDGES OF PROVINCIAL COURTS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 138) to amend the Act respecting the judges of Provincial Courts (the Minister of Justice) was read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Edward Frederick Clarke: What salaries are these judges receiving now ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: There are only two of


John Graham Haggart: them now, and they receive $5,000 each. The intention is to add a third at a salary of $5,000.


Mr. CASGRAIN.: May I ask why this section only applies to judges of the County Courts ? Does not my hon. friend think that some amendment should be made to the law which would apply also to the judges of the Superior Courts ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If my, lion, friend will look at the law respecting provincial judges he -will find that the judges of the High Court or of the Superior Court, as we in Quebec call it, are entitled, if they become incapacitated after their appointment, to retire at any time upon an allowance equal to two-thirds of the salary, and, at the end \of fifteen years they are entitled absolutely to retire on that allowance, whether they are able to perform their duties or not But the position with respect to County Court judges in Ontario-and elsewhere where they have County Court judges -is such that if a judge lias served less than ten years and becomes unable to perform his duties he is obliged to retire and get absolutely nothing. It is to meet one case- it is unnecessary to mention names-that exists in the province of Ontario that this Bill is introduced, a case of special hardship. We think it unfair, that if a judge has served this country during a certain number of years and becomes incapacitated through illness before lie has served ten years, he should receive nothing.


Thomas Chase Casgrain: I was not explicit enough in the question I put. I should have made myself clearer. The purport of my question is really this : My hon. friend (Mr. Fitzpatrick) knows that there have been and are still some judges who have rendered good service to the country and who have reached an age when they should be able to retire, not merely with a pension but with an allowance equal to the salary they are now receiving. 1 need not mention names, but my hon. friend, I am sure, knows as well as I do that there are judges of the highest courts of this Dominion and also judges of the Superior Courts of the different provinces who, after serving their country for many years have arrived at an age when it is impossible for them to give the time and assiduity to the fulfilment of their duties which they would wish to give. These gentlemen would willingly retire if it were possible for them to do so. But, because of the smallness of the salary they have received for a number of years-I am not at all in sympathy with those who think salaries of the judges are sufficient- they are not able to retire, but go on in the performance of duties more onerous than those which men in other positions generally undertake at the ages to which they have arrived. I would ask the hon. minister if he does not think that at this stage it would be good policy and further the ad-

ministration of justice to amend the statute so as to provide that when judges have arrived at an age at which men in other professions generally retire, they would be able to retire with a full pension equal to the salary they are now receiving. I am sure my hon. friend is in sympathy with the opinion I have now expressed. I hope that if he is not able at this moment to do what I recommend, in a short time he will be able to see his way to carry out this policy.


Mr. WADE.: I concur in the remarks which have fallen from the lips of the bon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain). I know that what he says with regard to the position of a number of Superior Court judges is absolutely correct, and what he says applies more to our province than to Ontario, because our Superior Court judges receive only $4,000 a year, while a Superior Court judge in Ontario receives $5,000 from the Dominion and $1,000 a year from the province, a total of $6,000 a year. Now when a judge is in receipt of only $4,000 a year, it is impossible for him to retire under the present provision of the statute. I think the salaries of the judges are too small. Certainly, in the province of Nova Scotia they are much too small. The duties of judges in Nova Scotia are the same and che amount of work is the same as that coming before judges in Ontario. These judges have the disposal of matters of life, liberty and property, and I do not think their salaries should be as low as they are. A judge may become incapacitated, yet he is not in a position to take advantage of the Act as it stands because of the shortness of his term of service. I hope the government will take into consideration this proposed change and will place the judges in a position of absolute independence so that they may know that after they have served a certain time, if they are compelled to retire, they will have a proper retiring allowance, and I think that amount should be equal to their salary.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The hon. gentlemen who have preceded me are ia the happy position of being private members and so are free to speak their minds. If I were a private member I would like to say that I am in favour, and always have been in favour, of giving proper consideration to the judges of the land. I think the salaries ought to be increased :	I think
also that when a judge has served his country for a period of years-say twenty or twenty-five years-and if he has reached an advanced age as some of our judges have, he should be allowed to retire on full pay. I would have absolutely no sympathy with those who think that our judges now [DOT]are paid, beyond the value of the services they render. I think the judiciary of this country are entitled to every possible consideration at our hands, and we ought to promote in every way 124J
their interests, and especially to provide for their declining years. I know that it is a maxim of the Bar that we live well and die poor. That is a principle with us. Probably there are a good many in this House who are not in sympathy with what I have said ; but as I said a moment ago, when speaking as a private member, one can speak more freely his own mind.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend is the second member of the government who has said what he would do if he were a private member. It might be interesting to consider what would happen if all the members of the government were private members. Apparently some very notable reforms would take place in the affairs of this country if that happy consummation could some day be achieved. There is a great deal in what has been said-I am speaking entirely as a private member in this regard-there is a great deal in what has been said in regard to the salaries of the judges. They are very inadequate, because they were fixed years ago at a time when the cost of living was very much less than it is now. In addition to that general increased cost of living, there is a necessity for the judge to keep up a certain appearance, he has to do entertaining, and all these things make the cost of living for a judge very great. I know the judges in our own province have found the salary which is provided for them very inadequate indeed. I should be glad to know that this matter will engage the attention of my hon. friend.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Not being a lawyer.
1 do not understand this question perhaps as well as the hon. gentlemen who have been speaking. But there is one thing to which I wish to draw the attention of the Hon. Minister of Justice, and which I think is very pertinent in discussing this question. I would like to ask him-I know he has not been very long in his position- if he has any trouble to find gentlemen in the profession who are willing to take a position of judge when it is offered to them ? I have every respect for the judges, but I do not understand why, if they are such a long-suffering community, there are so many in the legal profession who are willing to take a judgeship and to go through all the sufferings and to perform the onerous duties which that position entails upon them-and even to live on starvation allowance. Now, I want to see the judges properly paid, but I do not believe in holding out inducements to them or encouraging them to live extravagantly, to live beyond their means, and then, after a few years, to retire them on an allowance sufficient to keep them in extravagance all their days. I am satisfied in my own mind that there are a great many gentlemen on the bench who receive a great deal more money than they could earn in the practice of their profession.

Although they should be enabled to live respectably and all that sort of thing, there should be no encouragement held out to a judge or any other person to live-extravagantly. They should be taught to use economy and save up money for their declining years, the same as I have to do,' as well as the people of this country generally.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My experience has been of very short duration, but during the few months that I have been at tlie head of the Department of Justice, I can say for the information of my hon. friend that I have already found considerable difficulty in finding men to take some positions of judges. The fact is that during my short career as Minister of Justice I have been face to face with that difficulty twice. I have found it impossible, for instance, to get a judge from the High Court to take a position in the province of Ontario on the Court of Appeals. I could give other cases, but it is not necessary to do so at the present time. I simply mention this fact as an answer to the criticism of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Cochrane). There are dozens of lawyers in this country who in one year make four times the salary of the judges; I could mention dozens of them.


Mr. ROSS (Ontario).: I am not quite sure that I understand this section. Does it mean that from the passing of this Act every county court judge may retire at any time and receive a pension ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If a county court judge retires before he has served ten years because of physical infirmity, illness of any kind, he is entitled to a pension. But if a judge is retired for cause, he does not receive a pension.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think the statement of the Minister of Justice that some lawyers earn four times as much in one year as judges are paid, is an evidence that the judges are not sufficiently paid; it may be an evidence that the lawyers are paid too high.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: book at the salaries of some bank cashiers and presidents of railway companies.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister remarked that he was unable to get a judge to take some position. I may remind him, that is possibly owing to the fact that he was making his selection from amongst Reform lawyers. When the Reform party are in power the Reform lawyers have a cinch on the situation, and can make a great deal more money by remaining off the bench and working through party affiliations.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If the hon. gentleman was acquainted with the extravagant administration of the Depart-


Matthew Henry Cochrane: ment of .Justice previous to 1S96, he would not make that remark.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Do I understand that this is a reintroduction of the superannuation System and its application to the judges?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It provides that the judges of county courts who have not served ten years on the bench and who become physically incapable of performing their duties may receive a pension.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is optional ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, if they become physically incapacitated they may receive a pension; otherwise, if this Bill is not passed, and they have not served ten years, they will not receive anything.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Why not apply this principle to men in other situations in the public service who get much smaller salaries, and who have less opportunity to put by anything from their meagre incomes ? Why not provide that men getting $600, $800. $1,000, $1,200, and who are compelled to retire on account of physical disability before having served ten years, should likewise receive some consideration ? Surely if judges who receive $4,000. $5,000, $6,000 a year should be looked after, and I think they should, it is equally incumbent on the government, on the same principle of justice, to look after those in receipt of much smaller salaries who spend their lives in the public service, or who have to retire incapacitated before they have served ten or twelve years. If this superannuation system is to be applied to judges, and I think it should, I submit respectfully that it ought to apply to other departments of the public service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not want it understood that I am opposing the Bill from any remarks I have made. I think the principle is sound.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: Although I represent a rural constituency, I am not at all afraid to advocate an increase of salary for the judges. I live in the city of Montreal, where I practice, and I may say that out of twenty or twenty-five bank cashiers, all but two or three receive greater salaries than our judges. The judges in the city of Montreal receive $5,000 a year, and I know at least ten or twelve cashiers, some of them in small banks, who get from $10,000 to $15,000 a year.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: A cashier has to work.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think a judge is as much entitled to a good salary as a bank cashier. I have known a chief justice, I will not mention his name, who to my knowledge refused to accept invitations because his salary would not enable him to

reciprocate. That is the position in which some of our judges are in Montreal.


Thomas Chase Casgrain: Mr. Chairman, I cannot allow some of the remarks that have been made to pass without a protest on my part.
I am not speaking because I think I will ever be a judge. The time seems to be pretty far off if I were ever likely to be called to such an exalted honour. I am speaking because I think that some information should be given to the House on this question at this time. This is a question which has been brought up several times. It was brought up by me two years ago and again last year, and it seemed then to be the sense and the opinion of this House that the judges of this country were not paid high enough salaries. I do not mean to say that is always the case in respect to judges living in rural towns, for instance, as in the province of Quebec, who get the same salaries as the judges living in cities. In the city of Montreal the judges receive $5,000 a year. I would ask any kon. gentleman who knows anything about the cost of living in Montreal if it is possible for a man to occupy the position of a judge and maintain his position on such a salary. He has naturally, from the position which he occupies to reciprocate many kindnesses, to appear in society, to live up to the position he occupies, and I would ask hon. gentlemen if it is possible for him to do so on a salary of $5,000 a year ? Being a citizen of Montreal, living in that city, I venture to say that it is absolutely impossible for a judge to live upon that salary if he wants, as we say in French, to do honour to the position which he occupies. When these salaries were fixed a few years ago the cost of living was not anything like it is to-day. The cost of living has increased by at least 30 per cent since these salaries were fixed by statute 15 or 20 years ago. At that time it was not thought that the salaries were too high; it was thought that the judges were simply getting what they were entitled to. Let me call the attention of the committee to the fact that judges, unlike the managers of large railways companies, or of banks, as my hon. friend for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) said a moment ago, are not only dealing with the fortunes of the people but they are also dealing with the life and liberty of the subject in this country. The duties which they are called upon to fulfil are the most difficult, the most onerous and the most responsible duties that any man could fulfil, and this has been recognized all over the world. I will not mention the salaries paid to judges in England, which run from $25,000 to $35,000 and $45,000 a year, but take the salaries paid to judges in the British colonies, in Australia, in New Zealand and in the Cape of Good Hope, I venture to say there is not one colony where the judges are paid such low salaries as they
are paid in Canada. I call the attention of the committee to the fact that it is becoming a danger to the public at large to have the salaries of judges fixed at the amount at which they are fixed to-day. I shall not call the attention of the committee to any particular incident, but let me just suppose this case for example; let me suppose the case of a man who, from misfortune, or for some other reason, is in debt. Suppose he is a judge upon the bench, suppose he has a case before him, which happens every dav in the city of Montreal, involving $50,000 or $100,000 or $200,000 or $500,000; then, you see the danger there is that this man, being a poor man, being in debt, should be called upon to deal with such large interests. It is not only in the interest of the judges themselves, but it is in the interest of the public as well that proper salaries should be paid. It is not because I think I will curry any favour with them that I am constantly advocating an increase in their salaries, but it is because I think it is in the interest of the administration of justice in this country, and in the interest of litigants that the paltry sum which the judges are receiving should be increased, and that decent salaries should be paid them.


William Humphrey Bennett: I think that in the province of Ontario the complaint is not that the Superior Court judges are paid too much, but rather that there are too many judges in the country tumbling one over the other. When hon. gentlemen now on the government side of the House were in opposition, there was one plea they always put forward and that was the plea of economy, and if there was any one question on which the government of that day were attacked it was the question of judges and their salaries. The records of this House will show that when these hon. gentlemen were on the left of the Speaker they assailed from time to time the appointment of county court judges as being unnecessary and superfluous in the province of Ontario. What does the record show ? Here we find, in the province of Ontario, that there are 45 senior county court judges and 23 junior county court judges, making in all G8 county court judges in that province. I say it is simply a burlesque and travesty that in the province of Ontario there are county court judges who are simply sitting around and waiting for something to do. We remember the abuse that was heaped upon the Conservative administration in times past, but, hon. gentlemen opposite have gone on doing the thing which they condemned. Take, for instance, the county of Ontario. In the county of Ontario a little time ago there was a vacancy in the junior judgeship. The government, in obedience to the demands of party friends, appointed a junior judge in that county. What do the records show there ? I will not state from memory

the exact number of cases that were dealt with in that county, but I am bound to say that there were less than six cases tried in the county of Ontario in one year by the two judges.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What are the salaries which they receive ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I suppose they get the regular salaries-the senior judge, $2,600, and the junior judge, $2,000. The country is not paying enough salary to the Superior Court judges of the province of Ontario. I will not make any invidious distinctions. There are some gentlemen who occupy places on the Superior Court bench of Ontario, the value of whose services is placed at $7,000, while it is a well known fact that these gentlemen, if they were active in their profession, would earn from $15,000 to $20,000 a year. At the same time, let me tell the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) that there are gentlemen not only in the county courts, but on the Superior Court bench as well, who, I fear would fall very far short of the salaries which they are receiving if they were standing shoulder to shoulder in the ranks and practicing their profession. Therefore, in Ontario, I think any lawyer who is not afraid to speak out his mind, and I am speaking out my mind, knowing that election protests are far ahead-of course saying that in a jocular way-will agree with me that we should endeavour to have fewer Superior Court judges and that we should increase the salary of these judges to $10,000 a year. Then, you will bring the best men in the profession to the bench. Take Mr. Ayles-worth, of Toronto, for instance; he is a gentleman who would not look at a position worth $7,000 a year. I assume that Mr. Aylesworth makes three times that, and probably mox-e. This business of the county court judges is simply a farce. They are falling over one another in the province of Ontario, and yet they are paid the salaries which I have mentioned. I know one gentleman who is receiving annually $2,600 as county court judge. In addition he will have the fees commuted to him from the Surrogate Court, the fees from arbitrations, revision of the voter's lists and other matters. That gentleman's salary will run up to $3,500 a year, and I will be bound to say that in days past, when he was practicing at the bar, he never saw $1,500 a year, and would not have seen it had he continued to practice at the bar. Some means should be taken by the government, in so far as county court judges are concerned, to see that there shall be fewer county court judges and fewer Superior Court judges, particularly in the province of Ontario. I do not speak for any other province because I know nothing about other provinces, but in Ontario let us have fewer county court judges, let us have fewer Superior Court judges, and let the


William Humphrey Bennett: Superior Court judges be paid salaries that will be commensurate with the abilities! they so fittingly bring to the positions which they occupy. The Minister of Justice could have told the House that had one of the judges of the other courts gone to the Court of Appeal, he would have forfeited $1,000 a year. These judges, who are only human like other men, weigh up the dollars and cents, and so prefer to stay where they are. Once again, let me place myself upon record as a lawyer in saying : We should have fewer judges in the province of Ontario, and the Superior Court judges should be paid a higher salary. Start at the root of the matter, and that is the county court judgeship business.


Mr. LEIGHTON MCCARTHY (North Simcoe).: Inasmuch as I entirely dissent from almost all my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) has said, I think it my duty to say a word or two on this question. I do agree that the Superior Court judges of Ontario are not paid as they should be paid, and I believe their salaries should be greatly increased. I do not agree with the hon. gentleman '(Mr. Bfennett) that the number of Superior Court judges in that province should be decreased. I believe that if there was a lesser number of judges they could not discharge their duties properly. They now work harder than most men do at the bar ; they get behind their work, and it would be impossible for fewer judges to do the work. To talk of reducing the number is entirely out of the question. The salaries paid to our judges are so meagre that I agree with the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) that it is dangerous to the public at large to allow the remuneration of judges to remain at so low a figure. It is all very well for hon. gentlemen to say that if some of the judges were practicing at the bar they would not earn a sum equal to their present salaries, but it is a fact that we have on the bench of this country, men who did not become eminent as members of the bar, but when in some cases make better judges than those who before their elevation to the bench had a very large practice.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: If a judge occupies the position with dignity and gives perhaps better satisfaction as a judge than his brother judge who was eminent at the bar, surely that man is entitled to receive at least equal compensation to him who was the more eminent practitioner if he discharges his judicial functions equally well. Comparisons between men on the bench and men at the bar are not always a fair test of the standing on the bench. This is true as regards the judiciary in all British countries. The smallness of the salaries paid to our judges is a grievance recognized by the members of the Bar throughout Canada, and the sooner it is

remedied the better for the country. In England, eminent members of the legal profession are able to go on the bench without making such a pecuniary sacrifice, because the salaries paid are so large that a man can maintain his rank and dignity in the eyes of the public. I agree with the statement that certain members of the Bar in Ontario are earning three times the salary which is paid to a judge. That is an anomaly which should not be allowed to exist in any country. I trust that the government, and especially the Minister of Justice, will take this matter in hand, and that before long Canadian judges will receive such a salary as will enabe them to maintain the dignity of their position. What the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) said regarding our county court judges is to some extent correct. There are some county court judges who have pretty nearly nothing to do, but there are others who are overworked. To adjust this state of affairs is a task of considerable difficulty, because we are bound by county boundaries. we are bound by appointments which were made years ago and which have been repeated, and the present occupants of the office have certain vested rights which I do not suppose that even my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) would argue should be interfered with. Might I throw out the suggestion, that the junior judge could be taken from a county where there is not much work, and when a vacancy occurs in a county where there is a great deal of work transferred there, and no new appointment made in the county which he left. In this way no injury would be done to the individual and there would be a saving to the country.


Mr. J. H. LEGRIS (Maskinonge).: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, were we to take any stock in the predictions made by some hon. gentlemen who have just addressed the House, we would be led to believe that the country is threatened with unheard of disasters if the salaries of judges are not increased. The hon. member from Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) and my hon. friend from Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) have assumed the role of prophets, but they are by no means the only ones who have taken that position, as several other gentlemen who belong, I think, to the legal profession, have spoken to the same effect. I do not wish to impute any motives to the hon. gentlemen and to insinuate that some of them are expectant judges


Thomas Chase Casgrain: (Translation.) Let the hon. gentleman allow me to tell him that even were I offered a judgeship now, I would decline the offer on the very ground I have mentioned.


Joseph Hormisdas Legris: (Translation.) No fear of that. My hon. friend says what the fox did of the grapes.


Thomas Chase Casgrain: (Translation.) That's too old.
Mr. LEGRIS (Translation.) Let him possess his soul in patience ; maybe the time will come when the grapes will be ripe enough ; for instance, when his party climbs into power again ; but, of course, that is a very remote contingency.
There is a very important consideration that was lost sight of by those who are in favour of increasing the salaries of judges, and it is that they are paid a retiring allowance when they retire from the bench. However, I agree that the salaries of judges are below the emoluments derived by leading members in the practice of the legal profession ; but those lawyers are an exception to the rule, and besides, the question of income should not be the sole test of efficiency or fitness for a seat on the bench. So long as the leading members in the practice of their profession, and so long as even members of this House, as is often the case, will be ready to give up their positions in order to accept judgeships, there is no reason to take alarm if their salaries are not increased.
Some lion, gentlemen have contrasted the salaries of judges and the salaries given to bank cashiers ; but there is no comparison at all between those positions. I admit that we have bank officers, bank presidents and bank cashiers, and others who are paid much higher salaries than even the highest salary that is paid to judges of the land. But one must not jump to the conclusion that, because higher salaries are given in commercial life and monetary institutions, the salaries of judges must be increased.
So long as leading men at the bar, who are most renowned for their accomplishments and their integrity, men who are successful in the practice of their profession, and who, therefore, are fit to disenarge the duties of the judiciary will be ready to accept judgeships ; so long, I say, as there will be such a keen competition as is now the case, among those who wish to rise to the bench, and who are all well qualified for the position, I think there is no reason of taking alarm and to fear disasters for the country and for those who are amenable to the tribunals of justice, if the salaries of judges are not increased.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) alluded to the judges who live in the rural districts of the province of Quebec, and he said that these judges are sufficiently paid. Perhaps they are, but there are not any of them left so far as I know.


Thomas Chase Casgrain: What does my hon. friend mean ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Because they are all living in the cities ; in violation of the law.


Thomas Chase Casgrain: Those who live in the cities live there because they choose to do so.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: They
ought not to be allowed.


Thomas Chase Casgrain: Perhaps not. Hon. Judge Choquette, who used to be a member of this House, lives in Quebec.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There
are others.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



SUPPLY-THE SEARCH FOR THE NORTH POLE.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
['Friday, May 2, 1902.']
John Charlton: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, I desire to bring to the attention of the House a matter, the importance of which I deem will warrant its consideration for a short time. I had intended originally to bring it in the form of a motion, and, had I done so, I should have asked the hon. mem ber for Toronto West (Mr. Clarke) to second the motion. I presume, however, that it will answer just as good a purpose to discuss the question without putting into your hands a motion in relation to it. The question I desire to bring to the attention to the House is in regard to the advisability on the part of the government of rendering aid to a Canadian expedition for the purpose of discovering or seeking to discover the north pole.
The question may perhaps be raised as to the advisability of making the expenditure which would be necessary for this purpose. I shall endeavour to show that such an appropriation would serve the public interest and would be worth to the country more than the sum of money required. We are, of course, making large expenditures; the country is bearing a considerable burden; but, in a growing and young country like Canada, it is necessary to make appropriations which perhaps the future will derive the benefit from, and will be called upon to liquidate ; and the question is whether the expenditure which I shall urge on the government on this occasion is an expenditure of that character or not. We have recently awakened to the possibility of having an active and aggressive national life in Canada. We no longer feel like apologizing for being Canadians. We no longer have that sense of provincialism, possibly I might say of inferiority. that was once entertained bv citizens of this country. We have found,'in bringing back the sheaves of achievement from South Africa, which have cost us some blood and tears, that we have gained an enviable position in the world, a position which has drawn the attention of the world to Canada, a position which is worth infiu-


Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.: itely more in the results which it will bring in the present and the future than all tlie sacrifice in money and life that has been given to purchase it. Now, Sir, it is probable that the expenditure which I shall urge upon the government on this occasion is one which will bring to Canada a large meed of reputation throughout the world, and will give to ourselves the idea that we are progressive, that we have capabilities, that we may aspire to toe a nation. The proposition to send a Canadian expedition to the north pole is not a visionary one. The discovery of the north pole in our case would not be a fruitless one. Aside entirely from the reputation that would accrue to this country from the settlement of a geographical problem which has engaged the attention of maritime nations for generations, we would establish our right to all the territories and islands and seas that might lie between our present northern boundary and the north pole itself-all that vast region between the 141st parallel of longitude on the west, and Baffin's Bay and Grant land on the east. And these possessions may be of value. They may contain enormous mineral wealth. Our impression as to the worthlessness of these arctic lands is perhaps an erroneous impression. The temperature of all this great region to the north of latitude 75 is not much, if any lower than that of Dawson.
This prize has been sought for by many notable and daring men-by Scorestoy in 180G. by Parry in 1827, by Sir George Nares in 1870, by De Long in 1879, by Greeley in 1882, by Nansen in 1895, and by the Duke d'Abruzzi in 1899-1900; and there are at this moment two polar expeditions in progress- that of Peary, who will attempt to reach the pole from Greenland, by means of sledge journeys over the ice, and that of Baldwin, who, following the theories of Captain Bernier. of Canada, will attempt to reach it by Franz Joseph Land. It may be that these two American expeditions will forestall us in the discovery of the pole; but even if they did, the credit that would accrue to us from an expedition would be quite sufficient to compensate us for its cost.
I think .it may be asserted without any question that Canada is peculiarly well fitted for this work. We have hardy and daring seamen in our maritime provinces; we are constantly exploring the wilds; we have exploring expeditions in progress every year-Tyrrell in the North-west, Low in Labrador, Bell and others to the north-east and east of James Bay, and other Canadian explorers; and the accomplishments of these men warrant me in saying that we have an aptitude for this kind of work-hardihood. courage and aggressiveness-that specially fits us for undertaking it. The whole history of Canada back to the time the first French colonists landed in this country is a history of adventure and daring. While the English colonists explored the country

only as far west as the Alleghany Mountains, the French colonists penetrated Into the far Interior, to the valley of the Mississippi, and up tihe Ottawa river to the great lakes. La Salla explored the great west almost to the mouth of the Mississippi. Duquesne Hounded a posit on the site of the great industrial centre of Pittsburgh and Alleghany city, near which subsequently a British army under Braddock was overwhelmed and annihilated. These explorers established posts at Detroit, Mackinaw. St. Louis, and other points in the west. These daring hardy men led the van in the march of the empire and were perfectly well a ware of the grea t value of the possessions they had secured toy their explorations, but the supine, effete dynasty in power at Versailles had not the courage, the grasp or tihe prescience to avail themselves of these explorations, and so Canada fell into the hands of Britain, and we are today in the position to utilize in the same race these admirable qualities which marked the early explorers of the North-west.
We want. I imagine, to add to the exploits of the past. We want to do something to keep up the prestige of the past, and we can do this, in my opinion, with as little expense, and as easily by reaching the North Pole in advance of all other maritime nations as in any other way. The accumulations of knowledge and experience with regard to Arctic voyages and conditions will place whoever commands a Canadian polar expedition to-day in a position far more favourable than that in which any previous navigator has been placed.
We have various theories with regard to the Arctic basin. We have the old and exploded theory of an open Polar Sea and various other theories. We have discovered various facts which have an important bearing on explorations, and one of the most important is the ice drift first discovered by Gustave Lambert in 1866. Careful investigations have shown that there is a regular movement of ice from that portion of the Arctic Sea. situated next to Behering Straits, and extending across to the east coast of Greenland, so that a vessel, packed in that ice will drift across the Arctic Ocean. It was in consequence of that theory that DeLomg placed the ' Jeannette ' in the ice drift, and later on wreckage from the vessel was found thousands of miles away on the coast of Greenland. In persuit of this theory the ' Fram,' under command of Captain Nansen, entered in the ice near the north-east coast of Siberia nearly north of the mouth of the Lena river and drifted on to within 285 miles of the pole. This knowledge of the ice drift was taken advantage of by DeLong and Nansen, and we now have experience and knowledge more full and complete and more likely to lead to a successfid result than has ever been possessed by any Arctic navigator at any previous time. This experiment of Nansen's enabled him to reach latitude
86T3, within 227 miles of the pole. Following him, the Duke d'Abbrezzi approached the pole 20 miles nearer, or within 207 miles. This theory of the ice drift simply amounts to this, that an explorer, by his knowledge of the direction of the currents. can place his vessel in filie drift and trust himself to nature and nature's God to drift towards his destination. There has been a theory propounded regarding the possibility of reaching the pole by means of vessels similar to the one now used in the Baltic, which are able to crush ice of the thickness of II feet. This is. however, probably an impracticable method. Thg information I have sought to place before the House with regard to the knowledge now in the possession of those who have given attention to the matter, will warrant our coming to the conclusion that it is worthy of our consideration at least as to whether we shall avail ourselves of the services of some one thoroughly competent to pursue and profit by the investigations, and invest a little money in the hope of placing Canada at the head of all maritime powers in the search for the North Pole.
I wish now to state that we have among Canadian navigators a nautical man, whose experience, whose courage, whose length of service in seafaring life, and whose knowledge of all the conditions pertaining to Arctic exploration, probably render him better fitted than any other man in this country, and as well fitted as any in the world, to take command of an expedition and attempt to reach the North Pole. I refer to Captain Bernier, who belongs to the race of La Salle, which has penetrated to the heart of the continent, and who has the courage to undertake to penetrate to the North Pole, and will do it if the government will afford him the means. Captain Bernier is 50 years old. If the government had done their duty and sent him at the time they should have, he would have started on his trip at 48 years of age. He was in command of a vessel at the age of 17. He has commanded 46 ships. He has crossed the Atlantic 174 times. He has never lost a vessel except in one instance, when he ran the ' Quorm ' ashore to save her from going to the bottom, she having sprung a leak, and the investigation of the underwriters exonerated him from all blame, as also did the owners of the vessel. He was for twenty years with IV. H. Ross & Company as captain, overlooker, and repairer, filling these various capacities in the service, in all quarters of the world. He was eight years with P. Baldwin, ship builder at Quebec. In the summer he took the vessels across to their destination, which were constructed, and in the winter lie acted as superintendent of the ship yard and superintended the construction of twelve ships. He was with the Richielieu Company two years, and adjusted the compasses on all their vessels, eleven in number. He sailed on the government steamer 'Eureka' with the

Minister of Public Works, on a tour around the gulf and the coast, and no doubt the hon. minister will give a good testimonial as to his capacity and qualifications.
His theory of reaching the North Pole, which is to place his vessel in the ice north of Behring Straits and drift to its destination, has been endorsed by Lord Minto and Lord Strathcona, and I consider the endorsa-tion of Lord Strathcona as one of particular significance, because Lord Strathcona spent many years of his life in the far north and is thoroughly conversant with the conditions of the Arctic regions-probably better fitted than any man who represents Canada to give an intelligent opinion as to the probability of Captain Bernier succeeding in the expedition he proposes to take. The Captain's theory has been endorsed by the Colonial Institute. His theory was accepted and endorsed by the Institute and Sir Clemens Markham, on January 16th, 1901. It was endorsed also by the Royal Society, by resolution of 23rd May, 1901. The Canadian Institute of Toronto endorsed it in 1901, and it also received the eudorsation of the Ontario Surveyors Association. Captain Bernier has addressed members of this House in Room 16 on two occasions-once in the year 1900. at a meeting of which the Minister of Finance was chairman. I believe that Capt. Bernier then succeeded in convincing every one who listened to him of the feasibility of his plan for reaching the North Pole. He again addressed the members of this House on March 23rd, 1901, at a meeting of which my hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Edwards) was chairman, and again enlisted the sympathy and commanded the confidence of the great majority of those who listened to him. He has a certificate of competency from the American Consul Henry at Quebec, and he has a great number of testimonials that universally and emphatically assert that he is a sea-faring man possessing the qualifications, the capabilities and the knowledge that peculiarly fit him for the position he seeks with regard to this matter. He has I believe, the endorsation of one hundred and thirteen members of this House, who have signed a petition to the government asking that the necessary appropriation shall be made to enable him to carry into effect the plans that he has promulgated and laid before us.
Now', with regard to the plans for this expedition, I thiuk it is as well to enter into these in some detail. Captain Bernier proposes to build a vessel of wood. A vessel of wood is much better adapted to the purposes of Arctic navigation and navigation among ice floes than is a vessel of steel. The vessel will be built upon the west coast as it will enter upon its service by passing through Behring Straits. It will be of the same plan as the ' Fram,' which was commanded by Nansen, but ten tons heavier-being three hundred tons net measurement.


John Charlton: She will be of the same general plan as the ' Gauss,' now being constructed at Kiel, for the German expedition to the south pole. It will be built with the utmost strength in order to resist the ' ice mips ' as they are called-that is, when a vessel is caught between fields of ice which either crush her like an egg shell or lift her out of water. The vessel will have a system of wa ten tight compartments, six in number, which, no previous Arctic vessel has had, and which will add enormously to her strength and power of resistance. She will be 120 feet keel, 35 feet beam, and IS feet deep, and will have a flush deck, which is a new and desirable feature, in the opinion of the captain. The vessel will have a draught of 14 feet; she will have three masts and will be top sail schooner rigged. She will have triple expansion engines, a 10-foot wheel, two boilers, each 10 feet of diameter and 8 feet long, and will be of 200 horse power, and able to steam at full steaming capacity on three tons of hard coal for every twenty-four hours. She will have a spare rudder and a spare wheel and will be fitted with a diving apparatus, which, no other Arctic vessel has had. The captain himself is a practical diver, and can examine his vessel if she has received an injury or spring a leak, and can ship a new rudder or put in a new wheel. The vessel will carry 300 tons of anthracite-not bituminous-coal. It is found that bituminous coal will not do for Arctic navigation; the cold converts it into slack, and so its steaming qualities are greatly reduced. Anthracite will remain intact and perfectly good for steaming purposes for the period he would require to use steam. She will have-and here is a new feature-two wind-mills for the purpose of pumping the vessel and running the dynamos, and she will have electric light and electric heating apparatus. The old fashion w-as to illuminate the vessel by means of lamps. One lamp would consume in an hour as much air as a person would consume in three hours. The result was that Arctic vessels were invariably dark, damp and uncomfortable. The plan of Captain Bernier would light the vessel without the consumption of air, and enable him to keep the vessel dry, getting rid of this feature of dampness and securing cheer and comfort in place of the conditions that have hitherto existed in Arctic vessels in the six months darkness of a polar winter. This feature alone, as compared with the old condition of things, might give an advantage that would just measure the distance between success and failure. The vessel will carry a complete Dr. Dawsing's electrical apparatus, including an X-ray apparatus which will be most useful in cases of rheumatism swelling and other ailments. The expedition will carry-and this perhaps, is the strongest feature that could be named as tending to ensure success-a wireless telegraph apparatus. The captain will communicate with Dawson regularly, and,
3957	MAY 1, 1902	3958
if conditions, are favourable, lie will be able to communicate with Hamervest in Norway. He will also be able to communicate with sledge parties that leave the ship, and would be constantly in communication with the base of supplies and headquarters. These sledge parties equipped with wireless telegraph apparatus would have an enormous advantage as compared with the conditions that existed under the old system. Under the old conditions, when a sledge party was sent out, the ship might be moved with the field of ice in which she was imprisoned, or the parties might lose their course owing to the storms, and, when they returned, perhaps might not find the ship in the position in which they left it, and might search for it for days before they found it. With the wireless telegraph apparatus, these parties will know the position of the ship at any moment, and the vessel will know where the sledge parties are, and can be kept informed as to their operations and their needs. The vessel will carry a water distilling and filtering apparatus. Hitherto vessels engaged in Arctic exploration have depended for their water upon melted snow, which is often impregnated with salt. Often the crews are compelled to use water with a solution of five per cent of salt. But with an apparatus I have mentioned there will be a means of distilling and filtering the water, which is a matter of the utmost importance-it is a guarantee against scurvy and various kinds of sickness, Captain Bernier will take 100 tons of provisions, sufficient for six years. There will be fresh vegetables and fresh meat in fifty pound cans or boxes, square in shape to facilitate packing; kiln dried flour, kiln dried oatmeal, beans biscuits containing 10 per cent of albumen, coffee, tea, cocoa-an abundance of healthful, wholesome provisions of all kinds. With such an outfit of provisions, that scourge of Arctic expeditions, scurvy will be entirely avoided.
Captain Bernier's crew will be so organized as to combine efficiency and economy. The crew will consist of fifteen men. There will be the commander himself, without pay. There will be two officers, captains of experience, who can take the wheel, go to the mast-head and look-out, or perform any duty regarding the navigation or care of the ship in case of the captain being incapacitated. There will be a first mate who will be what is termed an ice master, a man who is thoroughly conversant with everything pertaining to the dangers of ice and of being caught between ice floes. There will be two engineers; one will be a machinist who can do any work in connection with the machinery or apparatus, the telegraph apparatus or fixtures ; while the other will be an electrician and wireless telegraph operator. Two men will be surveyors and astronomers who will also serve on sledge journeys or in almost any other capacity on the vessel. There will
be one doctor who will be a botanist and seaman. There will be one naturalist, who will be a botanist, photographer and artist and assistant to the surveyors and electrician, and who also will go on sledge journeys. There will be one cook, who, in addition to being a cook and steward will be an able seaman. There will be one seaman who will be a whaler and sealer and stoker, and who will combine the qualifications of all three and be able to serve in almost any capacity. There will be a carpenter who will be also an able seaman, and one stoker who will also be an able seaman. These will be his crew of 15, men combining the qualifications and different kinds of capacities that, if confined in each case to one man, would require a crew of 50 or 60 men, an efficient crew, and yet a compact crew of small number. In addition to these 15 men, the vessel will carry 30 sledge dogs.	.
Now, the government can fit out this expedition with all the instruments that are necessary by merely lending them to it, and they can be returned when the vessel completes its voyage. Captain Bernier will obtain letters from the Russian government to the Siberian officials and to the tribes on the Siberian coast. Had the DeLong party been armed with letters of that kind none of the members of the expedition would probably have been lost. As it was they landed upon an inhospitable coast, they had no credentials to present to the Russian officials, and all the crew were lost except two or three men, who could not obtain assistance to get back to those they had left to rescue them until it was too late. Letters such as the captain proposes to obtain will command the services of the officials wherever he can find them, and will command the services of the native tribes upon the coast as well.
The captain proposes-there is a map upon the Table which hon. gentlemen can examine-the captain proposes to enter Behring Straits and to sail nearly due north until he reaches the ice pack, and he will enter the ice pack between longitude 170 and 175 west, as the openings may dictate to be the proper thing to do. When he enters this ice pack-at a point where his experience and investigations tell him he will probably be able to drift to within 100 or 150 miles of the pole-when he enters this ice pack his vessel will simply be committed to nature to carry it on its course. While in the ice pack drifting towards the pole, and past the pole towards the eastern coast of Greenland. Captain Bernier proposes to send out sledge parties on each side of the vessel for 50 miles and to survey a strip 100 miles in width, to take soundings, and obtain all the information it is possible to obtain by these investigations. When arriving at the point where he is nearest to the pole, he will then organize sledge parties for approach to the

pole; and lie will rely, as lie lias relied before in these lateral investigations perhaps 50 miles each way-he will rely upon dogs, and upon a new feature never before introduced in Arctic sledge explorations, that is, an automobile motor run by a petroleum engine weighing 100 pounds, the sledge weighing 100 pounds; and where the ice is favourable, he will make progress with this motor at three times, perhaps, the rate of speed that dogs would enable him to do. He will have the frames of boats with a canvas covering to launch when he reaches the openings in the ice. Nansen made the mistake, in his expedition, of leaving his boats covered and the covering exposed to the weather, and to the hard usage which rendered the boats useless. Captain Bernier will have the coverings of these boats carefully folded and ready for use, and the frames ready to be covered any moment when he reaches a place where a boat is needed. He will take fur clothing for all the members of the party. The mistake made by Nansen, and' to which the failure to reach the pole was largely due, was that they discarded fur clothing and attempted to make the journey with warm woollen clothing, which they found entirely unsuited for the purpose. Captain Bernier will be enabled to profit by all the mistakes that Nansen made, and enabled to profit by all the experience that Nansen acquired, and will enter upon that race for the pole under circumstances much more favourable than any explorer has enjoyed before.
He will have in this sledge journey regular communication by wireless telegraphy with his vessel. Every half mile, or mile, a hole will be bored in the ice and a hollow tube inserted which will serve as a landmark, and when it is necessary to return there is a line of landmarks one mile apart, and every one of them a storehouse of supplies. Ho has the advantage of availing himself of an instrument which is being perfected, an instrument which I believe has not yet received a name, an instrument which may be termed the guide for the wandering and the lost, an instrument that can be adjusted with another instrument that is adjusted with it. Two parties separated from each other, carrying each of them one of these instruments, though they may be lost in a blinding snow storm, with their points of compass lost, and themselves lost hopelessly, can yet travel towards each other by the use of these instruments ; or they can be gauged with an instrument on board the vessel ; and this little monitor carried by a member of the sledge party, will direct him with as unerring accuracy to the vessel as a needle will direct to the pole. Now, this itself is a matter of great importance indeed. and with all these up-to-date appliances. with all the resources of modern science up to the very day that he starts, at his comamnd, I believe, Mr. Speaker,


John Charlton: that Captain Bernier, in his race for the pole, has the conditions all in his favour.
What will be the expense ? The captain has secured contributions to the extent of $20,000. He cannot tell, perhaps no one can exactly, what he will require, but the probability is that the government would require to supplement that subscription by a sum of at least $100,000. Now, it may be said: Why should this money be appropriated ? Here are two polar expeditions under way now; perhaps one of these will get to the pole first, and Captain Bernier will be cut out. Well, sir, even if another expedition did reach the pole before Captain Bernier got there, if he succeeded in reaching the pole on the first attempt made, if the first Canadian polar expedition was successful, the credit that would be due to Captain Bernier, the credit that would come to the country from that achievement, would be vastly more valuable than the amount of money required to fit out that expedition. But suppose he got there first, and I believe that will be the case. I do not believe that Peary will get to the pole by a journey from Greenland over the ice ; I doubt whether Baldwin will get to the pole from Franz Josef land. Captain Bernier will go to the place where the currents will set him towards his destination, he will plant his vessel in the ice where the currents, the existence of which he knows perfectly well, will carry him to the place lie wants to reach and then bring him out. He has been investigating this matter for 25 years. His knowledge with regard to this matter has been availed of by Nansen, by Baldwin, and by other explorers, and it is time now, Mr. Speaker, that Canada should have the credit of an achievement that will result largely from the investigations and the knowledge possessed by one or our own sons. If he gets there first, this country will be glad, you will be glad, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad, the premier will be glad, every citizen of Canada will be proud over this achievement of Captain Bernier.
It would have the effect, Mr. Speaker, of a first-class advertisement, one of the finest that could be obtained. It would bring us probably into better odoiir in Great Britain, it would make us better known there. I suppose at this moment that one half of her population would be just as ready to believe that Canadians wear snow shoes all the year, except during an occasional thaw in July and August, and live on blubber and bear meat, as they are to believe that we have 500,000 spuare miles of the finest wheat land in the world, ready to occupy, that we raise the finest grapes, the finest peaches and the finest apples in the world, and have room for 100,000,000 people to be supported from the products of our own soil. We want to -draw their attention to this country, we want to draw their attention a little more fixedly to this Dominion. We would like the

United States people to have their attention directed to this country with a more sincere desire to obtain an intelligent knowledge as to the conditions that exist to-day, as to the physical features of the country and various other things and by means of expeditions and expenditures of this kind that we might enter into we would certainly bring Canada into prominent notice more readily and at less expense than in any other way. We would like to have the attention of the world in general and the world at large, not that we are self conceited, not that we desire to indulge in any vain boasting, but we want the attention of the world in order that Canada may be understood and .iustly appreciated. We want the attention of the world directed to this country which is now swelling with aspirations of national life, which is now deciding upon the course which will lay the foundations of a national future and which must win that position and win it by earning it. We have, Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, asserted ourselves. We have taught the world something and we have done something more important than that; we have taught ourselves something. We have taught ourselves what our resources are, what our capabilities are, and this polar expedition would be a nationalizing factor in our experience. It would be an expedition undertaken and joined in by both races and it would be an advertisement to the world and more than this it would be an incentive to aspiration, to great achievements, to high resolves, to self-reliance and to development in national character that would be worth infinitely more than it will cost. I urge, Mr. Speaker, upon the government the advisability of giving the money to place this expedition on foot, to draw the attention of the world to the fact that Canada has sent a polar expedition with the good hope that in due time Canada's effort will be crowned by success and that Capt. Bernier will reach the pole.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I desirp to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) on the very elaborate and convincing presentation of the case which he made this afternoon on behalf of Captain Bernier. I join most cordially with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) in urging the claims of that hardy mariner upon the government. Twelve months ago, when the estimates of the Marine Department were under consideration, I took the liberty to draw the attention of the government to Captain Bernier's project, and I then urged that it was worthy of tbeir serious consideration.
I expressed the hope that the government would be able to see its way to make some appropriation to aid Captain Bernier in the construction of a vessel and the furnishing of its equipment for the expedition to the North Pole. Since then I have had no reason to change my mind. I have been more convinced than ever after listening to the speech of the hon. member for North Norfolk. I believe that the great bulk of the people of Canada .would most cordially sustain the action of the government if it decided to make a substantial grant, say $100,000, to aid Captain Bernier in what I conceive to be little short of a national enterprise. Captain Bernier it seems to me has special claims upon us and upon the government. He has acted most unselfishly in this matter; he has given years of his time, and he has spent considerable of his money in elaborating every detail of the expedition which he proposes to take charge of. He has prepared plans and has submitted them to the most eminent scientific authorities; he has had consultations with the most prominent Arctic explorers, and so correct has he been in his calculations that I think I am right in saying that they have received the approbation and endorsation of the foremost scientific and geological societies of the world. Captain Bernier comes from a family of mariners; his ancestors before him were mariners; he is a mariner himself. Since he was 17 years of age he has had command of ships; he thoroughly understands his business; he is actuated by the highest of motives, and if it is possible fori any man to succeed in this arduous undertaking, that man is Captain Bernier. Ha has patriotism; he has capacity; he has, knowledge; he has intense zeal. These are qualifications which make for success. As( the hon. member for North Norfolk pointed out: If the first Canadian expedition to the Arctic regions should prove successful; if the men who compose that expedition should! succeed in reaching the goal that has been vainly striven for by many daring adventurers in the past; great honour will be reflected upon Canada. From the time the expedition leaves our shores intense interest will be taken in Its progress and its welfare by tlie people of Canada as well as by those of the civilized world. And if it should turn out that Captain Bernier-taking the precautions he has taken; providing for every possible contingency-should succeed in the accomplishment of his great mission, Canada will be placed in a higher position in the estimation of the world than Canada now occupies. Speaking as the representative of an Ontario constituency; speaking as one of the representatives of the city' of Toronto, I believe I am reflecting the public opinion of the great majority of that city when I say:	That they would desire
most cordially to co-operate with the government in giving the necessary aid to Captain Bernier to enable him to equip his

expedition. Every Canadian worthy of the name would rejoice if in the course of two or three years Captain Bernier should return to us safe and sound having accomplished his great object. I cordially support the proposition of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), and I hope that it will receive the most favourable consideration of the right hon. the Prime Minister.


Mr. T. B. FLINT (Yarmouth).: It is impossible not to be deeply interested in Captain Bernier, because of his personality, and because of the political considerations connected with his mission as well. As the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) has said, Captain Bernier has remarkable qualifications for undertaking an expedition of the kind spoken of by the hon. member for North Norfolk. The subject of polar exploration has been so long before the people of Canada and of the civilized world, that such a mission as this requires very little commendation from the lay members of society. Polar exploration in the past has been largely confined to men of scientific attainments, and with strictly scientific objects in view. Should Captain Bernier succeed in obtaining the endorsement of the government and parliament of Canada, he will probably be the first Arctic explorer whose reputation has been established chiefly as a navigator. Hitherto the scientist has taken advantage of the knowledge and skill of the navigator, and the scientist penetrated as far as possible in the Northern Polar seas. But the expedition of Captain Bernier will be in charge primarily of a navigator, and any one who has studied this! most interesting subject cannot but think, that under the guidance of a great navigator and a thorough sailor, as Captain Bernier is, aided by scientific men, there is a chance of accomplishing something that has not been accomplished in the past. It is certain that Captain Bernier has the advantage of the experience of the past, and from the addresses which he has delivered as well as the criticisms which have been made upon his plan, it can easily be seen that he contemplates a thoroughly careful attempt-not to discover the North Pole, as some people imagine the object of the expedition to be- but a thoroughly careful attempt to circumnavigate the polar sea, and to report the conditions in these regions and what they indicate as to the nature of the scientific deductions that may be made from them. It will be recollected by hon. gentlemen who have read Captain Bernier's brochure, that he contemplates a different course from any taken in the past. His idea is to enter the polar sea at the Behring Straits, and taking advantage of the drift and passing as near as possible to the pole, when reaching the point nearest the pole, he expects to make expeditions, aided by the most scientific assistance, to endeavour to reach the pole, and


Edward Frederick Clarke: 
Mr. W. C. EDWARDS (Russell).: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add much on this subject to what has been said by the hon. gentlemen who have preceded me, further than to concur most heartily in what they have said, and to urge upon the government a compliance with the demand of Captain Bernier to provide him with a sufficient sum to carry out the object he has in view. It may be said, that from the successful carrying out of his project nothing of intrinsic value to Canada will accrue. But from the patriotic standpoint there is certainty this to be said, that it has been the aim of many of the important nations of the world to achieve this object. Every effort has thus far failed, but from the failure of previous efforts a great deal has been learnt, and my firm conviction if that it is possible to succeed in this project, Captain Bernier is the man to do it. Some may say that it would have been more desirable if some highly scientific man were engaged in the project. Well, Mr. Speaker, from my knowledge of the man, if for the carrying out of this project you offered me all the scientists of the world on the one hand, and offered me Captain Bernier as against them, I would take Captain Bernier. So far as the necessary accomplishment is concerned, the characteristics of the Canadian voyageur are the most necesssary elements for the success of such an undertaking. If scientific research is necessary Captain Bernier can have scientific men to accompany him. If he succeeds, and I firmly believe he will succeed, it will certainty be' a great accomplishment for Canada, in view of the fact that so many nations have failed in their attempts. As to the intrinsic value of such an expedition to Canada, it is impossible for us to speak. There may be properties in that northern country which it may prove highly desire-able to take possession of in the name of Canada or of Great Britain. It is impossible to tell what minerals may be discovered, although Captain Bernier is not going for that purpose. But, taking it all in all, I
believe that aid given to Captain Bernier will prove a good investment for Canada, particularly if he succeeds. I have paid great attention to the two lectures which he delivered here ; I have observed closely his plan, and I believe it is a feasible one.
I do not believe there is any great danger or great difficulty surrounding it. I believe there are no difficulties that a man of the perseverance, determination and accomplishments of Captain Bernier will not overtake.
I believe he will succeed, and it will be a proud day for Canada if he does succeed.
I sincerely trust the government will entertain most favourably his demand.


Mr. M. IC. RICHARDSON (South Grey).: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with much interest to the presentation of this case to the House by the several speakers who have addressed it, and I have no doubt that the encomiums that have been bestowed upon Captain Bernier are well deserved. But it does not necessarily follow, because we recognize his courage, daring, skill and general fitness for an enterprise of this kind, that we should give encouragement to an enterprise fraught with so much danger and having so little practical utility in view. When we look at the history of polar enterprise in the past we must concede that it has been one long sad story of disaster, suffering and loss. Nothing so far has been attained. The loss of Franklin and his crew, the voyage of Captain McClintock in search of Franklin, the expeditions of Scoresby, Kane, Greely and others down to Nansen and the ill-fated Andree, fill out a long story of disaster and intense suffering. What is gained by it all ? AVliat is proposed to be gained for Canada by this enterprise ? Nothing more than empty fame ; and I hold that at this period of our country's history this is not something that we should strive very hard to attain to. We have much more practical things to give our attention to. It has been urged that it might add largely to the territory of Canada; but I hold that additional territory is not one of the pressing wants of Canada. We have now more territory than we know anything about. We have large regions practically unexplored and as yet untrodden by the white man. If our attention is given to utilizing what we have without aiming beyond that it will result in greater benefit to the people of Canada. There are immense fields of enterprise opening up in this country in all directions-enterprises that are full of promise and practical utility for this new country, and that offer rewards far more certain than polar expeditions.
What advantage would accrue to this country, even supposing the North Pole were discovered ? Would it bring us more immigration ? Would it attract more capital ? Would it open up new avenues for trade and commerce ? Is there anything practical to be got out of it-anything ex-

396S
cept empty fame ? I am not denying that some practical results from a scientific point of view might be attained, but we have not reached that period of our history when we can afford so much attention to questions of this nature. There are many other practical questions with which we have to deal. It is said that the discovery of the North Pole would be a great advertisement for this country. Well, we unfortunately have too much advertisement of that character-too much advertisement of Canada as Our Lady of The Snows. What we require to do is rather to dispel the ignorance which exjsts regarding Canada's present territory and her climate, resources and productions. In doing this, we would be doing something which would produce practical results. I need not mention the hundreds of openings there are for practical enterprise in this country -openings in all directions, Everywhere appeals are made for government assistance to legitimate enterprises. I quite admit that to men who have a surplus of wealth, the project of Captain Bernier is an interesting one, and by all means let them expend some of their surplus wealth upon it. In older countries, such as Great Britain and other European countries, which have exhausted at home all the new avenues for enterprise, this scheme may be a legitimate one on which to spend government moneys. But in Canada I think there are far more practical objects demanding our attention and lying right within our reach. Appeals are made to this government again and again for assistance, which the government does not feel warranted in granting, extensive as are our resources. I did not intend to say but a few words on this subject, and I would only add that we should not forget that in contributing out of the national exchequer to a scheme of this kind, we are voting the money of. the poor as well as the rich, the money of the toiler as well as the money of the man of affluence. I do not see how we can well defend an expenditure of this kind, which can only result, at the best, in our acquiring a little empty fame, and which is far more likely to have the same fate that other similar enterprises have suffered, and furnish another sad story of a nation's folly.
Mr. IiODOLFIIE LEMIEUX (Gaspe). (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I fully concur in the remarks fallen from the lips of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) this afternoon. For many years back, Captain Bernier has shown that he has the skill, the technical knowledge, the pluck and the perseverance which tit him for such an arduous enterprise as that of the search for the North Pole ; and to my mind, that should induce the government to receive favourably his demand. The hon. gentleman who has just addressed the House (Mr. Richardson) told us that this enterprise had very little practical utility in view, and that he failed


Mr. RICHARDSON (South Grey).: to see what advantage would accrue to the country, even supposing the North Pole was discovered by Captain Bernier. Let the hon. gentleman allow me to tell him that but a few years ago the men who ventured to approve of the exploring expedition sent by the government to the Yukon were looked upon as visionaries. And who would now maintain that the country has not greatly benefited by those explorations of the Y'u-kon '!
It is said that if the enterprise undertaken by Captain Bernier were brought to a successful issue, it would be a great advertisement for this country, and that if a son of Canada were to plant the flag of his country at the North Pole, it would be a proud day for Canada. But aside altogether from the reputation that would accrue to Canada from this polar expedition, it must not be forgotten that this enterprise has a scientific object in view, which will be appreciated by all scientists and navigators. Moreover, the discovery of the North Pole in our case would not be a fruitless one. as it would enable us to establish our right to the unknown territories of the Arctic regions.
Captain Bernier was heard before several learned societies, the members of which are by no means visionaries, as my hon. friend (Mr. Richardson) would have it, but practical men. Captain Bernier delivered addresses before the Royal Society of Canada, the Colonial Institute in London, the Geographical Society of Quebec and several other learned bodies, both in the United States and in Great Britain. The captain's theory has received the endorsation of all those learned societies, after they had fully considered its merits.
It often happens that the government encourages the projects of foreign scientists. Not long ago Signor Marconi's system of wireless telegraphy was adopted* by the government, and we shall soon be called upon to vote for that purpose a sum of $70,000. Is there a gentleman here who would venture to predict that Captain Bernier's expedition will be a barren thing for Canada, and that no tangible advantages will accrue to the country from it ?
On these several grounds, Sir, I think it my duty as a Canadian and as a representative from the province of Quebec, to endorse the demand made by Captain Bernier, and to express the hope that it will receive the favourable consideration of the government.


Hon.   WM@: ROSS (Victoria, N.-S.) Canada has acquired some fame by sending her men to South Africa. She can add to that fame by assisting Captain Bernier's expedition to the north pole. Great Britain has spent a great deal of treasure and a great deal of blood in acquiring territory, and if we wish to be conspicuous in history, we must follow her example. I suppose that, even when we do discover the north pole, the market gardeners about Montreal will

hardly go there to grow fruit for sale. But, if you consider everything, I think it will be manifest that the discovery of the pole will be a valuable asset for the Dominion of Canada. It will elevate the history of the country and give us prominence in every country in the world. Our children's children will look back with admiration upon the history of the brave man who discovered the north pole and added this territory >to the Dominion. Captain Bernier has my entire sympathy in the enterprise he is undertaking, and I hope that the government will treat him in a generous broadminded manner.


Mr. ROBERT HOLMES (West Huron).: The speakers who have preceded me, and have favoured this request, seem to assume that Captain Bernier is going to be successful in his search for the pole, I think. I have read nearly all the records of polar exploration, and I am not satisfied in my own mind that Captain Bernier-and I will admit all that has been said concerning his bravery and ability-will come nearer to a solution of the problem than those who have preceded him have done. The argument put forth that it will be an excellent ad. vertisement for Canada, is, to my mind, an exceedingly specious one. It is an advertisement that will cost the country altogether too much, 'in my opinion. [DOT] I fail to see any good that will be accomplished by another polar expedition. And I do not think the people of this country would justify the government in the expenditure of anything like $50,000, or more for an expedition of that nature. We are told often in this House, and especially by hon. gentlemen on the other side, that the government is spending money too freely. The idea prevails, however, apparently, that the government has money to burn. It seems to me if they are disposed to use a free hand in the disposition of the revenues of the country, we can find a great deal more worthy objects and objects that will do a great deal more permanent good to the country than the discovery of the north pole. There are various ways >in which the money could be utilized either for colonization purposes or otherwise. But I think that Canada is too new a country and has too limited resources to justify the government in contributing any sum towards this expedition.


Mr. DAYID HENDERSON (Halton).: I have no desire to detain the House by repeating the many arguments that have been advanced by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) in support of the expedition of Captain Bernier tin search of the north pole. The hon. gentleman has placed the question so fully and completely before the House that nothing be need said along that line. Captain Bernier's energy and the zeal he has displayed in this matter, not only in Canada, but also in his visits to the old country during the past 125
two or three years, to say nothing of the many years previous when the people of Canada were not taking notice of him, must have commended him to every time Canadian. To my mind, if the north pole is to be discovered-and) I am one of those who believe that it will be dicovered-Captain Bernier is the kind of man who will discover it. I have given very considerable attention to the plans along whose lines Captain Bernier proposes to move in this expedition, and I think those plans will commend themselves to every man who informs himself upon the subject. Briefly, Captain Bernier is going to follow natural law. He is not going in opposition to nature, as be himself explains. Many of the explorers in the past who have attempted to find the north pole have failed because they went towards it from the wrong direction. But Captain Bernier, takes advantage of the discoveries with regard to the currents and the movements of the ice floes and of all the experience and the observations of others who have sailed in these northern seas, and L think he has a plan by which he will discover the pole, if it is ever going to be discovered. Now, some may think that the north pole will never be found. I understand that one man came within 230 miles of the pole, and another within 219 miles of it. If one navigator can come within 219 miles of the pole, why cannot another reach the pole itself V One thing is as reasonable as the other. Captain Bernier is of the opinion that Dr. Nansen went too far before putting his boat in the ice. The result was that he passed within 230 miles of the pole. Had he entered the ice 230 miles nearer, he might have floated over the pole and to-day have had the glory of being the man who discovered the north pole. Now, are .there any advantages to be gained by this expedition ? I hold that, even if it is an absolute failure there will be great advantages accruing to Canada from it. As an immigration advertisement nothing in the iworld that we can do with the same amount of .money would 'bring Canada so prominently and favourably before the world as this expedition of Captain Bernier to the pole. It, will be commented on by every newspaper throughout the world, and attention will be called to Canada on eveiy side. This will be a better way of spending money than some of the plans adopted by the Minister of the Interior at the present time. If there are any hon. gentlemen in the House who think we ought not to spend any sum for the purpose of assisting Captain Bernier I would suggest to them that, instead of spending $400,000 on immigration, by spending $300,000 on immigration and $100,000 to aid Captain Bernier, we should bring more immigrants to the country than if we spent $400,000 on our ordinary immigration service. What will the thing cost? If we do give Captain Bernier's expedition $100,000-and I am not aware that lie asks even that much-that sum will simply



amount to two cents per head of the population of this country. Where is the man, woman or child who would grudge that money in order that a Canadian may have the glory of being first to place the British flag at the pole. I am sure there is not one. We would all be proud as Canadians if one of our fellow countrymen could accomplish this great feat. In any case, we are not sending this money out of the country, I understand that the expedition will be fitted out here and every dollar spent in Canada. So, we are not losing the money, but are simply transferring it from one hand to another. We hear a great deal about the Alaskan boundary and tile trouble we have in settling the disputes between ourselves and the United States. Suppose that Captain Bernier fails to get sufficient assistance to enable him to undertake this expedition. If he goes to Washington-he is too patriotic to do so, but he would be justified, if he were turned down by this government, in seeking to secure assistance from some other country-if he goes to Washington, there is not the slightest doubt that, within twenty-four hours he will have all the money he wants. And the next thing we know we shall have another Alaska boundary question away near the north pole, with commissions sitting at Washington to settle question of our northern boundary. Is it not better to spend $100,000 and settle that question for ever ? The hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Richardson) recommends various things that we might undertake instead of spending the money on this expedition. But I want to tell the hon. gentleman that there ds only one pole, and if we lose the opportunity now of sending Captain Bernier we may lose the opportunity for ever.
My own impression is that if Captain Bernier reaches the pole-there is only one North Pole, for we care nothing about the south, we have no possessions there-if Captain Bernier succeeds in reaching that pole and has the pleasure of wiring to us over the Marconi system the particular day on which he, ha's discovered the pole, I doubt very much if there will be another expedition going out there for years to come, because the ambition of every one is to be the first to find the pole. Now, I make this statement to show the government where 1 stand. I am not ashamed to say that I am prepared to stand by the government in any reasonable expenditure which they may make in assisting Captain Bernier. I know perfectly well that my constituents will support me. I do not believe in parish politics, I believe in taking a wide view of all these matters; and lam convinced that those who live after us will remember with pride that the parliament of Canada assisted Captan Bernier in being the first man to place the British flag upon the North Pole.


Mr.  W. F.@: McCREARY (Selkirk.) I am sometimes surprised at the consistency or Mr. HENDERSON.
inconsistency of some hon. gentlemen opposite. They complain a great deal of the expenditure this government makes year after year, and decry the large increase in the expenditure, and yet here they come now asking us to spend $80,000 ' or $100,000 on an object purely visionary or sensational. I think some of the older countries, such as Russia, France, Sweden, England and the United States, might possibly be justified in going into a little experiment of this sort; but for a new country like Canada to spend $100,000 of the people's money on such a visionary project as the discovery of the North Pole would be abject foolishness. I have no doubt that the hon. gentlemen who have just spoken on the other side would be glad if they could get the leader of the government to commit himself to such a project so that they could ridicule him afterwards on every platform in the country. That is exactly what they want, and I know it. A few years ago this country discovered what is known as Manitoba and the North-west Territories. That country they are trying to develop, that country they are not able to develop because they do not devote sufficient money to develop it properly. A few nights ago in this House grievous complaints were made by members from the territories that only a paltry sum of $357,000 was given them to govern 160,000 to 200,000 people. We have the same cry in Manitoba, the very same cry, that we cannot get sufficient money properly to run our government. Later on this country made another discovery, the Yukon territory. Now, I think we have done about enough discovery for some time to come. The North Pole will keep, it is in cold storage, and let it remain there awhile. I believe that if that pole was discovered it would prove to be one of the greatest curses to the premier of Canada. He would not know what to do with it, there is no doubt about it. There is a country around the North Pole, and the first thing we would see would be a big map of the country in the railway committee room here, with railways wanted by some great corporation. I have no doubt the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) would want a cinch on the water power to be developed, and some other hon. gentleman would want to run railways to Spitz-bergen and Greenland. I think the premier of Canada should take hard facts into consideration, and leave these chimerical schemes entirely for the future, until we become a big nation, until we have a surplus of funds on hand to undertake such a project. In the meantime, let us try to develop the countries that we have already discovered within the last 23 years, and which need more funds.


Mr. C. MARCIL (Bonaventure).: If this scheme involved the expenditure of any considerable amount I would certainly hesitate * before asking the government to undertake

it. But we are told that all Captain Bernier expects from this government is $60,000, or one cent per head for every man, woman and child in this country. When we remember that some patent medicine companies expend three times that amount in one year to advertise their goods, I believe that if we looked on the expedition to the North Pole merely as an advertising scheme the money would be very well invested indeed. But, Mr. Speaker, there is a broader question than the mere question of advertising this country. Canada has contributed her share in the past towards making the history of this continent; Canada, I hope, has not arrived at that position where, for a paltry sum like the one now involved, she will stop in her course of progress, of discovery, of scientific research, deterred hy so small an amount as the one in question. We have had to-night testimony in favour of Captain Bernier from disinterested members on both sides of the House, from all parts of the Dominion. As a member from the province of Quebec, I am pleased and grateful for the tribute which has been paid to the valour and devotion of Captain Bernier. I believe Captain Bernier will reach the North Pole if that pole can be reached by the means which we have now at our disposal. He is a self-made man. At 17 years of age he commanded a ship sailing from ocean to ocean. He has since given his country a record of which he and his people have reason to be proud. His project has been submitted to and approved by learned societies, not only in Canada, but in Great Britain. The Society for the Advancement of Science, the Geographical Society, the Colonial Institute, and other learned bodies in Canada have approved of his idea. The list of subscriptions which has been shown us is headed by Lord Strathcona, one of the greatest of all our great Canadians, by Lord Minto, and by almost every distinguished man in this country. I believe that the government should give this matter full consideration, and not turn Captain Bernier away from this House as, in years past, discoverers of his stamp and value have been turned away in other countries. The course of Captain Bernier during the last two or three years, running from Ottawa to London, Horn Toronto to Quebec, from Montreal to other cities of the Dominion, reminds me of the efforts of Christopher Columbus some 400 years ago when he was asking Spain and the countries of southern Europe for assistance to enable him to discover a new world. Men were found by hundreds who failed to realize the value of his undertaking, but Providence inspired a woman, who will remain famous for all time, with the idea of contributing towards the discovery of tins new world. What the intrinsic value of this discovery may be none of us are at present able to say; but there is not a Canadian who would not 125J
be proud to tell his children in years to come that Canada contributed its quota to one of the greatest scientific discoveries in the world's history.


Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto).: I assume that I am a fairly practical man. I do not want to throw away my own money or the money of the country. But I think a country is not worth being called a country, a nation is not worth being called a nation, that is not able and willing to expend a little of its money in adventures. This is an adventure that, if successful, will bring, perhaps, not much practical result for the country, but will biing it a good deal of glory. The hon. member from Winnipeg (Mr. McCreary) thinks that Canada has done enough in discovering Manitoba, the North-west Territories and the Yukon .
It has been a great discovery and so far has been fairly costly. It will, I think, and I know in the future be enormously profitable, but it lacks one thing that is necessary in a man's life or a nation's life. It lacks any possible idea of romance, it is purely and simply practical-beef, wheat, pork and other things. I believe that if the small amount of money that is asked to help Captain Bernier in this expedition, it will not be an extravagance for Canada. I believe the amount can be saved ten times over to the people of the country by the reduction of many items in the estimates which we have had before us this session and which represent money that will be expended without profit or glory to the country. I believe that if this money is granted to Captain Bernier, it will, at all events, show the world that we Canadians are not altogether so wedded to what is only the practical -side, but that we have with us a little of that old romance that caused our forefathers to go to all parts of the world on voyages of discovery, and, as a rule not of profit to themselves. I think, we, in Canada, as the most northerly nation and the nearest to the North pole, might very properly grant the small sum that is asked to help on this expedition, which, if successful, will redound to the credit and glory of Canada and from a purely practical standpoint will be of no small advantage.


Mr. GERMAN.: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) if he is in favour of the present government granting the bonus to Mr. Bernier for his expedition to the north pole ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Certainly I am in favour of the persent government granting the bonus that is asked for.


Mr. HATJGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe).: Mr. Speaker, I would regret, I think, in future, if I allowed this opportunity to pass of speaking upon this great and important question. When Captain Bernier does discover the north pole, either with the assist-

ance of Canada, or with the assistance of some other government to which he will necessarily apply if Canada fails him, there will be many hon. gentlemen in this House who will regret that they had not some part in endeavouring to assist in this great project. I notice that two hon. gentlemen, the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McBwen) and the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) tried to introduce a political question into this matter, and one of these hon. gentlemen went so far beyond the record as to suggest that those of the opposition who are now advocating the expenditure of this money would be the first to decry the government in case they had acceded to the suggestion.


Mr. McCREARY.: So you would.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. gentleman (Mr. McCreary) says : So we would. I particularly got upon my feet to speak, so that there will be no question about the position which I occupy upon this matter. I have, as a rule, the courage to say what I believe to be right and to act in accordance with what I believe to be right. Whether I may be right in this instance or not, is of course another matter. The people whom I have the honour to represent sent me here not necessarily to vote for one political party or the other but to exercise the best judgment I possess upon the various questions that come before this parliament. Some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House may laugh because I understand them to dissent from that proposition. Perhaps they do not understand an hon. gentleman acting upon that basis. I have confidence that if the people who sent me here to represent them should come to the conclusion that in the attitude X now take I have made an error of judgment, believing that I have done it sincerely, they will forgive me, but I do believe that this project will be successful. I believe that if there is a man in the world to-day who is likely to reach the north pole he is Captain Bernier. He is a native Canadian, he is a very intelligent and progressive man, a man who has faith in what he undertakes and it is a pity for Canada to fail to respond on this occasion to the opportunity which now presents itself of enunciating to the world the capabilities of the Canadian people. On the field of South Africa, the one characteristic that distinguished our noble citizen soldiers above all others, except their bravery, was that they were the people for an emergency, that they were capable people all round and that is the type of man who asks us to invest $100,000 in order to see if we cannot accomplish this great scientific discovery and incidentally advertise Canada in a way that nothing else could do. I want to say distinctly that the hon. member for South Huron and the hon. member for Selkirk, hardly appreciate the point when they talk about the opposition carping at Mr. LENNOX.
the expenditure of public money. There is a great and broad distinction between the opposition objecting to specific expenditures, because they are not judicious expenditures, and the suggestion of these hon. gentlemen. We are not saying on this side of the House that we cannot pay our way, we are not saying that Canada cannot pay for all she needs, that Canada is not in a position to pay money for anything that is in the interest of Canada, but the opposition do criticise, and it is the proper attitude of an opposition, expenditures of money in some instances because they think they are not wise or judicious expenditures. This is not a political question. It is a question for every man to exercise his honest judgment upon. It is a question for every hon. member to feel that whether it exactly suits his constituents or not he will, at this juncture, have done that which he believed to be right in saying that this small sum of money, comparatively, should in all reason be voted in support of this measure. I have little doubt that we will within a few years have the honour of having discovered the north pole.


Mr.  F. B.@: WADE (Annapolis.) Mr. Speaker, I do not purpose fnaking any speech on this occasion. I suppose that will be pleasant to hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House, but I wish to take my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) to task, because, when he saw the first suggestion of reformation upon the part of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, he should not have chided them with their past errors. They have complained, it is true, about the expenditures made by the government and we have not only stood by these expenditures, but we say that the government should go on and make increased expenditures. doing all things necessary for the welfare and benefit of Canada. I do believe that a small expenditure in connection with this matter would be an expenditure in that direction. We are not living in this world alone for the few dollars we may gather together ; there are other things which we have to live for as individuals. There are other things for us to live for as a nation : as a Dominion, and one of these other things may be possibly accomplished by the sending out of this expedition. It is not possible for any man to tell to-day what the result of it may be. Whether it will add to the material interest of Canada : whether it will demonstrate a great scientific problem or not ; but it is worthy an attempt. I regret that an hon. member on the other side of the House robbed me of one of the strongest arguments I had to make when he said, that it would only cost the country from one cent or two cents per head of the population. Now, there are some certain scientific questions which may or may not be settled by this expedition. We have all worried some of them. We have worried as to the reason why the needle points to the north ; we have worried

as to tlie variation of the compass, and why the compass varies more in one section of the globe than it does in another. These things may or may not be settled by this expedition, but I do believe that the country as a whole would support the government if they gave a reasonable grant in aid of this expedition which is being already aided by private enterprise in different parts of the empire. I simply wished to express my views in that direction, and to say that so far as I am concerned I shall be most glad to support the government in any reasonable expenditure for that purpose.


William Ross: If Captain Bernier does not get the bonus he desires for this expedition to the north pole, this debate will at least have done good, for I with others have obtained increased Information with regard to the project, and I must congratulate the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) on the able and eloquent manner in which he presented his proposition to the House. I am very sorry that at present I cannot bring myself up to the idea, that the discovery of the north pole will be of any use to us except from a sentimental point of view. It is not long since I read Nansen's ' Farthest North,' and the privations and trials that he endured are more than any person should be called upon to endure. If the country around the pole is anything like the country which Nansen traversed, we do not want such a country as that. That is my feeling, and I cannot get over it. I cannot help but think that the moneys which we would vote for this expedition could be much better spent in advancing the interests of Canada Internally. I quite appreciate the sentiment connected with the project ; the glory there would be in planting the British flag upon the north pole. I quite admit that it would be in that respect a grand and glorious thing. I may not be venturesome enough, but after reading Nansen's work I am apprehensive that no man can reach the pole. It is possible that he might, and if so I should be glad to rejoice with the rest r I should be more pleased to rejoice if the discoverer of the north pole were a Canadian, but at the present time I cannot see my way clear to support any appropriation for this purpose.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Mr. Speaker, personally I am certainly not insensible to the view which has been urged to-day upon the government by those who think that Canada should be the discoverer of the north pole, and that the efforts of Captain Bernier should receive some recognition. I largely share the enthusiasm of those who believe that it would not be a barren thing for Canada, if an enterprise which has combatted the efforts of so many brave and strong men were at last to be brought to a successful issue by a son of Canada. I do not share the views of my hon. friend from
Ontario (Mr. Ross). Even if there was nothing in that enterprise but sentiment, that alone is a thing which no nation can afford to be indifferent to.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There is uot only the material prosperity of a nation to be considered ; there is also the moral elevation, the sentiment, the enthusiasm-all these go to make up a nation, and no nation can exist unless it proves itself to possess those qualities. But nobody can say that even from a material point of view there would not be something gained by the successful accomplishment of this project. From all accounts the north pole is a desolate part of the w-orld, but we have learned to believe in this age, that no part of the earth's surface however desolate is not productive of wealth. As was pointed out by my hon. friend from Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) we have lately found wealth where it was least expected-in the Yukon. I remember very well that some years ago the Yukon was ridiculed ; the very name excited scorn; but now we are glad that the Yukon is within our territory. We do not know but that perhaps there may be something in this enterprise if it were successful which would bring to us material profit. However that may be, and leaving aside altogether the idea of the material advantages, if a son of Canada were to plant the flag of his country at the north pole, if he were to achieve what so many brave men have struggled in vain to achieve, there is not a Canadian heart that would not beat with pride at the thought of it. Canada would be only too glad to purchase at a small cost such a glory. In Captain Bernier we have a man who I think is fit to take charge of such an enterprise. He has all the qualities which would lead us to believe that if that enterprise is to be brought to a successful issue, he is the man to do it. He is an experienced mariner ; he has enthusiasm, he has pluck, he has courage and he has the technical knowledge of his profession. If these qualities cannot discover the north pole it will not be discovered. At the same time I am not insensible either to the fact that Canada has many useful enterprises of immediate interest to prosecute, and between the two contentions perhaps it is difficult to come to a conclusion. The only thing that I can say is, that personally, and I believe, speaking also for some of my colleagues, I would rather be proud of contributing something to secure this glory for the Canadian people. I would have been more satisfied if my hon. friend (Mr. Charlton) who presented this ease with great force and great ability, had given us some idea of the amount which it was expected Canada should contribute. I never understood that it was contemplated that Canada should bear the whole cost of the expedition. I always understood that Captain Bernier had some enthusiastic friends who were ready

to help him, and I am told that he has now secured assistance to the amount of $20.-
000.	Well, I must confess my disappointment at that, for I had hoped he would have secured a much larger sum. He has received enconium, commendation and praise, but in the way of substantial assistance he has not received as much as one would have expected. Last year, in giving my personal views and after consulting with only some of my colleagues, I made bold to say that if Captain Bernier secured something of material assistance from private individuals in this country and outside of it. the government might perhaps come to his rescue and supply the balance. But I had no expectation that the sum of $100,000 would be asked from us. I see now that if Canada is to contribute anything at all it must be not less than $100,000. The views of the members of the House have been expressed generally, and if I understand aright, with very few exceptions, the members would be ready to sustain the government if they were to give $100,000 for this purpose. All I can say at present, and it is not to be expected I should say more, is. that the government cannot be indifferent to the views which have been presented here to-day. They shall receive due consideration, and if after having given the best consideration we can to this worthy scheme we come to the conclusion that it should be carried out, then, judging by what has been said here to-day, the government will be defended from the opposite side of the House against the charge of extravagance.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, I agree that it was not purely in a spirit of ascertaining the material profit that we should deal with a question of this kind. There is a great deal of force in what has been said by some hon. gentlemen here to-day on both sides of the House, that in matters of this kind we have to look a little beyond considerations of that nature. I have had several interviews with Captain Bernier in regard to this expedition. While I have not been able to look into his plans as fully as some of the gentlemen who have spoken to-day, I am fully prepared to assent to what has been said with regard to Capt. Bernier's earnestness and capacity. He comes of a race who have been unsurpassed in past days in Canada in the spirit of adventure, in their efforts to discover and colonize the vast regions of Quebec, Ontario and the great West, as well as a considerable portion of the United States ; and Captain Bernier, I believe, has in himself all the qualifications which are necessary for making a success of that which has been attempted by so many individuals and by so many nations in the past. I do not overlook the fact that there is a great deal of this kind of work for us to do in Canada, or I mignt say in nearer portions of Canaua, if it be true, as hon. gentlemen have stated to-night, that Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
the limits of Canada to-day embrace the North Pole. In the nearer portions of Canada there are a great many unexplored regions as to many of which we have not done our duty. But these are portions of the country which do not attract' the attention of the world to the same extent, and I do not think our efforts with regard to these would be handicapped by our giving a moderate measure of support to the enterprise of Captain Bernier. I would therefore say, so far as I am personally concerned-and in saying this I speak only for myself-that I would be inclined to give favourable consideration to a proposal by the government such as has been suggested by the hon. gentleman opposite.



Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle).: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the motion of which I gave notice yesterday, I may in a few words state the case of our cattle trade as it stands to-day in Great Britain. We have heard a good deal about !t, but I do not think we have ever considered in this House the exact situation and the legislation of the British parliament as it now exists. Between 1878 and 1893, the British parliament adopted various laws, one after another, with a view to extirpating from the United Kingdom the different contagious diseases that were affecting cattle. Finally, in 1894, all these laws were combined in one statute, which is still in force, except ofie section, which I shall refer to later. This Act is called * an Act to Consolidate the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, 1878 to 1893.' It is chapter 57 of 57 and 58 Victoria. By section 24 of that Act it is provided :
The provisions set forth in part I. (slaughter at port of landing) of the third schedule to this Act shall apply to all foreign animals other than'-
(a)	Foi'eign animals the landing of which is for the time being prohibited by order of the Board of Agriculture ;
(b)	Foreign animals the landing of which is allowed by order of the board without being subject under the provisions of this Act to slaughter or quarantine ; and
(c)	Foreign animals intended for exhibition < r other exceptional purposes, and the landing of which is allowed for the time being by ihe board subject to the provisions of part II (quarantine) of the third schedule to this Act.
Now, Section 2G of this Act gave to the Board of Agriculture a certain amount of discretion in regard to admittance of foreign animals at the ports of entry without requiring them to be slaughtered. In the third schedule of the Act, in the first part it is provided :
1.	The animals shall be landed only at a part of the port defined for that purpose by order of the Board of Agriculture, to be called a foreign animals wharf.
2.	The animals shall be landed in such manner, at such times and subject to such super-


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: As a rule the government does not receive with favour a motion made in amendment to the proposal to go into supply, but there are exceptional cases and this seems to be one of them. The subject which the hon. gentleman invites the House to consider is one of recognized importance, and the terms of his motion are such that I think they will find favour on both sides. Inasmuch as complaint has been made for several years, and a well founded complaint, that the regulations of the imperial government in relation to the cattle trade. are unreasonable and unfair as respects Canadian cattle, it is not out of place that we should express the opinion of the House with the view of bringing about a change if possible. The motion of my hon. friend is a respectful remonstrance against what we all feel to be an unfair condition of things. We do not question the right of the imperial government to make such regulations as may be deemed best in the interests of the mother country, and if these regulations were justified on the ground of what is called a protective policy, if it were declared that their sole purpose was to restrict, in the interests of English farmers, the importation of Canadian cattle, irrespective of disease, I do not think we would have any right to protest, because the question of policy is one entirely within the judgment of the imperial government and parliament. But when these restrictions are imposed because of disease said to exist among Canadian cattle, the government and parliament of Canada may well protest in moderate and respectful terms against any such baseless imputation. The government have from time to time made every reasonable effort to bring about a better condition of affairs. The Minister of Agriculture has done all that lay in his power to impress the British government with the necessity for a change, but has so far failed, and there is no reason why the Prime Minister, when he goes to London, should not bring this matter up in connection with others, and be in a position to show that he has the unanimous support of the House of Commons. Such unanimous support will strengthen his hands and perhaps enable him to convince the imperial government of the advisability of taking a different view from that to which they have so strongly adhered hitherto. We accept the motion in the spirit in which the hon. gentleman offers it, and hope it may be productive of much good.


Robert Laird Borden: The motion which the hon. gentleman has just submitted is not at all in the language of that of which he gave notice yesterday, and I think it would have been far better for him to have taken a little more time and given the House an opportunity of considering his motion. The motion of which he gave notice yesterday was very different in its language from the one just submitted. It would have been far better, if the hon. gentleman proposed to modify it in the way he has done, to give notice of it and move it to-morrow, instead of giving us, at the conclusion of his speech, a motion which we really have had no time to properly consider, and which we cannot very well consider on the spur of the moment.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: If the hon. gentleman will allow me-I do not think there is the slightest difference so far as the sense of the motion is concerned. But representation was made to me that toy leaving the word ' protest ' in the motion, it might be interpreted as indicating a desire on our part to interfere with the sphere of action of the British government and British parliament. And I .thought that was right, so I made the change. I think I made it still clearer by .basing the motion on the fact that we had given evidence to the British government that there was no more reason to apply the law, and .then I added tlie part about our foreign trade. As to the rest, the hon. gentleman will notice that it is exactly the same language, especially the conclusion as to the advantage the imperial 'conference will offer to the government in pressing the settlement of this question.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as the verbal phrasing is concerned, it is a great improvement on that which the hon. gentleman first suggested. For it would be impossible for us, I think, to pass the motion in the shape in which lie gave notice of it yesterday. It would be absolutely inappropriate and undignified for this parliament to pass such a resolution as the hon. gentleman told us yesterday he proposed. As to the present motion, I am not wholly satisfied with it, though I sympathize entirely with the object the hon. gentleman has in view. He says :
Evidence having been furnished to the British authorities proving that there is no justification for the application of the Diseases of Animals Act (Great Britain) to the cattle of Canada.
Are we not saying rather too much when we venture to suggest that ? Would it not be better to express our own opinions instead of commenting ou evidence furnished to the British authorities and declaring that that evidence proved so and so ? My only desire .in making this suggestion is to


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: have the motion pass in such form as will comport in every way with the dignity of this parliament, so that we may not suffer a rebuke for the wording of a resolution which, I trust, will pass the House without a dissenting voice. The mother country has a right to protect her home productions, either cattle or any other, in any way she sees fit. She has given us that right and she certainly can exercise it herself. The points we wish to make are two. In the first place we do not wish to have any imputation cast upon the condition of the cattle in Canada; and, in the next place, we do not wish our cattle to be excluded from the market of the mother country. I think that the Minister of Agriculture has stated in this House both last session and this session that, from his interviews and correspondence with the authorities in the mother country, he is fully satisfied that this measure is not continued for fear of any disease to come in from Canada, tout purely as a protective measure to the producers of the mother country. I have gathered that from the Minister of Agriculture's statements in the past. If I am wrong, I hope he will correct me. That toeing the case, it is not out of place that we should make representation to the mother country such as are covered toy the spirit, if not toy the words, of this resolution. I would like to point out to my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and also to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) two considerations. Have they not given some grounds for the continuance of this embargo toy the change of the quarantine regulations which prevailed with regard to the entry of cattle from the United States into Canada ? Has or has not that point been made, in the negotiations, by the representatives of the mother country ? As I understand it, years ago, before this government came into power we had pretty strict regulations regarding the entry of American cattle into Canada. Since then we have admitted these cattle without subjecting them to stringent examination or quarantine, if we subject them to any at all. The result is that there-is more danger to the cattle of the mother country from free importation of cattle from Canada than there formerly was. That is one of the considerations which, I think, should be spoken to toy the Minister of Agriculture and as to which we should have some information from him. The other consideration is this-if it was known, as I suppose it was, in 1897 and in 189S that this was a purely protective measure to British industry, why was it that we did r.ot enter into negotiations for the remedying of this grievance at the time we gave the mother country the advantage first of 12$ per cent, afterwards of 25 per cent and still later of 33$ per cent in our markets ? Did not the Minister of Agriculture realize at the time that this was a protective measure to British producers V Did not the Minister of Finance realize this?
If they did not, what new light have they had on the subject since then ? And if they did realize it, why was1 some negotia-ions not had with the mother country in order to redress what my hon. friend from Labelle and the Minister of Finance consider a very serious grievance so far as this great Canadian industry is concerned 7 Would that not have been the proper time to consider the matter, instead of waiting for five years and then having a resolution passed which the right hon. gentleman will take home with him and bring to the attention of the British government ? If this is a protective measure, it would have been proper and by no means ungracious at the time when we were giving a considerable preference to the products of the mother country, to bring to the attention of the authorities there the fact that this was essentially a protective measure enforced against Canadian cattle entering the mother country and asking that the redress -sought by this resolution should be afforded. I think my hon. friend from Labelle was very enthusiastic in support of these measures brought dowu by the government giving a preference


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Not very.


Robert Laird Borden: At least, he was sufficiently enthusiastic to support them by his vote. Of course one cannot always perceive the future, but it might have been better if he had brought to the attention of his friends of the cabinet the considerations he has put forward so forcibly in his speech this evening. Now, I have not had time to scan the language of this resolution very carefully. I submit that it should not contain any statement of facts which it is not thoroughly in order for us to make. I am not satisfied that the wording of the first part of the resolution could not be improved. So far as the spirit of the resolution is concerned, and so far as the object with which it is presented to the House is concerned, I can only say that I am thoroughly in accord with it. If I can be satisfied that the language is in all respects proper and in accordance with the dignity of this parliament, I, for one, shall be inclined to give it my support.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The government have done in this case What they could do in the case of any motion in amendment to motion for Committee of Supply, except one of direct censure-they have agreed to accept the motion as not being one of want of confidence. There have been many motions moved in this House in the past having for their object equally praiseworthy aims with this one which the government have called upon their friends to vote down because they were in amendment to a motion to go into Committee of Supply. The government availed themselves of that excuse, and their friends in justification of their position have declared that they did not want to vote
39S7

against the government and so voted against the motion. I am glad to know they have given us another example that it is possible to accept motions made on going into supply without regarding them as motions of want of confidence. This motion seeks to make such an impression on the imperial government that they will amend the statute as to admit Canadian cattle without the necessity of their being slaughtered on landing. We enjoyed that privilege before 1896, and we found it of considerable advantage to the farmers of Canada. For reasons best known to the imperial government they amended their regulations and passed an Act of parliament compelling the slaughter of Canadian cattle at the port of landing.
At that time this question was discussed at great length in this House. It was introduced for two or three years in succession by the present Postmaster General, then in opposition, and the government were taken severly to task as being responsible for bringing about this embargo on Canadian cattle. His contention was that the embargo was due to the fact that the regulations which we had made for transporting American cattle through Canada were laxly enforced, and the British people came to the conclusion that the disease could not be kept out from the United States, and therefore the embargo was put on. The Postmaster General, then representing North York, read a great deal of correspondence that took place between Sir Hector Langevin, a member of the Conservative government in Canada, and the home authorities, regarding this question, and he gave us a recital of the contract that was entered into between Canada and the mother country to ensure the freedom of Canada from importation of diseased cattle. In the first place the quarantine regulations provided that no animals could be imported unless they were detained at the frontier for ninety days so as to satisfy the people of this country that they were not in any way diseased. In the next place application was made to allow the Grand Trunk Railway and the Great Western Railway to carry American cattle through Canada on condition that they were accompanied by an agent on each train, that they should not be allowed off the train except at a quarantine station for the purpose of feeding, at which time the cars were to be run into an inclosure surrounded by a double board fence so there could be no possibility of the cattle in the neighbourhood coming in contact with them. After they were fed they were to be reloaded and passed through the country. All cars carrying cattle were to be disinfected before they were used for any other purpose. The cattle were to be inspected at the boundary line. It was afterwards found that the railway companies desired that the cattle should be inspected immediately upon landing. At first the cattle were inspected in daylight only, but after-Mr. SPROULE.
wards it was contended that the inspection could be made equally well at night if proper provision was made for lighting and so forth. The railway companies agreed to provide these facilities, and the inspection was made at night, and the business went on. Now, the whole contention of the hon. member for North York and of those who sup-jiorted him, was that these regulations were not enforced as strictly as they- should be on the part of the Canadian government. An endeavour was made to show how much Canada lost by it. It was stated that had the regulations been strictly carried out the embargo would never have been put on. The opposition concurred in those views, and the government were severely brought to task for negligence in carrying out those regulations.
Well, time went on, and there was a change of government. After the present government came into power they gave the country to understand that they would attempt to get this embargo removed. What was the first thing they did to that end ? It was to do away with the quarantine regulations providing that cattle coming from the United States should be detained for ninety days to show they were not diseased. That was one of the first requirements to convince the English people that there was no possibility of the disease being imported into Canada, and that requirement was abolished. Then the restrictions which surrounded the transportation of cattle through Canada were relaxed, and we have practically none to-day. Yet the Minister of Agriculture goes over to England and asks that this embargo be removed, after doing away with all the restrictions and precautions that were held to be so necessary by the English people to prevent the importation of disease from the United States, where it was known occasionally to exist. If the arguments that were then advanced against the government for not carrying out our agreement faithfully were of any weight then they have ten times more force against the present government. The present government have done the very thing that they should not have done, and they have left undone the very thing that they ought to have done to convince the British people that there was no danger in importing cattle from Canada into the British market. We were told in 1896 that the reason for this embargo being put on was laxity of enforcement of the regulations. But we find there was another reason.
I have here a report of a conference of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture and Associated Societies held in Edinburgh, on October 9tli 1901. This conference took place with the Minister of Agriculture, and the desire of those associate societies was to get this embargo removed. In his reply he did'nt say the embargo was exactly due to the fact that he was afraid of the importation of the disease from Canada, be-

cause he admitted that it had been clearly demonstrated to the Minister of Agriculture as well as to the British parliament, that no pleuro-pneumonia had existed in Canada for a length of time ; and he said that was not the only cause of this Act being passed. But he said an effort to remove the Act would be unsuccessful for certain reasons. What were those reasons ? He explains what they were :
Then there is another idea abroad, that onlj Canada suffers, and that only Canadian cattle are effected by the present Act. But of course that is not the case. It applies to live animals all over the world, and in that respect Canada i3 exactly cn the same footing as any other country. Oh but, it is said, Canada is the only country where there is no disease, and therefore you should treat Canada specially. But ihat is not the case. The United States claim equally with Canada to be absolutely free from disease, and the fact is that we cannot differentiate between Canada and other countries. Once any other country shows, what is no doubt very difficult to prove, that it has a clean bill of health, you cannot stop at Canada. You would have to make an alteration in the law to affect every country that could supply us with store cattle.
And why can you not stop at Canada 1 He goes on to say why ?
One gentleman talked about undoing, not only the Act of 1896, but also any other arrangement made for putting all other nations on the same footing as Canada. You cannot do it. You cannot revise your treaties at a moment's notice ; and it is under treaties with other countries that we are obliged to afford to them exactly the same treatment as to Canada.
It is a wonder that our government never thought of that when they gave the magnificent concession to the British government of a preference on the importation of their goods. They were allowed a concession which was not granted to other countries. They were allowed a special consideration in our market and nothing was asked in return. Would it not have been an opportune time to have said to them : We give you a consideration which we give to no other country in the wjorldy We give you a special consideration in our market. Is it not proper for us to ask you to give us a consideration which you say cannot be done unless you give it to all other countries 1 Would It not be proper for us to ask you to cancel these treaties so as to enable you to give us a consideration which will be equal to the consideration which we give you 1 We know that the government made no effort in that direction. They were perfectly indifferent In regard to ft because there was not a word said about it. If the British government were right in their contention in 1896 that it was because of the laxity of quarantine regulations and because of the enforcement of other regulations which permitted the carrying of American cattle through Canada, and if this laxity was responsible for
the adoption of the embargo, I would remind the House that there are no regulations now at all. If the embargo was due to these causes before how can you expect, having removed these restrictions as to quarantine, without providing other regulations, to convince the English people that there is no danger of the possibility of the importation of disease ? We have succeeded in convincing them that there is no disease in the country. Then, we want to take a step further and convince them that under our quarantine and other regulations thire is no possibility of the importation of it. We have not been able to do that, anil the government have not addresed themselves to-that phase of the question. They seem to be perfectly indifferent to it. I think so long as our quarantine regulations remain as they are, it is almost useless to pass such a resolution as this, because the English people can answer at once by saying that there is nothing to prevent Uie importation of disease from the United States into Canada where they have had occasional outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia in that country. They would say :	Asi long as your regulations remain as they are we shall consider it unwise to amend the law which prohibits your cattle from being imported into our country without being slaughtered at the port where they land. Last summer when the hon. Minister of Agriculture was home, when he incidentally mentioned that question and intimated the importance it would be to Canada to have the embargo removed, he did not make the effort he should have done to have it removed. He did not seem to go about it in a business way, in a way to convince the British people that there was no danger of the Importation of disease tv the admission of Canadian cattle, and that we thought we should have, some consideration for what we have done for them. It is all generosity on one side and all laxity on the other side, for while he boasted of giving a preference to the English people, he never took the slightest interest in asking them in consideration of that preference to do something in return, and give us a preference that they were not prepared to give to the United States or any other country in the world.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: In consequence of what the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has said in regard to this matter, 1 think it would be well for me to make one or two slight explanations. In the first place, I would say in regard to the wording of the motion, that while I did not see it until this evening, I take no exception to it in its general terms or to the statements of fact, which are there declared. The motion says that :
Evidence having been furnished to the British authorities proving that there is no justifica-

tion for the application of the Diseases of Animals Act (Great Britain), to the cattle of Canada, &c.
I have no hesitation in endorsing that statement. The evidence was so completely submitted to the Minister ot Agriculture iu England, [DOT] the Hon. Mr. Hanbury, that he first, privately, to myself, when I was interviewing him, acknowledged that there was no disease amongst our animals in [DOT]Canada against which the provisions of this Act ought to be enforced. When I suggested to bim that it would be well to make that statement publicly be shortly afterwards, in an interview, which the bon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) lias just been alluding to, made that state-i lent publicly, saying in answer to the assembly of the associations in Edinburgh that lie believed to-day that in Canada there was no contagious disease such as they feared the introduction of into England. We therefore say that the evidence has been supplied to Great Britain to show that there is no justification for the application of this Act as against Canadian cattle. Since I have spoken of the interview at Edinburgh, I would refer to the fact that the hon. member for East Grey has quoted Mr. Hanbnry's statement about the favoured-nation clause. He seems to think that this favoured-nation clause would interfere with any application of the Diseases of Animals Act. The two things have nothing whatever to do with each other. The favoured-nation clause applies simply to customs duties and has no reference whatever and does not in any way interfere with the application of Animals Diseases Act or of its relaxation. That was brought to Mr. Hanbury's attention shortly afterwards by myself through Lord Strathcona and an officer of his department wrote acknowledging that Mr. Hanbury bad made a mistake in making that reference to the favoured-nation clause, because it had nothing to do with this matter at all. As far as this motion is concerned, I have already stated on more than one occasion that I believe the people of Canada are unanimous in regard to this matter. I believe that everybody in Canada who has given the slightest attention to this question of the embargo on our cattle is fully convinced, in the first place, that no disease exists in this country, and, in the second place, that it was not necessary for the protection of the herds in Great Britain. I feel that the parliament and government of Canada can approach the imperial authorities on this question with the greatest force and strength. The line which is proposed by this resolution is exactly the line I took myself last year in Great Britain. It is following up with greater force the line which 1 took then, having a formal resolution of the Canadian parliament at its back, and witlT greater force because the representations would be made, not by the


Hon. Mr. FISHER.: Minister of Agriculture of Canada, but by the Prime Minister of Canada, acting in his capacity as the plenipotentiary of this country at the imperial conference. I think it is well tnis resolution should be passed, that this enforcement and strength should be given to the Prime Minister of this country when be goes as the plenipotentiary of Canada to the imperial conference in London, and when he will be able to take the position wihich is here taken. There are one or two other matters which I would like to allude to. I feel no hesitation in asking this of the British authorities, because I am satisfied that in asking It we are not asking anything which will, in the slightest degree, hurt Great Britain. I do not wish to ask a favour from the mother country which she might think would hurt her people, but in this case we are asking something which will not only not hurt her, but which will really help her. It is a well known tact that the cattle-raisers of Great Britain do not wish to have Canadian Stockers freely imported into the interior of the country, but it is also a well known fact that a very large number of farmers in Great Britain who are feeders of cattle and who buy Stockers for the purpose of feeding them are very anxious that there should He Canadian stockers available for purchase. We also know that butchers in the large centres of Great Britain would be glad to have either our stockers or fat cattle permitted to be imported into the interior of the country, there to he slaughtered whenever it was thought best for them to be slaughtered.
They appreciate the fact that these animals, when they land at the six ports in Great Britain which are open to them, have to be slaughtered within eight days after their arrival whatever their condition may he. It not unfrequently happens that Canadian cattle, as well as American and Argentine cattle arrive in Great Britain, and are taken to the lairages after a tempestuous voyage, sometimes severely injured, it would of course be a great deal better in the interest of the food of the people, if these animals could be fumed out on pasture and fed for a while before being slaughtered. The butchers of Manchester, Birmingham, Wolverhampton and the inland cities where there are no lairages are all very7 keen to have Canadian cattle permitted to enter the country free.
My hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Sproule) has alluded to the quarantine between Canada and the United States. I have here the representations that were made last spring to the imperial authorities in a formal despatch from .the government of Canada to the government of Great Britain. It is distinctly stated in that dispatch that the quarantine of 90 days beween Canada and the United States had been removed iu 1897, and it is clearly outlined wby it was removed, and the well known fact is mentioned that in tbe United States for nearly ten

years, there never has been a single case of pleuro-pneumonia. It is stated that in consequence of the fact that in the United States this disease is unknown, and that the American people were fully convinced that this disease was not in existence and never had been in existence in Canada, the authorities of the two countries felt themselves justified in removing that 90 days quarantine. I have also here the answer of the imperial government to that memorandum, and in that answer there is not the slightest reference made to the removal of the quarantine between Canada and the United States. That fact is not given as an excuse in any shape or way for refusing to remove the embargo against our cattle. It was not considered to be a thing which entered into the argument at all, and I venture to think that if it were one of the chief reasons why the imperial authorities declined to remove the embargo as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) contends, the imperial authorities would have put it forward as a reason in their reply to our memorandum.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not say that so much, as I showed that the contentions of the friends of the Minister of Agriculture in 1896 were absurd, because if when the quarantine regulations were restricted it was sufficient to induce the British government to put on the embargo ; it would be unlikely they would remove the embargo when there was no quarantine.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I was not in the House in 1896, but I watched the discussion pretty closely, and the contention then was that animals had come across the frontier and had been exported from Canada to England, in which the disease was found. We contended that these animals were not afflidted with pleuropneumonia and I think that was pretty fairly proven at the time. Sir Charles Tupper very clearly argued that then, and he thought he had proved it pretty conclusively. But if there was any danger at that time from animals coming through here, since then pleuro-pneumonia has ceased to exist in the United States. I do not remember the year in which these animals were supposed to be diseased.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 1892.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes. As a matter of fact in 1897, when the quarantine between Canada and the United States was removed, it was clearly shown to me by the Bureau of Animal Industries in Washington, that in the United States there had been no known ease of pleuropneumonia for four years before 1897. As a matter of fact there were a few isolated cases in the United States in 1892, but from that to the present day there has not been known to be a single case of pleuro-pneumonia in the United States or in fact on
the North American continent. I can say this of our neighbours in the United States ; that they have to-day a very complete organization in their Bureau of Animal Industries in Washington for the supervision and control of contagious diseases of animals, which they are working from Washington all over the Union. Under these circumstances I feel that there is not the slightest reason for the imperial authorities maintaining the embargo because of any danger of pleuro-pneumonia coming from Canada or the United States. But I wish to point out, that if the imperial authorities are willing to remove the embargo and make it a condition that we should put the quarantine against the United States, we are perfectly free to do so to-morrow. We are free to do just as we find most conducive to our own profit and advantage. We have removed the quarantine between us and the United States by Order in Council, and we are free to impose it again by Order in Council any day, just as the Americans are free to impose the 90 day quarantine against us any time toy an Order of their Department at Washington. If any difficulty might arise from that, we are perfectly free and they are perfectly free to take whatever course we believe to be in the best interest of our own peoole. Therefore the argument based on that falls to the ground. I would like to add that I am perfectly satisfied that the imperial authorities appreciate and understand that there i,s no cattle disease in Canada. The reason which Mr. Hanbury gave to me, and gave to the people of England who interviewed him for the continuance of the embargo is:	That he believed it better, in the interest of the trade, to have a fixed statute rather than to have a regulation which might be changed from time to time. It is an ingenious reason and it is put forward pretty plausibly. I confess that it does not appeal to me at all strongly, and I think that it does not appeal to a very large number of people in England. He has receded entirely from the position that he was maintaining that embargo as against disease in Canada. I may say to my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, that I do not think that I said anything which wotdd indicate that Mr. Hanbury or any one over there acknowledge that they were doing this because of protection to their cattle industry, or from a protective point of view, as we understand protection in Canada. Neither Mr. Hanbury nor Mr. Chamberlain nor any one I came into contact with, would acknowledge that. Whatever may have been their thoughts or whatever might have been the conclusion we might draw from their action, they have never acknowledged that they were doing this for the purpose for what we call protection in Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: What I said was that the Minister of Agriculture himself had stated that.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think I ever stated that. I am certain that I have never stated that, but I have stated this : That I was led to believe myself from their action that they had some such reason for doing it. But i never said that Mr. Hanbury or Mr. Chamberlain acknowledged it, because when I rather taxed them with it they distinctly disclaimed it and refused to acknowledge for a moment that they did this out of a protective spirit.


Robert Laird Borden: All I said was : That the hon. gentleman himself had stated that he was satisfied that the real reason they retained the embargo was because of protection to the British producers.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think I have stated that, but I understood the hon. gentleman to say that I said that they had acknowledged this in England.


Robert Laird Borden: No.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am glad I misunderstood the hon. gentleman, because I would not wish that impression to get abroad.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Gill says in his speech before Mr. Hanbury :
The real question is that it is a battle between free trade and protection.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Oh yes, some of the people in England have said so, but no official and no one in any responsible position has acknowledged to rue, or acknowledged so far as I know, that that is the case. I think myself there is a possibility, on such an occasion as the imperial conference between Great Britain and the colonies, of general questions of '*'commerce and trade between the different parts of the empire being taken up ; and I think that is a fitting occasion on which to discuss this question-to approach it on a broad and imperial ground. I think therefore it is well that the Prime Minister should do that, and it is certainly better that he should do it endorsed and supported by a resolution of the House of Commons, which would show that the representatives of the people of Canada feel strongly on this matter, and are unanimous in their opinion in regard to it.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. GEO. TAYLOR (South Leeds).: I understand that a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee has been called for Tuesday, and Mr. Kemp, who has left for home, wished to ask the Minister of Public Works to have sent to the clerk of the committee the papers, vouchers and correspondence in his office in connection with the question regarding Mr. Boudreau. There was a resolution passed calling for the vouchers and [DOT]documents which are in the Public Works


Robert Laird Borden: Department. Mr. Kemp also wrote a letter to the minister a day or two ago about them, but they are not down yet.
Main motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
PriDCe Edward Island Railway, $510,650.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: On the last day that we were discussing these estimates, I was asked to state to the committee what was the departmental estimate of the total cost of the works in contemplation at Sydney. I am able to do that now. The total cost is estimated in round figures at $400,000. We have already appropriated and partly expended $314,000 of this amount. I was asked also with regard to Levis. Our estimate of the expenditure there, covering the whole period from 1S96 down to the present moment, is $340,000, and we require, in addition to the estimates placed on the table, $00,000 in round figures. I do not know that I was asked as to the expenditure at Stellarton, but whether I was asked or not, I have a statement showing that the total expenditure contemplated there amounts to $116,000. Our appropriation for last year was $20,000, of which we have expended, from the 1st of July, 1901, to the 31st of March, 1902, $10,000 in round numbers, which leaves $9,623.49 of that appropriation yet to be paid out. There is about $80,000 yet required to complete the works, but we are not asking for that amount at present. We are proposing to complete the scheme as speedily as we can, according to the plans that have been laid down. I was asked how much of the appropriation of $15,000 for works at Riviere du Loup was for grading and how much for land. Our estimate of the grading is $9,000, which would leave $6,000 for the land. We have not yet made any arrangements for the land or approached the persons who own it, but our officers estimate that that amount will suffice. The total expenditure at Point Tupper is estimated at $113,000 in round figures.


John Graham Haggart: I understood from the minister that the Hillsboro' bridge is to cost $1,200,000, that to complete the branch to Murray harbour it will cost $1,400,000, and that $200,000 is the cost of extra locomotives on the Prince Edward Island road ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Does that cover all the contemplated expenditure on capital account on the Prince Edward Island Railway ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: When do you expect to have it completed ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: In two or three years.


John Graham Haggart: Would the hon. gentleman furnish us with the amount of track already laid on the Intercolonial Railway with the new steel rails of the heavier weight per yard. How much of it is completed and how much remains to be completed ? What will be the cost of the contemplated improvements on the Intercolonial Railway altogether and when they will be completed ? Will the hon. minister bring this information down when we are next on the items of the Intercolonial Railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will ask the officers of the department to furnish that information and see that it will be available when we take up the first item in supplementary estimates. I may say now that we laid last year 1241 miles of the new and heavier rails. This year we have laid some 61 or 65 miles, and expect to lay about 40 miles or 50 miles more before the end of the present fiscal year.


Mr. HACKETT.: I would like to make a remark or two in connection with the Murray Harbour and some other railway matters in Prince Edward Island. Any remarks which I may make need not be considered as adverse criticism of the money vote, because that vote is necessary, and the complaint I am making is that there is not sufficient money expended on the Prince Edward Island Railway. This Murray Harbour branch was contemplated many years ago. When the Prince Edward Island Railway was built in 1872-3, this section of country lying south of Hillsborough was left without any railway accommodation. Since then the people have been clamouring for this accommodation, and it is only lately that their request has been granted. This railway runs through an extensive area of country lying south of Hillsboro, some 30 or 40 miles away from any railway communication. The country is an agricultural one, settled by people who are frugal, industrious and honest, and as they have been contributing to the building of railways all over Canada, it is only right that they should receive some consideration. And though this amount may appear large for the building of the railway and the completion of a bridge across the Hillsborough, It is not anything too great in the interests of the people. This branch of railway extends from Southport to Murray Harbour, having a bridge across the Hillsborough to which tlie people of Prince Edward Island are obliged to contribute. It will become an important feeder of the Prince Edward Island Railway and eventually assist in largely reducing the deficit on that line. There are also other branches contemplated, and I want to call attention to the branch line in West Prince, which was also part of the scheme of building feeders for the purpose of assisting to develop the main line.
I refer to the branch line at or near Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
l
O'Leary station, on the west shore of Prince Edward Island, a distance of some 12 or 15 miles from the main line. The people living in that section have neither harbours nor wharfs nor any facilities for shipping their produce, and are obliged to haul their stuff a distance of 15 miles or so over pretty bad roads. Last year I brought the matter up before the hon. minister, and he said he could not have a survey or an estimate made of the cost of building the line then but he hoped at a future day to be able to obtain these. I hope that this year he will see that a survey is made between O'Leary and the western shore of Prince Edward Island.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Between O'Learv and Cape Wolfe.


Edward Hackett: I am glad to see that the miniser understands the situation. The building of that branch will prove not only a feeder to the main line but be a great benefit to the farmers and fishermen on that section of the coast.
I want also to call attention to the fact that Cape Wolfe is only about 20 miles distance from the shores of New Brunswick at Richi-bucto in the county of Kent. From Richi-bucto to the Intercolonial Railway there is a line of railway known as the Kent Northern Railway, which Is controlled by Mr. Brown, at Richibucto. If this branch were built to the west coast, there is commercial enterprise enough in that section of the country to place on a small steamer to open up communication with Richibucto. which is distant 15 miles, and communicates directly with the Kent Northern Railway and the Intercolonial Railway. This would develop trade there and afford greater facilities to the people. The people in the western end of Prince Edward Island have to go all around to the eastern part before they can ship their produce. This railway would very much lessen the distance, and prove of great advantage to the people. I trust the minister will order a survey and an estimate to be made, and I hope that on some future occasion we will find a sum in . the estimates to build, this branch line, which is so necessary to the people.
We know that in these days of progress more rapid transportation facilities are required. and the people who have not got these are absolutely out of the race. In the western part of the island, from Summer-side to Tignish, in the summer season, for about eight months, we have two trains a day running in that section. During the winter season one train is taken off, and the people are obliged to put up with the accommodation afforded by that one train per day. Realizing the difficulties under which they labour, a large meeting of the electors of West Prince was held in the village of Tignish last November for the purpose of discussing the matter. It was largely attended by the leading men of the district,

including four or five members of the local legislature and the Hon. Senator Yeo and other gentlemen of standing. At this meeting the following resolution was passed. And, if it would strengthen my claim at all I would tell the hon. minister that these gentlemen are strong Liberals and have always been so. One of them, the mover, is a member of the firm of J. H. Myrick & Co., and one of the greatest patrons of the railway, and the seconder is Rev. L>. M. Macdonald, who has been for thirty years parish priest of Tignish and that part of the country. The resolution is as follows :
Whereas the train accommodation accorded to West Prince is altogether inadequite to the needs of country, and little if any improvement on that afforded at the opening of the road quarter of a century ago.
And whereas one single train per day for this large and prosperous section of country is in nowise calculated to engender traffic for the road itself, since traffic only follows proper facilities.
And whereas, much if not all the enormous expense of keeping the road free from blockades would certainly be saved by operating two trains in1 winter ;-
Therefore resolved, that this mass meeting of the electors of West Prince, do hereby urge upon the Minister of Railways, Hon. A. G. Blair, the necessity of running two trains in winter as well as summer over this best paying section of our railway ; and further resolved that the representatives in the Senate and House of Commons be requested to urge upon the Railway Department of Canada, until granted, these altogether necessary improvements.
This resolution was unanimously passed at this large aud representative meeting of the electors of all shades of politics in West Prince. The meeting also appointed a committee composed of Rev. A. E. Burk, Mr. McFayden and Capt. Reid, M.L.A., to wait upon the manager of the railway at Moncton and also to see the minister himself with regard to this accommodation. These gentlemen, at great personal expense and at a busy part of the season, did see the manager at Moncton, and I understand also that some of them saw the minister. We expected that as a result we would have last winter this second train per day. Nothing was done. However, the second train was placed on the route a little earlier this year than last year-the 14th of April, as against the 14th of May last year-tout the spring has been a month in advance of last year. The minister knows that we have the two trains for eight months in the year, and surely he will see that for the accommodation of the people west of Sum-merside-some of them sixty-eight miles from Summerside-the two trains a day should be kept on for the other four months of the year. I trust the hon. minister will give tlie matter his favourable consideration and that he will find himself in a position to say to me this evening that we are to have the two trains a day.


Edward Hackett: Another improvement that is needed on the Prince Edward Island Railway is a new station at Alberton. The minister referred to this yesterday, and said that some day in the future 'it would actually be required. The station buildings at Alberton, Charlottetown and Georgetown-he provides for h station at Georgetown tin the estimates which we discussed last night-are three of the old stations erected by the contractors when they built the railway nearly thirty years ago. They may have been considered first-class buildings at that time. They are not only old, but they [are antiquated, out of date. The building at Alberton especially is rapidly going out of repair. The hon. minister will remember there is a ' Y ' at the station. If he does not recollect it, the deputy minister and chief engineer, who built the railway and knows all about it, will be able to inform him. The train coming from east or west, is obliged to back up a quarter of a mile or so to take the main line, a matter which involves not merely delay, but also danger to the trainmen and passengers. I trust that when the hon. minister builds the new station, which 1 hope he will do soon, he will do away with this ' Y ' nuisance. 1 shall be very glad if the 'lion, miuister can give me an answer this evening with regard to these matters.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I can assure the hon. member (Mr. Hackett) that it is not because I have not had the importance of these subjects very urgently pressed upon me Ibnt attentions baa not been given them before this, and that parliament has not been asked to give us money wherewith to make the improvements. 1 refer now particularly to the improvements [at Alberton, Charlottetown and other points on the main line. I am fully aware of the need of a good deal being done, but we are making such a large outlay with respect to the Hillsborough branch railway that i have not felt that I should be quite justified in taking up these works to the extent we might do at we h)ad not so large an undertaking on our hands. I sympathize fully with the view the hon. gentleman presents, and, for my part, would be well disposed to go as far as it is possible to go in order to meet Ins views. 1 have been pressed by other representatives from the island in the same direction, but have been obliged to say to them what I am compelled to say to the horn gentleman to-night that, they must exercise some platience until a more favourable opportunity offers for taking those things up properly. As to the matter of the train, I think that possibly something might have been done last winter towards establishing a second train during the winter but for a variety of causes. It was Into in the seasoin when it was taken up, and then the question was somewhat complicated by the proposal to establish connection be-

[DOT] tween Cape Tormentine on the New Brunswick side at the end of the Cape Tormentine Railway and the Prince Edward Island road on the other. Efforts were being made in thiat direction, and, until we knew just how they would develop, I was advised by the officers of the line, the final conclusion to run these trains as proposed, perhaps, had better not be pushed. While it was late in ithe summer season it was very early in what is called the winter season. Then circumstances personal to myself arose which really prevented me for quite a time from giving any attention at all to the subject. And so the season went by. 1 am only desirous, and, even at some cost to the country I would be willing to give to the people on the island a reasonably good service. I think (they are entitled to it, and I sympathize very fully with their wishes in that direction. I do not think I can say more at this moment. I do not think it would further the object in any way for me to make a more definite statement. The hon. gentleman will have to be content with the expression of my desire to go as far as I possibly can, consistently with all tlhe considerations that affect the question, in meeting the wishes of the people with respect to these trains.
Mr. HACIvETT. With regard to the second train, I am satisfied to let the matter rest with the minister, land I presume he will do right by the people of that section of the country. I would like to ask what the intention is with regard to the branch line from O'Leary to the west shore ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That subject, though it has not been brought prominently before me, has been debated a good deal in connection with the Kent Northern Railway. Those who are interested in the Kent Northern Railway have in the public press and various other ways been urging it as a desirable road at all events in the summer season and to some extent in the winter for persons who wish to reach the island from the west in a most expeditious way. It would make a quicker and in some sense a closer connection than they now get by either Point du Chene or Cape Tormentine. But it has not been really urged upon my attention as an urgent question. I would not like to encourage the hon. gentleman to expect that, while we have in hand this Hillsborough undertaking, we would be likely to take up the branch line that he spoke of to Cape Wolfe. I think that will have to remain pending for a time. No doubt it has much to recommend it; but at present I am not able to express a decided opinion upon it.
Sault Ste Marie canal-To deepen and widen entrances, $50,000.
 The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. This is to continue the work of deepening and widening the entrance of the 126


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
Sault Ste Marie Canal. I think it is generally known that we are at a disadvantage as compared with the entrance to the canal on the American side. We have but an inch or two of . 18 feet at best, and some serious accidents have occurred. We desire to place our canal upon an equally satisfactory footing with that of our neighbours. The entrance to the lock on the American side is 22 feet, and we would not like to have anything less than that. I am proposing to carry that Work on until we have a sufficient entrance.
John Graham Haggart: What will it cost ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The estimated cost for both the upper and lower entrance is in the neighbourhood of $450,000. The lower entrance will cost in the neighbourhood of $140,000 to $150,000, and the upper entrance in the neighbourhood of $300,000. We have not commenced the upper entrance yet.


John Graham Haggart: Does tne hon. gentleman know what he is paying per yard.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The deputy minister tells me we are paying $2.95 per yard. It is a mixture of loose rock and earth.


John Graham Haggart: Was this by tender and contract ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Would the department be able to furnish what quantity of it is rock and what is clay, so that we may be able to see whether the price is correct ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is reasonable. I will let the hon. gentleman know whether the information is available.	,


John Graham Haggart: It ought to be
available, because the department ought not to let the contract without knowing that. Would the hon. gentleman tell me what is the average height of water on the mitre sill of the lock now, and whether the water of lake Superior is lowering or rising at Sault Ste Marie ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The deputy states there has been no perceptible fall in the water, if anything it is a little .uglier. The height is now 20 feet and 3 inches.


John Graham Haggart: In order to make that available to navigation it would need to be a couple of feet more in the prism.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, the prism is all rigm.


John Graham Haggart: But there is a prism on the bottom from the lock down, and that ought to be at least 22 feet.


EDITION
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is what we propose to make it.


John Graham Haggart: Who are the contractors ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Bowman is the contractor.
Hon. Mr.- HAGGART. Were there many tenders ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There were three, this was the lowest.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When will this be completed ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The lower entrance is completed now, the upper entrance has not been commenced.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose that is virtually to provide accommodation to the people of Sault Ste Marie. If I understood rightly, the contract was made with Mr. Ryan to have the whole of it excavated as far as the American channel, and this money you are expending now is to reach the wharf in the town.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, this is the main entrance.


John Graham Haggart: But you say the principal part of this vote is below the lock ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: To the lower entrance.


John Graham Haggart: I understood that under the old contract that was provided for, but that there was not sufficient depth to allow vessels coming through the canal to go to the wharf in the town, and that large expenditure was necessary.
The MINISTER'OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. That is not the fact. There is only 18 feet and 6 inches provided for in the Ryan contract, and also for the general purposes of the canal.


John Graham Haggart: Perhaps it is under the Public Works Department that they are doing this excavation at the town.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think it is. We are not doing it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the hon. minister aware whether the Canadian Pacific Railway boats use this canal or not ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think they do. There is a question of coal that arises which may perhaps tend to divert a certain portion of the traffic. I think they use it occasionally.
, Mr. SPROULE. I have heard it contended that it was owing to the privilege they have of coaling on the American side pro-


John Graham Haggart: viding they use the American canal, but I ' have also heard it contended that it was owing to the unsuitability of the canal for boats to pass through. It would be a matter of importance to know whether or not that is a fact, and if it is a fact it would be much better that the canal should be finished at the earliest possible date.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am given to understand that there is nothing in the suggestion.


William Humphrey Bennett: I think the statement of the hon. minister is quite correct as to the coaling privilege which vessels receive on the American side ; in other words, that by touching there they are enabled to coal up without paying duty. Persons who are conversant with the names of some of the larger craft on the upper lakes will notice that many of these American boats * go through the Canadian lock and there is no question as to the superiority of the Canadian lock as compared with the American lock. It is always a startling thing to people who recognize the names of the larger American vessels to see how many of them pass through the Canadian lock. The fact that vessels go through the American lock is not a question of the superiority of that lock but it is entirely due to the fact, as I have been time and again informed by vessel men that they desire to avoid the high price of coal on the Canadian side.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is as I understand it.
Trent canal-construction (revoce, $300,000), $300,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is a revote out of the appropriation of last year. We are not expecting to spend more than $315,000 and we are asking that the balance of the unexpended vote of last year be authorized this year.


William Humphrey Bennett: I think that the ridings or counties that are abutting on this system of navigation, commonly known as the Trent Valley canal, can hardly find fault with the government for the manner in which they are treating them. Commencing with the year 1800 and down to 1901 there have been very considerable expenditures in connection with the works, running from $400.000 in 1890 to $486,575 in 1897, and amounting to $284,503 in 1901. The work has therefore been pushed with much more vigour within these past five or six years than heretofore. In connection with this work I am sure that if the general public knew the importance of it more attention would be paid to it. Let me tell the committee and the hon. minister that at the town of Peterborough there is being erected now a very large industry that is entirely due to the presence of this system of navigation.
I refer to what is known as a factory for the manufacture of cereal foods in which

some Americans are investing an immense amount of money, and I was told yesterday that they intend to start in a few month's with a daily consumption of at least 20,000 bushels of grain, so that the extent of the business may be realized. It is intended at this factory to manufacture these so-called prepared foods not only for consumption in Canada but for export to the old country. I was assured by a gentleman in Peterborough the other day that it was likely, that, if the canal had been an accomplished fact to Lake Ontario, they would have secured a very large iron industry a little time ago. I must congratulate the ministry on the fact that they have pressed this work forward and that they have accomplished a considerable amount within the past few years, but while this has been going on there are some sections of the work which, I think, call for some explanation as to why they have not progressed faster. Let me call attention to the construction of the lock a little below the town of Peterborough which I am pleased to say I saw a few weeks ago and which is really a wonderful work. I see by reference to the report of the hon. minister the following statement in regard to this work.
Section No. 2, Peterborough-Lalcefleld division. The cbntract for this section was awarded to Messrs. Corry & Laverdure, on May 21, 1896, [DOT]and the time for completion was fixed by this contract on November 1, 1897.
Here we are in 1902 and while, of course, a large amount of work has been done, that contract is not finished. I would like to know when that lock will be completed and in running order. The completion of that lock means that from a distance above Penelon Falls there will be, for 20 miles at least, a stretch of clear water to the town of Peterborough, and yet it is impossible for that long stretch to be utilized until this lock is completed ; not only from there but all the way down to Hastings on the eastern end. Yet, in this report it would seem that the completion of that part of the work was called for on the 1st of November, 1897. and is still in an uncompleted state. Can the hon. minister inform us when the lock below Peterborough will be completed which is covered by the Corry & Laverdure contract ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: A great deal of the delay has been due to the non-execution of the contract for the steel work of the structure. True, the masonry contract has not been carried out very rapidly, but I think it would have been done more quickly if we had felt any confidence that we could have got the steel portion of the structure completed and in shape to erect. I think it is some two years ago since we made the contract and I do not know that we can look with very much confidence to having the steel for the structure ready before next year.
126*


William Humphrey Bennett: The report contains the following reference to the hydraulic lock contract:
The contract for the steel work in connection with the hydraulic lock was awarded to the Dominion Bridge Company. The date in the contract calling for the completion of this work way May, 1900, but owing to the concrete work nor the press wells not being completed it was impossible tc commence the erection of the steel work.
By the report it would seem that the steel work was to have been completed by May, 1900, and yet we are two years past it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: Can the hou. minister state approximately when it is expected that the hydraulic lock will he iu working order V


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think before next year. We will hardly get it finished during the fiscal year for which we are now asking an appropriation. The best we Can hope is at the end of next year.


William Humphrey Bennett: I understand that there is to be an hydraulic lock at the end of what is called the Balsam lake section ? How is that work progressing ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The work is progressing fairly well. I think it is very near completion as far as the ditching is concerned.


William Humphrey Bennett: I mean as to the loelc at Kirkwood-not the section below.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We expect the concrete work to be finished this summer. Larkin & Sang-ster are the contractors and they are getting on very well.


William Humphrey Bennett: The report does not state when Love & Aylmer's contract is to be completed.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The deputy cannot inform me at the moment, but I will give tile information later.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would judge from my observations in passing there that the contractors are pushing the work with commendable vigour. The Grand Trunk Railway Company are at present raising the track to obviate the necessity of a swing bridge. As to the general work I hope the Minister will require these contractors to press their different contracts to a completion at the earliest possible date. The possibilities of this canal open up a new field of thought. It was looked upon for many years as being of a local character, but it is now demonstrated that it may be used extensively for the transportation of grain. I may tell the House that I know

from conversation with the owners of a large elevator at Midland with a capacity of a million and a quarter bushels, that they might have built their elevator at Buffalo, but that one strong reason that prompted them to come to Midland was that when this canal was constructed it would be a competitor for the transportation of grain, and that it would hold the railway rates in check. I strongly urge the minister that he should press vigorously the work between Balsam Bake and Lake Sim-coe, and as soon as possible let the contract for the section on the Georgian Bay.


John Graham Haggart: Have Corry & Laverdure completed their contract.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not yet.	.


John Graham Haggart: I understood they had a claim against the government which was left to arbitration, and that the arbitrators have made an award against the government.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They had a claim in the neighbourhood of between $320,000 and $330,000 and while the deputy minister could not certify the amount which they claimed or for any amount which would be accepted by them as reasonably satisfactory, we adopted the expedient of having the matter adjusted by selecting reputable and competent engineers who would advise the chief engineer on the subject. It was not an arbitration in the ordinary sense, but it was an advisory board of three engineers who would go upon the work and examine it and state what in their judgment would be a fail- allowance to make in respect to the claim. We selected Mr. Hobson and Mr. Surtees, and they suggested Mr. Brophy of the Public Works Department. We thought it would be impossible to have made the choice of any three men who would inspire more confidence or be better qualified to pass upon the question. They went into the subject very faithfully ; some items they rejected, with respect to others they made recommendation to the chief engineer, and as a result the claim is practically settled on the basis of an allowance of $126,000. I need not say that result was very unsatisfactory to the claimants!


John Graham Haggart: Was the principle item of dispute as to quantities.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No. It was as to the prices. The work was of a unique character. We could not foresee what was required to be done. It is the first hydraulic lock that has been constructed in America, and I think there are only two or three anywhere. When I was in the old country I went to Brussels to see one of these locks, but our lock is on a much larger scale than that. We sent


William Humphrey Bennett: Mr. Rodgers there to examine it, and yet conditions arose which no past experience enabled us to grapple with. There were difficulties in connection with the prosecution of the work which led to differences of opinion between the officers of the department and the contractors, which had to be settled in some way, and which it will be admitted, I think, were settled in as satisfactory a way as possible. Even a resort to courts would not, I think, be as satisfactory or as advisable.


John Graham Haggart: Has the council approved of the award ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not yet. It is still open. The stage to wihich the matter has progressed is this. The recommendation has been received from these gentlemen by the chief engineer, but it has not yet been followed up. It came in since the session opened, land we have not had time to enter into it.


John Graham Haggart: Has the chief engineer of the department mentioned his opinion or pledged himself according to the recommendation of these three engineers ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes. It happened that they all three agreed.


John Graham Haggart: Has the chief ei* gineer given his certificate yet ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


John Graham Haggart: All I can say is that it is a most extraordinary proceeding. The Exchequer Court was formed for the purpose of settling these difficulties. By the contract the chief engineer is the judge as to the quantities and the work, and upon his certificate the amounts are paid. Then, a board of engineers is appointed, for what purpose ? To inform the chief engineer what he ought to know himself, and the other engineers on the work, and they recommend that he shall give a certificate for certain prices and certain quantities.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is no question about the quantities.


John Graham Haggart: The prices surely are fixed by the contract. There could be no difficulty at all with the chief engineer nor with the engineers in charge of the work, and I suppose there was not any. They certified as to the amount of work done. The contractor is not satisfied. In that ciase, there is a way of proceeding which we intended should be followed in all these cases, that is, to go to the Exchequer Court. But a convenient wav is adopted of referring the question to three arbitrators-for what purpose ? To provide a conscience for the chief engineer, to tell him wliat the prices and the quantities

are, and lie perforce has to follow their opinion and give his certificate in accordance with it. 1 hear tihat he has not given his certificate, and that the matter has not yet been before council. I hope that such an objectionable manner of proceeding will never receive the sanction of council, but that it will be sent back to the chief engineer for his certificate. If he has not certified to it, there must be a difference of opinion between the chief engineer and the contractors, or the contractors would not ask for a board of engineers to be appointed to look over the works and see what quantities are. The contractors must in some manner have received from the department the prices which the department chose to put on the work; and, if I understand the minister -properly, there is a difference in the prices, but not in the quantities. They knew the prices the department was putting on the work, and if there was any difference, there was only one right way of settling it, that was, to go to the Exchequer Court, which was formed for the purpose of deciding such cases.


The MINISTER OF RAIRWAYS AND CANALS.: I can only siay that, from my experience in the department of the results of appeals to the Exchequer Court,
I cannot concur in the conclusion the hon. gentleman lias arrived at. The differences which arose were differences respecting the value of the work which these people did. My hon. friend said they should be governed by the -prices, which prices would of course lie stated in the contract. It does not happen that there were any prices in the contract for -the particular work which formed the subject-matter of this claim. The engineers and officers had not foreseen-and that is where the difficulty of this particular class of structure came in-the necessity which arose for many descriptions of work separate from the contract. These claims were claims for extras, and it was necessary and proper that the amount of allowance which could properly be made to these people should be settled in some way or other. It is not unknown to the hon. gentleman in his experience that questions of that kind constantly arise in the department, and you could not ask the chief engineer to act as an arbitrator as between these parties, so that they would feel that they had fair consideration. The chief engineer, having an opinion on the subject, as far as he could form an opinion in respect of it, would not be willing to act, and he has always uniformly since he lias been in the department declined to act in any such capacity. The hon. gentleman knows that right well. IJe says that in that alternative we could go to the Exchequer Court. Could anybody who wished to be fair and reasonable say that an Exchequer Court is an ideal tribunal for the purpose of ascertaining the value of the work that these people did ? Or would a better tribunal be a board of engineers in whom you are entitled to have confidence, men of high standing, and men who you know would give you the benefit of their very best judgment. As between man and man, which would any one say was the proper tribunal to go to ? I cannot think that there is any room for doubt. If anybody will say that Mr. Joseph Hobson or Mr. Robert Surtees, known as they are by everybody as reliable men as could be found in Canada, are not many times more competent to pass on a question of this kind than a judge of the Exchequer Court, then I will admit that we have gone the wrong way about bringing this matter to an end. You have to bring these matters to an end in some way; you cannot leave them hanging for ever. It is the duty of the minister in the department, and I intend to pursue that course while I am in the department, to have these claims disposed of as speedily as possible. There is no advantage in having men hanging around yo-u from time to time waiting to have this question or that question disposed of. You had better pay a little too much than have that condition of things. If it were my hon. friend's own business and he wanted to protect himself, he could uot pursue a wiser or more proper course, and he could pot select any men who would be worthier of public confidence in such a trust than the men we chose for the purpose.


Mr BENNETT.: What was the amount of* the original contract and by whom was the plan prepared ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS You will get the total amount by taking the quantity. The original cou-tiact totals up $500,000 and the extras $120.000.


John Graham Haggart: The contract is not finished yet.
The MINISTER ('I, RAILWAYS AND CANALS. This is an estimate based upon the schedule prices in the market.


John Graham Haggart: I understand the minister to say that the contract is going on still and that this is an arbitration on progress estimates ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, it will take some three or four weeks perhaps to finish.


William Humphrey Bennett: As I understand the case, the contract is not for a lump sum for the entire work, but an estimate was made that a certain quantity of walls and other work would be required, and a price was fixed of so much per yard for concrete work, labour and materials. These were all placed in a schedule. It seems to me that if plans and specifications were prepared, which showed a superstructure of a certain size, surely one could arrive at a lump sum for the contract, but instead there were

schedule prices fixed, and after the completion of the work and measuring up the entire structure, the amount due was to be arrived at. It does seem odd that on a contract involving approximately half a million dollars, the departmental engineer should be one-quarter out. The minister says that half a milion dollars was what the work was to cost.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There was a change made in the work.


William Humphrey Bennett: Which involved a cost of $129,000 more. There should have been no difficulty in arriving at a price to be paid for the extra work done. The minister had the benefit of the prices given in the original contract, and surely these would have furnished a basis for estimating the Extras. It does seem odd that before the extras were begun, a hard and fast bargain was not made with the contractors. When the extras were commenced was there any basis settled, showing how much per yard or otherwise these extras should cost, or any schedule prices agreed to ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There was a material change made in the plan. [DOT] and in some other respects, and upon this change a claim was based. The handling of the material was made very much more expensive by reason of that change, and that is one of the items.
Hon. Mr. HA(30ART. Did the chief engineer certify as to the amount he thought these parties were entitled to ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He had his views with regard to what would be a fair price.


John Graham Haggart: Did he certify to that ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 1 cannot say.


John Graham Haggart: Will the hon. gentleman ask his chief engineer, who is alongside of him ?
'Hit MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. Pie certified to the progress estimates.


John Graham Haggart: There has not been a final estimate made out yet ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


John Graham Haggart: This is $139,000 over what the chief engineer certified to, on progress estimates, that he thought the parties were entitled to.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman is going up a little. He lias increased the figure from $120,000 to $139,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: 


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. minister has not answered the question I put to him, which was this : Before the extras began, were any prices arrived at and submitted to the contractor ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, the chief engineer had his views of what was a fair price, but they were not satisfactory to the contractor, and lienee the difficulty.


William Humphrey Bennett: If I understand the minister aright the position was this. Here was a contract let by the department to a firm of contractors under schedule prices for the work to be done. No lump sum could be arrived at because it was not known what quantities of material would pass into (he work and what amount of labour would be required. But schedule prices were prepared and plans and specifications made out and the work began. At a certain stage the minister made up his mind to change the formation of the work to a certain ex-t(*nt, and the contractors were shown a plan of the changes contemplated and asked ti>
go on with the work. The minister had in his own mind an idea of what the prices should be for the extras, but the contractors refused to accept his figures. The minister then said to the contractors: You go on with the work and we will make a settlement afterwards. I think I have put the case fairly.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You put it fairly enough if the facts were as you have stated them.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have put the facts as I understood the minister to have stated them. The extra work was contemplated by the minister. He will not deny that. He had information from his engineer as to what would he fair prices.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAiS AND CANALS. The difficulty had really arisen long before it first came to my knowledge. The work had been proceeded with, and I did rot know it. It is not many months ago when the matter was first brought to my attention. The progress estimates had been going on some time before, based on the ideas of the chief engineer. His ideas did not agree with those of the contractors, and they began to think it was time some agreement was reached. Then the question was put before me, and after talking the matter over witli the chief engineer. I agreed that these three men should arbitrate.


William Humphrey Bennett: A change was contemplated in the plan ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It was actually made in the work.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is the House to understand that a change was made in the work

with tlie consent of the minister or that it was unknown to him until this claim was made ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not know about the change when it was made. I never knew anything about it until the question came up as to what would be a proper price.


William Humphrey Bennett: I did not understand the minister in that light Now we are in this position-here	is a contract
for work that will cost approximately half a million. While the work is progressing, the contractor, of his own accord, makes certain changes in the work, the minister knowing nothing whatever about them. After the contractor has performed the work in part he comes to the minister and says : I have made a lot of changes in the work and I demand from you payment for the extra work involved. And it seems that something in the neighbourhood of $125,000 is to be paid for work which the contractor alleges he did hut which is entirely unknown to the minister. Is that the position ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I was unaware personally of what, was being done. As I say the fii-st knowledge I had of any difference between the department and the contractors was when the matter was brought before me, as it were, on appeal between the chief engineer and the contractors. At the time the question first came up a number of engineers had been down there at the instance of Messrs. Corry & Laverdure for the purpose of estimating the character and the reasonable cost of the work. There were some five or six of these engineers, including Mr. Kennedy, of Montreal, Mr. Keefer, Mr. Jennings and a number of others whose names are quite familiar to ns all. These gentlemen had written their reports-not jointly-setting forth what they thought this character of work was worth. There was a very considerable difference of opinion between these engineers and the chief engineer of the department. We knew that if the matter went to the Exchequer Court that court would have no means of reaching a decision except by summoning engineers and taking their evidence under oath. Therefore we hit on the expedient of agreeing that engineers who had not previously been invited by Messrs Corry & Laverdure to look at the work and who had no connection with them should examine the work and give their opfnion to tjie chief engineer. This idea we carried out.


John Graham Haggart: For the better understanding of this matter will the hon. minister give the quantities of the work as originally left to Messrs Corry & Laverdure and then the change in the work with the quantities. The hon. minister must see that when extra work is performed by a contractor under the government and the engineers differ as to the prices or quantities -for the principle would apply to quantities also-they would have the same right as Messrs Corry & Laverdure to have an advisory hoard of engineers selected. I very much doubt that the chief engineer, having given his certificate of the value and quantity of the work, will change his certificate upon the recommendation of any set of engineers in the country. It is an extraordinary proceeding that, after giving his decision, he would revise it on the advice of other engineers. He is the chief engineer and ought to he as capable of forming an opinion as to prices and quantities as any board of advisory engineers can be. And. in view of just such disputes as the present one, this country formed a court to decide such matters, and when such cases arise, they ought to be sent to that court.


Mr. BARKER.: As I understand the case, as developed by (the hon. member for Sim-eoe (Mr. Bennett) and the hon. Minister of Railways, 'these contractors performed certain work wholly unauthorized by the minister and without his knowledge. The question is, is the minister, under these circumstances, going to pay for the work 1 Is.be making these preparations with a view to paying for that work thus done without his authority ? If that can be done 'by one contractor there is no end to the expenditure that may be incurred in spite of the minister. Surely, there must he some control over public works. These gentlemen, according to the hon. minister's own statement, did work that he never authorized, yet the hon. gentleman is making every preparation to ascertain just what they ought to be paid for it. Surely the only way to deal with contractors who take this view of their position is to let them lie on the bed they have made-not pay them. Then, perhaps, they will keep within their contracts.


John Graham Haggart: I would like to know the difference in quantities.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon, if he was expecting an answer tonight, I thought I said that we had not the information at hand and could not give it to him.


John Graham Haggart: Then the hon. gentleman will give it to me some other time ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.
IICm. Mr. HAGGART. Is there any item on which this subject will come up again ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Certainly, we have supplementary estimates.


Robert Laird Borden: I think we should have some explanation from the minister how it happened that the work for which a claim of $300,000 is made and for which

an award of $126,000 was made subsequently, could be done without the knowledge and authority of the minister.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have no doubt the hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart) who was in the department before me would have more experience than I in that direction. Many changes are made in these works. Either the chief engineer or the engineers under him by his authority may make these changes, which do not necessarily come to the personal knowledge of the minister.


John Graham Haggart: But the hon. gentleman did 'not state before that this was done on the authority of the chief engineer.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Undoubtedly, it was on the authority of the chief engineer. And no doubt, the contractors were fully authorized to do it. I have not the slightest recollection of any question at all arising with reference to the canal or the possibility of these claims coming up until they actually arose. My first knowledge of it was when the work had progressed and we were nearing the time when the final estimate had to be paid and the^question would have to be settled in one form or another.


Robert Laird Borden: In view of that explanation, which I did not understand before, it is clear that the question of my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) remains to be answered. He wanted to know, if these changes were made, why the scale of prices was not fixed af the time the changes were authorized, and the minister answered by saying they were not fixed because he did not know anything about it. That might be a very good answer if it were correct. It turns out now' it is not correct, because when we speak of the minister we speak of his department, of his officers.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I stated to the hon. gentleman that the chief engineer had his ideas then as to what would be proper prices at the time the changes were commenced, but the contractors notified him that the work could not be done at those prices. I think I said that, at all events I intended to say it.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then the position of the matter is this, according to the minister's last statement. When these changes were contemplated a discussion ensued between the chief engineer and the contractors as to the extra wrork. Now, the minister has not stated whether this was simply a matter of conversation or a matter of record in the department. Can the minister tell us whether these negotiations on the part of the contractors to make these changes, and the statement made in turn by the chief engineer as to the prices which he thought fair, were these matters of record in the department ?


Robert Laird Borden: 


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not know what the hon. gentleman means by negotiations. There were not any until after the work had progressed. The chief engineer stated what he thought were proper prices, and he made his progress estimates and the amount of the estimates was accepted, and payments were made upon them. But the contractors protested from time to time that this work *was costing a good deal more than they were being allowred.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then it was agreed upon between the contractors and the chief engineer that certain extra work was to be proceeded with.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It was decided by the chief engineer that changes should be made.


William Humphrey Bennett: Changes that are commonly called extras. Now when these extras were contemplated there was a difference of opinion between the engineer and the contractors. The engineer said what he thought would be a fair price for the work, that is to say in the gross amount at schedule prices. To that proposition there was demurrer on the part of the contractors, they not acquiescing in the prices proffered by the chief engineer. Now I ask the minister is that a correct statement of the facts ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think that is substantially correct, as I am given to understand. Prices were named by the chief engineer, the contractors did not agree with those prices, and from time to time, as the work went on, and it was found what the work cost, the contractors protested, and protested, and protested again.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then this whole matter of negotiation must either have been by discussion or conversation between the contractors and the engineer,' or by connected correspondence. Can the minister say which was the case ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The chief engineer was not presented with a written protest; they verbally protested from time to time.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am referring to the proffer of prices on the part of the department through the chief engineer, and the refusal of the contractors to accept such prices. Is that a matter of record ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The matter of record is that the chief engineer made his progress estimates allowing certain prices in regard to the extras.


Samuel Barker: That is after the work is done. You cannot make an estimate of progress until after the work is done. The question is, before they began these extras

did the department offer the contractors certain terms, certain prices for the extras that were contemplated, or did they not ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, the chief engineer said : Now we propose to make this change and we propose to allow such and such prices.


Samuel Barker: Was this proposition in writing ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, it appeared in the estimates, the chief engineer said.


Samuel Barker: The estimate cannot appear until the work is done. I am asking, when the proposition was made that they should do certain extras.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They are progress estimates.


Samuel Barker: But a progress estimate is not made until a certain amount of work is done. I am asking as to these extras, how were they done or entered upon ? Did the department propose that these extras should he done, alterations made in the work, and did they offer certain prices, and are those in writing ?	.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The chief engineer says he thinks the first time the price appeared was when the first progress estimate was made.


Samuel Barker: Then the work was begun without authority ; the extra work must have been begnn without authority, if the first time it was brought up was when he was making an estimate for progress work already begun.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They were authorized to go on and make these changes.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is that on record in the department-anything to show the changes contemplated ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They were instructed to make these changes as the chief engineer suggested, they were bound to make them.


William Humphrey Bennett: That is coming to the point. Now the point in this. The minister had decided upon certain changes in the ' work.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The department had.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, the department is the minister and the minister is the department. These changes being contemplated, without having any record at all or any agreement as to the price to be paid, these contractors went on with the work. Now is that a fair statement of the case ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That would be a fair statement. They were instructed to go on with this
work, and there were no prices allowed until the first progress estimates came up.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then may I ask the minister what was the nature of the extras ? Was it similar to the work under the original contract ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, it was not.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then wherein did they differ ? In the changes that were made was there additional masonry work, or in what particular was the change ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am told there was a large quantity of water-tight embankment required that was not provided for in the original contract ; that was in place of steel work.


John Graham Haggart: He must have had the written authority of the chief engineer for that.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He was instructed to do it.


John Graham Haggart: A contractor is not entitled to any extras unless he has the written authority of the chief engineer to make them. Further, when he does extra work beyond his contract, he has to notify the department within a certain number of days in* writing. If he does not do it, no matter what his extras are, he is not entitled to anything under the contract. He must first have the authority of the chief engineer to make any changes in the contract. No engineer on the contract has authority to do it. We ought to have the facts. The hon. minister has promised to furnish them afterwards. We should know what changes were made in the original contract and what the work which 'was authorized to be done by the chief engineer, together with the quantities and prices allowed.


Mr BENNETT.: The hon. minister cannot ask to have this item passed without the information which is the whole basis of the discussion.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think you have all the information I can give you to-night. There will be another item, or if there is not another item in the supplementaries, I will agree that the matter may be discussed on one of the other items.


John Graham Haggart: If the hon. minister is willing to discuss the question on another item and have all the information ready when we ask for it I suppose the item may be allowed to pass.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Certainly.
Soulanges canal, construction and equipment,


John Graham Haggart: What are the construction and equipment, and what sums are necessary ? I would ask the hon. minister to just tell me at the same time the position of all the contracts upon the canal-whether any Anal estimates have been passed, and what the final estimates are on the different portions of the work.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Final estimates have been prepared for sections 12, 11 and 8. The other question the hon. gentleman asked me was what we were doing still in respect to the Soulanges canal work.
lion. Mr. HAGGART. Yes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are finishing and cleaning up throughout the entire length of the work. We are sodding. Sections 4, 5, G and 7, on which Mr. Onderdouk was the contractor, required to be sodded.


John Graham Haggart: Is that done by contract ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, it is all under contract and this is the completion of the contract. We are putting in the electrical equipment for the gates and valves. That work is pretty well completed now anti the vote is for this purpose.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who has the contract for the electrical work ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Do you mean for the plant ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The Canadian 'General Electric Company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: At what price ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: One hundred and eight thousand will be the amount that will be coming to them probably when the contract is completed.
Welland canal-Improvements at Port Col-borne entrance, $300,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Of this amount $100,000 is a revote out of the appropriation of last year. We did not expend the whole $300,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: How much was spent last year ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: $200,000. When I say last year, I mean the current year. We expect to speud $200,000 this year out of the vote of $300,000. We are revoting $100,000 and we are adding to that $200,000. We think that will complete the work.


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: 


John Graham Haggart: What will be required to finish this work, and what will be the total expenditure ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The estimate of the total cost of this work is $1,100,000.


John Graham Haggart: You nave no idea as to the proportion which the Public Works Department are doing ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, I have not. I think they stated their portion of the work would cost another million.


John Graham Haggart: When do you expect to have it finished ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We will have our part finished just as soon as the breakwater is completed. It is not worth our while to push our portion of the work through before the breakwater is completed.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the nature of the work being done by the hon. gentleman's department at Port Colborne ?
Th.e MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. We are widening the entrance and deepening it. Wre are erecting piers and extending the piers along the west side and we are erecting two docks so as to afford facilities for the docking of two steamers on each side.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have* never been at Port Colborne so that I am not very conversant with the position of the harbour. Am I to understand that there is a dock on either side of the entrance ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, only on the west side. There is a short projecting pier on the east side. There is a long projecting pier on the west side, and at the end of that we are making arrangements for two docks on which elevators may be constructed.


William Humphrey Bennett: Who is the contractor for this work ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Messrs Hogan & McDonald are our contractors.


John Graham Haggart: How much are . you going to lower the mitre sill at Port Colborne ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Three feet.


John Graham Haggart: What is the use of deepening the water on the mitre sill unless you deepen the reach.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The mitre sill at the entrance only shows 13 feet and instead of lowering it so as to make sure of a clear 14 feet we have made it 1C feet, because of the effect

of the winds which makes the water shallower at the entrance. We do not propose to lower the other locks because they are able to afford 14 foot navigation, nor do we propose to make the channel 16 feet.
Kapide Plat-Canal.' $57,600.
The MINISTER OB' RAILWAYS AND CANALS. $32,600 of this is a revote.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: Who is working there.
The MINISTER OB'1 RAILWAYS AND CANALS. Gilbert Brothers.


John Dowsley Reid: This is simply work to remove work that was done there by Mr. Broder the contractor under the plan of the present superintending engineer. I do not And fault with the present work, but I do say that it has been become necessary because of work which was done at great cost by the present superintending engineer. M e are spending this money to undo work that should never have been done in the first place.
The MINISTER OB" RAILWAYS AND CANALS. Do you mean that the work which is being taken oat was authorized by Mr. Rubidge.


John Dowsley Reid: Yres. There was a great deal of piering being done there and when it was being done the boatmen complained that the entrance could not be used, but notwithstanding that the engineer persisted in going on with the work and that work has now to be removed. The original work was done by Mr. Broder.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The chief engineer believes that the work must have been done before he came into the department. He says that since he came in there was nothing- done by the Broders.


John Dowsley Reid: That may be, but the original work was laid out by the present superintending engineer.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am more concerned, and I suppose the Chief Engineer is also, as to the propriety of doing what we are now doing, and I understand from him that it is necessary that this work should be done.


John Dowsley Reid: I think it is right too that this work should be done.
Galops canal, enlargement, $293,600.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: $55,000 of this is a re vote.


John Dowsley Reid: I claim that the work that is being done in the Galops channel interferes with the entrance to the canal to a certain extent, because it draws tile water away from that. I have always taken the stand that that work in the Galops channel is an outrage, and I would
like to bring it to the attention of the minister and make an appeal to him to have it stopped. The work was advised and commenced a number of years ago by the present superintending engineer, and was carried on for a number of years. I think that in the neighbourhood of $1,000,000 has been paid to the contractors who have been working there since the hon. minister has had charge of the department. The work was originally started with a view to enabling large steamers to navigate the Galops rapids. Steamboat men from year to year appealed to the government, claiming that those people could never navigate those rapids, even if the channel was made 17 feet deep. At the same time they claimed that that deep cut through the rapids would lower the water in the St. Lawrence above the rapids. After eight or ten years work in the channel, it was said to be completed and fit for use. I complained myself to the government, and insisted on an investigation, and instead of there being 17 feet of water, it was proved that there was only some 10 feet. Previous to my complaint, it was proved to the satisfaction of the government that the channel would never be of any use, and the scheme of putting a lock below the rapids was entertained, and the work was completed, and that is now being used. Every marine man that I know of on the river will admit that every vessel will go through that lift lock and will never use the channel.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There are occasionally vessels that go down.


John Dowsley Reid: I live right there and see the rapids every day, and there are no steamers using that channel, unless a very small steamer which is more like a yacht. Even the old propellers, which are now out of date, all go through the canal. The hon. gentleman will find that no marine insurance commpany will take any risk on a steamer that will go down that channel. The firm that was working there last year, from the 1st of May to the 1st of December, were getting $425 a day. The minister said they only received $18,000 last year. That must be an error. They must have received $80,000 or $90,000 for last year's work, and it is currently reported that as soon as this session is over they are going to do it again. I wish to appeal" to the hon. minister, as I did before, to have this work stopped, because in the eyes of the people it looks like an outrage to see the money squandered in this way. I do not think the minister has looked into this matter as he should, or he would never allow that work to continue for one hour longer, because it is simply squandering the public money and making a present of $375 a day to that firm. They are not working every day, and you are paying them $425 a day, and they do not work 25 days in the season. Why should

this government pay $375 a day of clear profit to any firm in this country ? The people in my county would rather see you pay this firm a bonus of $30,000 or $40,000, rather than put it in this way, when they know that the whole thing is an imposition on the country. I would like the minister to let us know when this thing will be finished, so that it will be known that it is through, and no more money will be squandered on it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think, from what I am told, that there is something due to these people for work done last year, and I am advised that there will be a sum placed in the supplementary estimates, not a large sum. for the work-not for the purpose of making any new excavation, or taking out any new rock, but simply for the purpose of removing the rock which has already been disturbed and is lying loose on the bottom, and is, I am told, an obstruction to navigation. I cannot say that I see any particular advantage myself in having the work continued, since the canal will afford all the navigation that is necessary. As the hon. gentleman has mentioned the matter, it would be well to have it looked into fully before asking for any further appropriation. This is one of the works that the superintending engineer recommends very strongly.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is this work paid for by the day or according to the quantities ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is on the basis of the agreement which was in force when I came into the department.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like the minister to ask the superintending engineer to give me a list of the steamers which use that channel, and I would like to know the name of any insurance company which will take a risk on steamers that will go down that channel. I intend taking this matter up again next session, and I would like to have the names of any good reliable vessel men who will agree to take any steamer drawing 14 feet of water down that channel. As to the agreement, these people had a contract for so many yards of excavation at $8.40 per yard, and I think it was the minister himself wTho changed that agreement to $425 per day. That plant Is standing there and we are paying $425 per day for nothing.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My chief engineer says that the price and everything else was settled before I came to the department.


John Graham Haggart: The Minister of Railway* has a very short memory.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Is the hon. gentleman very proud of his ?


John Dowsley Reid: 


John Graham Haggart: Yes, I have a good memory, and I know that there was a contract under which these parties claimed a certain amount from the late government.
I ordered the contract to cease and refused to pay, and gave them their remedy in the Exchequer Court. The hon. gentleman has asserted again and again that he is only continuing the contract which was made by the late government, and I have again and again pointed out the absurdity of his contention. These gentlemen had a contract per yard for excavation, and in order to find out whether the excavation was done to the proper depth or not, they had Mr. Kennedy, the engineer of the Harbour Commissioners at Montreal, up for the purpose of making an examination. I objected to paying the sum they claimed, because I looked upon it as one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated by any firm on a government. It is utterly absurd to keep these dredges employed doing work which is entirely useless, and pay them besides this exorbitant price per day which my hon. friend from Grenville mentioned. Look at the enormous sums we have paid these contractors, nearly $1,000,000, and we have the same excuses offered every year. Last year the hon. minister told us that not only were they clearing out stones in the channel, but they had taken a contract to deepen it one foot more. Every year we have the same excuse, and every year we are told by the hon. gentleman that be is simply continuing the contract which his predecessors made. Even if that were true, that is no justification whatever. The engineers of his department might tell him that the work is entirely useless. As my hon. friend from Grenville say-s, the vessels that navigate the ordinary depth of the canal never use it at all, but utilize the canal altogether, and it is only light crafts that go down. Very seldom does a boat go down this channel, and yet these parties are year after year continuing this contract and being paid large amounts. I see that in the supplementary estimates he is asking $50,000 for work that was done last year in excess of the vote, parliament gave.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not get any vote last year at all.


Robert Laird Borden: Then the hon. gentleman must have been carrying on this work without any vote or authority. Is the $293,000 for the enlargement of the Gallops canal principally 1


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: The minister says he had no vote last year, yet he proposes to spend to the 1st of June next, $50,000, for which he is asking a vote in the supplementary estimates.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. gentleman propose to continue this way ? If

the statements be correct, this expenditure is a burning scandal.


John Dowsley Reid: The great trouble now is that if they do dredge out any more there, no matter how small, they will be drawing the water away over to that island and across the rapids and really interfering with the entrance of the present canal. If that water is to be drawn off by this dredge, something wifi have to be done. Since the minister has had charge of the department, $240,377 have been paid this firm, according to the Auditor General's Report, and then there is this $50,000 more, making a total of about $300,000. Previous to that there was $1,000,000 sunk right in that rapids, simply thrown away entirely.. I am quite satisfied that the minister cannot produce a man in his department, other than Mr. Rubidge, who will say that that channel is of any us% I am quite satisfied that if the chief engineer were put under oath, he would have to admit that the channel would be of no use at all. Why it should be continued, I cannot understand.


Robert Laird Borden: It does seem rather an extraordinary condition of affairs that this dredge is employed at $425 a day to do work, according to the statement of my hon. friend, which is not only of no value to the country, but is actually a detriment, as it draws water from the mouth of the canal and makes it more difficult for vessels to get through. I do not suppose that any of the small craft that go down the rapids would have any difficulty in getting through the canal, and yet the minister expended $50,000 last year without a vote, in doing this work that is of no advantage at all.
I notice that in the supplementary estimates the hon. gentleman has $50,000 for deepening and widening these rapids. I suppose that this is to pay for the work for which a vote should have been taken last year, and which the hon. minister says is not yet paid for. I may be wrong in my understanding of what the hon. gentleman said, but if my construction is the correct one it seems an extraordinary way to administer the department. He proceeds with this work at $425 a day, and then asks for a vote of about $50,000, and that for work which my hon. friend says is useless.


John Dowsley Reid: These small craft I may mention, never use this channel, but go down the regular steamboat channel on the other side, which has been used for forty years, because it is a very difficult matter to get into the channel. I do not believe that any large steamer can get through it. I remember the first trial made by a steamef to get through. She was one of the old Welland Canal steamers. Owing to the way the current runs she turned around and went backwards. After that, there were one or two small propellors tried it, but they tried it only once.


The MINISTER OK RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Do not the Richelieu steamers go through V


John Dowsley Reid: Not one goes down that channel. They come up that channel, as they always did. The hon. gentleman knows there is not one of the Richelieu steamers running the St. Lawrence that draws more than seven feet, and that 25 years ago there was nine feet of water there. The Richelieu steamers went tip the identical channel thirty years ago. So. the fact of deepening that channel is no help to them at all. Ever since this new lock has been there they go into the lock on the way upwards. But on the downward trip they go along the old channel they have been using for 25 or 30 years. I was speaking with the gentleman who has charge of the Woolvin fleet. They have chartered 20 steamers, the first of which is to sail from Duluth on the 5th of May.


William Humphrey Bennett: What capacity are they?


John Dowsley Reid: Sixty thousand bushels. But there is not one of these steamers that the insurance people will allow to go through that channel. And I am satisfied that next session the minister will i'Ot be able to stand up in this House and say that one single steamer of the Woolvin people's fleet has gone down through that channel. The lockmaster in charge of the lock right opposite can give the names of all the steamers that have used that channel this year. If the hon. minister next session can name one steamer of the size of those of the Woolvin fleet-and this was supposed to be made for vessels similar to those of that fleet-that goes down that channel and gets through safe, I will not say a word further, and he can go on paying these people $100,000 a year as long us he is minister.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They will draw fourteen feet, will they not ?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, the channel was supposed to be fourteen feet safe. It was made seventeen teet so that a vessel drawing fourteen feet would go through safe. Though it was seventeen feet, and they were paid in full for the seventeen feet, they were paid one hundred or two hundred thousand extra to make it one foot deeper, so that there might be no possible danger to vessels drawing fourteen feet. But will the hon. minister have a vessel sent down drawing fourteen feet, arid assume the responsibility of accident, instead of asking the companies to do so ? I feel quite justified in laying this matter before the minister and trying to get the expenditure stopped. This is not the first appeal I have made, for I have spoken of the matter year after year. If the minister wishes to continue the contract I will

have to continue making this appeal every year to try to get the matter straightened out, so that this .$100,000 a year may not continue to be divided among a few people, with profits of about $80,000. If it is to go on, I would rather have it put in straight as a charitable grant than to have it the way it is.
Mr. SPROUT,E.	What explanation has
the minister to give for the expenditure of this money without a vote of parliament ? And how does he manage to satisfy the Auditor General ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Last year when the question came up as to whether or not I should ask for an appropriation for this work, in view of what had taken place in parliament and the strong opinions that had been expressed by hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House about it, I declined to ask for any appropriation. I understand from the chief engineer that he informed Mr Gilbert that there was no appropriation and that the work could not be continued. There is no appropriation in the main estimates, as hon. gentlemen can see, nor is there art appropriation for next year. But there will be found, as inis beeu said, an appropriation of a small amount in the supplementary estimates for the current year. The appropriation. I am advised by the chief engineer, is necessary-not for the purpose of continuing the work, I do not propose to ask parliament for any money beyond this, a part of which is needed to pay the drawback. There is the amount of the drawback which we have to pay out of that $50,000. Then, I understood from the chief engineer that some rock had to be excavated which had been carried down into tlie channel, and which would impede navigation, and perhaps cause injury to vessels using the channel; and I have asked in the sup-plementarles for a small sum in addition to the drawback in order to cleir this out. so that there would 1>5 no ground for a claim for damages. There is nothing in tire estimates inserted with any intention to continue this expenditure or to continue this work. Mr. Rubidge and his assistant engineers are all strongly /if opinion that this is a very useful work. Thev do not agree with my hon. friend. But I do not propose to take the responsibility of continuing this work this year, and have nothing in the estimates for that purpose.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has this company been going on earning money during the year, or are they putting in a claim for money earned which was not voted, and after being notified by the minister that he does not intend to continue the work ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If they have done anything they have done it without any authority. My decision was last year not to proceed with


John Dowsley Reid: the work. The chief engineer was advised of that, and he notified the contractors that there was no appropriation for the purpose and therefore the work would not be continued. If they have gone and done any work they certainly had no authority, and it would be against my view that they should go on with the work of last summer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are there any claims put in ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Tiie chief engineer said they did some work without his knowledge.


John Dowsley Reid: This firm started work a year ago this spring and they worked until file close of navigation, up to December, 1901. Therefore I can hardly believe they were working there for fun. I think they were getting $425 a day, at least they will put in a claim for tlfat amount. For that reason I was under the impression that they had been authorized to do it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The chief engineer says he gave them no authority to do it.


John Dowsley Reid: Well, they were working there right along. Were they only paid up to the expiration of that vote ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is all.


John Dowsley Reid: Then they worked on afterwards and got nothing for it. Have they put in any claim for it ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They certainly have got nothing.


John Dowsley Reid: Well, have they put in any claim for work up to December ?


Tlie MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The chief engineer says that he has received uo claim from them, though they have asked for an estimate.


John Dowsley Reid: The government engineer that was in charge of that work remained there until December, lived right there on the boat, I know, until navigation closed.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The chief engineer advises me that he does not know that to be a fact, and that if these people did work, they did it at their own risk without any authority from him, and they certainly had no authority from me.


John Dowsley Reid: I may say for tlie benefit of tlie minister that the story of the rocks washing in there is the same old story we have been told year after year.
I understand that this story has impressed him with the need of going ahead. But I cannot see where the rocks come from that were washed into this channel. Tne bed of tlie river is flat above and I cannot see

where the rocks can come from. But that excuse has been given year after year to the minister in order that they may go on with this work. If the minister will take any thorough marine man and send him there, I am satisfied he will report that the channel is not navigable for any large steamer. Why cannot the minister simply wind up the work. I am afraid-because it is not the first time we have heard this story, not only from the minister but from others, that it would be ended up-I am afraid that next session I will come here and be told the same old story. Could the minister tell us now . if that work is to be continued ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think I have come pretty near making that statement. I do not want to commit myself too" positively as to the future without hearing all that is to be said and considering it. But I have certainly decided not to ask for any appropriation for next year, I decided last year not to ask for any appropriation for this year, and I have put in that item of $50,000, and am advised that one-half of it at least is a drawback that has to be paid.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why is your engineer attending to the work if you are not going on with it, and who gives a certificate for the progress estimates ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The chief engineer says there has been no progress estimate^ sent in at all. I presume these people have been putting in their time and hope perhaps to get something. But they have made no claim, or intimated in any way to the department that they intend to make a claim.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me to indicate very peculiar ideas as to the business methods of the department.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Well, they have had a long number of years in which to form a judgment on the question.
Mr. BORDlON (Halifax). I do not sec that there is any particular need of a vote of parliament if they go on in this way from year to year. I do not quite understand the procedure. Is the engineer who is supposed to have been in charge of the work during the past season an officer of the government, and if so, has he been paid by the government for his work during the past: year V


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have an engineer-I understand his name is Ross-in charge of the canal. It may be, as the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) has said, that he was not paid at the time. I do not know about that.


Robert Laird Borden: If this engineer, who is acting for the government, has been
superintending the work which these men have been doing without any appropriation apparently and apparently without any instructions, the government will be in rather an awkward position when the question of liability is raised. If the government's officer has been superintending the work which these men have been doing at the rate of $425 a day during the past season the government may have incurred liability, and, it may be that an appropriation of parliament would be needed, but it is certainly a very undesirable way of doing business. No appropriation was asked by the minister last year for the reason that he had not concluded to go on with the work.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 1 had concluded not to go on with the work.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the name of the firm that is doing the work now ?


The MINISTER. OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The Gilbert Dredging Conixiany.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What are the names of the gentlemen who control the firm ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The two Gilbert Brothers. That is all the chief engineer knows and I do not know any more.


John Dowsley Reid: I think these are the only two.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it perfectly clear that no portion of the vote which is now asked is to be applied or can be applied for the purpose of paying for this unauthorized work ? This is not enlargement.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is for the Galops canal.


Robert Laird Borden: And it does not touch this subject at all ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No. During the time that the work has been going on the appropriation has always been under the heading of ' Galops Rapids.' That is the way it is entered in the supplementary estimates.


William Humphrey Bennett: It would seem that the Gilbert Brothers were working from the 1st of July, until the 1st of December, at a cost of about $12,000 a month, without any understanding with the department. As the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), has pointed out the hon. gentleman can hardly hope to escape responsibility. These people have their plant, they have been engaged by the department, under the engineer or some officer of the department. He has been on this pdant or on some part of It and he remained in possession of that work for five months. They incurred a liability of $60,000, and the hon. minister comes down now and does not ask the House for anything to provide for payment. The hon. minister cannot hope that these people will consent to go without their pay. The hon. minister proposes apparently to deal with these Gilbert Brothers in the same kindly manner in which he dealt with them before. I remember last year that a claim came up for $25,000 which Gilbert Brothers had made against the department. They put in a claim for $25,000 for extras done several years before the hon. minister came into the department. That claim the then hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Haggart)


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is very interesting of course, but we might read it all over some Sunday when we have nothing else to do. I can put my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) upon the right track if he will allow me. The Gilbert Brothers who preferred that claim which he has in contemplation are not the same Gilberts, so I am told by the engineer, and I believe that to be the case. There are five brothers and they afe not by any means associated together in business.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then, it only shows how very pernicious the example of the hon. minister was. Here are two men named Gilbert, who had this claim against the department when the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) was at the head of the department. He offered them a fiat to go into the courts* and prosecute that claim and they refused to go into the courts with it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What is the use of my hon. friend starting at one o'clock in the morning upon a controversial question which he knows is not one-sided, which he knows has another side and which he knows has been debated in parliament two or three times and which might be debated again if it were a little earlier in the session and
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax)
a little earlier in the evening. I would be pleased to hear the hon. gentleman repeat the speech he made on a previous occasion, but I appeal to him whether it is not a little late to revive that subject.


William Humphrey Bennett: I was starting out to say that the hon. minister by his kindness to these Gilbert Brothers, seems in that particular case to have inoculated the whole family of Gilberts with the result that we must pay this $60,000, and the hon. minister cannot shelter himself behind the statement that he has made because these men certainly went on with the work and he did not stop them.


John Dowsley Reid: If the hon. minister will look at his report for the last year he will see that .Mr. Rubidge says :
Operations on north and island shoals were resumed ir. May and June, 1901, will be continued until the close of the season.
And they were. The appropriation for the Galops rapids runs to June 30, 1901, at which time notice was given to the contractors. I will admit that according to his statement Mr. Rubidge gave notice to the contractors, but on the 1st of May, when Mr. Rubidge had that dredge at work on these rapids, he placed Mr. Ross and a staff of engineers In charge of the work. They were not in charge of the canal, they were in charge of the work and that stall' of engineers, notwithstanding the fact that lie notified them that the vote had lapsed, reniained on these vessels until the snow made them stop in the fall. They were not taken off the work but the work went right along.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And the government engineers were right there.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Ross has another position on the Grenville canal. When the hon. minister states that Mr. Ross was in charge of the canal I understand that once a month he took the pay cheques down and paid the men, but he was in charge of the work, and I know the names of other assistants that were with him. If they had stopped the work on the 1st of July then, of course, no fault would be found. I am making this appeal to try and get this straightened out so that it will not be continued.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did the engineer send in no report in regard to the work that had been done during the summer ?


Robert Laird Borden: They seem to have had a pleasant little time amongst themselves; these gentlemen with the dredge at $425 a day, and the engineer and his staff enjoying themselves without sending in any 'report. They apparently have expended nearly enough to enable Captain Bernier to discover the north pole, and all that lias been done without the knowledge of the minister.


MAT 1. 1902
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I make no claim to omniscience or to omnipresence, and I certainly could not be supposed to know that the men were going on to prosecute a work that we had decided we would not continue and for which we obtained no appropriation.
Mr. -BENNETT. There were no applications made by these people from the 1st of July, to the 1st of December, for remuneration ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: None whatever.


William Humphrey Bennett: What was the date of the first application ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not until within a month of this date. The chief engineer tells me they came up about a month ago to ask whether or not there -would be any appropriation in he estimates next year for the carrying out of the work.


William Humphrey Bennett: What was the amount of the claim 1


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There was no amount stated.


William Humphrey Bennett: It seems incredible. These men were paid for a time up to the 1st of July, on monthly estimates I suppose, but then they continued, under the supervision of the government engineer, doing work from the 1st of July, to the close of navigation they never made a claim for it until a month ago when they came to the department and incidentally mentioned this trifling amount of $60,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am informed by the chief engineer that they stated no amount. The only amount mentioned was that one mentioned by the superintending engineer.


William Humphrey Bennett: When did Mr. Rubidge make this report ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: When he was asked for his report in view of the preparation of the estimates.


John Dowsley Reid: When Mr. Rubidge was notified by the department that the vote had lapsed was it not his duty to take his staff off ? Did he inform the department that these people were persisting in the work ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: As far as I can see now. I would like to hear what Mr. Rubidge has to say in his own defence. It seems to me that was his duty.


John Dowsley Reid: I should think he would be entitled to censure for not doing that.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I should think so.
North channel-forming dam, $56,250.


John Dowsley Reid: This is simply throwing this money away. You had better throw the money into the river than put that dam across there. This is a scheme put up by the Gilberts to get work for $56,000. There is no question about that. I would really like to know what this dam is going to be.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The Gilberts have nothing to do with this. Cleveland is the contractor.


John Dowsley Reid: Is the dam put there for the purpose of improving this channel that we have been discussing ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The report is that there are cross currents.


John Dowsley Reid: This channel that the Gilberts have been working at for the last twenty-five years


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


John Dowsley Reid: They commenced the channel in 1876 and they have been working continuously ever since. This water that comes between these two islands runs directly across the channel the Gilberts have been working at, and this dam is simply put there to stop that current. Really and truly if the minister looks into it, he will see that it is of no earthly use whatever. I appeal to him not to put a dam there, because it would injure the rapids, and I believe that the vesselmen will condemn it. It would be far better to give whoever the contractor is, half the amount he would make in profit and not have the dam there at all. I appeal to the minister that that dam should not be put there.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will tell the hon. gentleman what I will do. I will undertake that the money will not be expended until I have the subject thoroughly investigated, and until I have had the opinion of other engineers. Not being an engineer myself, I cannot form judgment upon a question of this kind. I can, however, probably decide not to spend, and I will not do so until I ascertain from independent engineers that it would be a proper expenditure to make. Of course, my hon. friend knows that there is always a great difference of opinion with regard to the navigation of channels.


John Dowsley Reid: I can quite understand that, and the answer of the hon. minister is quite fair ; but large vessels will never go through these rapids, and this is a part of that other scheme. If the hon. minister will look into the matter, I feel satisfied that he will never spend the money.
The MINISTER OF RAILWA18 AND CANALS. I have already mentioned that this is a continuation of work that has already been started in the same direction.


John Dowsley Reid: That other work of Mr. Cleveland's is satisfactory, and he is doing his work very well. But it is not part of Mr. Cleveland's original contract.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The building of the dam will not absorb the whole of this money.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, it will, because it is in a bad place and is a very large dam. It is a mile and a half from Mr. Cleveland's original contract.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I would not like to undertake to say that no part of this money will be expended, because it may be necessary to spend a portion of it for the purpose of. completing the channel which I spoke of, and which the hon. gentleman says is a very proper work to do ; but I will undertake to say as to the dam, to which he takes exception, that nothing will be expended until inquiry is made.


John Dowsley Reid: Any money voted for Mr. Cleveland's contract is perfectly right.


John Graham Haggart: Do I understand that this vote is not for any part of the Gilbert work at all ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It has no connection at all with their work.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. gentleman not think that we have gone far enough to-night ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the hon. gentlemen opposite will consent to the rest of the items of my department going through to-night, I shall be willing to discuss any of these items on the supplementary canal votes.


John Graham Haggart: There are a couple of members of the House who want to speak on the Trent canal.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will say the same with regard to them.
To repair locks one and two Lachine canals, $100,000. '


John Graham Haggart: Why spend such a large sum on the old locks ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They are in a very insufficient condition and we have to repair them.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Finance the House adjourned at 1.30 a.m. Friday.


Andrew George Blair: Friday, May 2, 1902.