FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 26) respecting the Quebec and Lake Huron Railway Company.-Mr. Malouin.
Bill (No. 27) to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1900.-Mr. Clancy.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 28) respecting Telegraph
[Stage Direction]
and Telephone Companies. He said :	As
appears by the title of this Bill, it is applicable to telegraph and telephone companies. So far as telegraph companies are concerned, it is a mere consolidation of the law now in force with reference to these companies ; and the only change with respect to telegraph companies is a provision for the control of the rates of telegraph companies by the Privy Council. This is a new feature in this Bill. The Bill, I may say, was prepared several months ago by my predecessor, and the intention was to introduce it in the early days of this session, but because of changes that took place, it was necessary for me to have some consultation in order finally to fix the terms in which the Bill is now introduced. In a word, the Bill makes applicable several of the provisions of the Railway Act to telephone and telegraph companies, and it also makes applicable to telephone companies certain provisions of the existing Telegraph Bill. The new features of the Bill are controlled by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, of the operations of the company and by the Governor General in Council, of the rates to be charged both by telegraph and telephone companies ; and also, regulations for the exchange of business between the different companies. In order to make the Bill one of general application it was necessary to make special reference to existing telephone companies ; that is to say, as the law now stands there is but one telephone company in Canada that is at the present time under the legislative jurisdiction of the Federal parliament, that is the Bell Telephone Company. My desire, as I said a moment ago, is to make this law one of general application, applicable as far as possible to all telephone companies in Canada, and provision has been made in the Bill for that purpose.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: The hon. gentleman stated that the Bell Telephone Company is the only one that is subject to the jurisdiction of this parliament. I desire to point out to him that the Nova Scotia Telephone Company is also subject to the jurisdiction of this parliament inasmuch as it has a charter, not only from the Nova Scotia legislature, but from the parliament of Canada.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am obliged to my hon. friend for the correction. My information is gathered from the official in the department who was charged with the preparation of this Bill and who gave me the legislation in reference to it and the only company that we are aware the Dominion parliament has granted a charter to is the Bell Telephone Company.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not quite sure. I may be altogether in error. It may be from the legislature of New Brunswick that this company also has a charter.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I speak Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
subject to correction, but I think the hon. gentleman will find that I am fairly correct, because my information comes from a very reliable source. The attempt which I have made to have the provisions of this Bill applicable to all the telephone companies in this country, is one that will necessarily deserve very serious consideration on the part of the House. Therefore, it is my intention, when we reach the second reading of the Bill, to ask that the Bill be referred to the Railway Committee of the House, because it is apparent that there are interests involved which clearly ought to be heard and it will be desirable, so far as we are all concerned, to have all the information possible so as to be satisfied that we are legislating in the general interest without injuring any special interest.


Mr. CLARKE.: Why not refer it to a special committee of the House ?


The MINISTER JUSTICE.: This is a matter for the consideration of the Railway Committee in view of the fact that we are adapting several provisions of the Railway Act to telephone companies. The Railway Committee therefore may be the best committee for this purpose.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the Bill be retroactive in its provisions as far as regards the regulation of rates ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No ; the Bill provides that a company shall, within a certain time, prepare a rate of tolls to be charged. Then, these tolls are to be submitted to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council and are to be determined within a certain other time. Then these rates are applicable throughout the whole Dominion.


Mr. SPROULE.: Will the Bill apply to companies doing business now ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Mr. MACLEAN.: The public will be in a position at any time to bring the rates before the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. I would like to say, and I do not intend to take up any great length of time, that I must congratulate the government on bringing forward this Bill.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I made a mistake in regard to the tolls. Of course, the tolls are not subject to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council but subject to the Governor General in Council.


William Findlay Maclean: I must congratulate the government upon bringing forward this Bill and also upon the statement that they have had it under contemplation for quite a number of months, although there was no statement of it in the Speech from the Throue. The Bill is a good Bill. It is very much on the lines of one that I gave notice of and introduced myself. But, the government might have gone further. I think

that when the government were taking up a measure of this kind they might have investigated the subject more fully, and had they investigated it more fully on the lines of legislation in England, they would have made themselves familiar with the state of affairs as it is in England in regard to telephones. In 1898 there was a special committee of the English House of Commons in regard to telephones and the question submitted to it was this :
The reference to your committee is as follows: To Inquire and report whether the telephone service is, or is calculated to become, of such general benefit as to justify its being undertaken by municipal and other local authorities, regard being had to local finance: and, if so, whether such local authorities should have power to undertake such service in the districts of other local authorities outside the area of their own jurisdiction, but comprised wholly or partially in the same telephone area, and what powers, duties, and obligations ought to be conferred or imposed upon such local authorities.
The finding of that committee was as follows. I shall read two or three of the clauses of the report :
From the point of view of local finance, your committee are of opinion that a telephone service would he as successful as has been the supply of gas, water, tramways, and electric light by local authorities. Much of course depends in this case as in those upon the cost of constructing the service, and in all cases the local authority is perhaps the best judge of what is likely to be successful or not. It seems clear to your committee that a local authority should be able to construct a system at a price below that which from various causes the company have spent upon theirs, and this opinion is confirmed by the fact that the probable cost of such a service in the hands of the Glasgow corporation is based not upon estimates alone hut on tenders actually received.
* * *
On reviewing the whole of the evidence, your committee is strongly of opinion that general, immediate, and effective competition by either the post oflice or the local authority is necessary, and consider that a really efficient post office service affords the best means for securing such competition. We further consider that when in an existing area in which there is an exchange, the local authority demands a competing service, the post oflice ought either to start an efficient telephone system itself, or grant a license to the local authority to do so.
* * *
With regard to areas in which there is no exchange, and districts which are not areas, we think some provision should be made beyond what is now offered by the National Telephone Company for giving a service when there is a reasonable local demand. In such cases the post office should either start a service of its own, or should grant licenses to the local authorities to do so, subject to proper regulations. ******
Your committee in thus recommending a post office service assume that it will constitute a real and active competition, and that concessions to the company not required by the agreement will cease. Such a competition should, iu their opinion, he carried on by a distinct and separate branch of the department, and in
future be conducted under strictly businesslike conditions, and by a staff specially qualified for such a duty.
That was the conclusion arrived at by the committee of the Imperial House of Commons appointed specially to deal with this question of telephones. They recommended legislation on the lines of a public owned system of telephones, either managed in connection with the post oflice, or owned by municipalities. That conclusion was arrived at in England some years ago and they are carrying it out now. The finest telephone service in the world to-day is the public owned one in the city of Glasgow which is operated, as far as the exchange service with outside places is concerned, in connection with the post oflice system of the United Kingdom. While the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) has brought forward liis Bill proposing to place the jurisdiction over these telephone questions in the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, in England they have placed it in the Postmaster General. Because they have placed it there they have made it iu a measure hai-monize with the telegraph service which, like the telephone service ought to be owned and controlled by the state. I would like to see the telegraph system of Canada under the control of the post oflice and I would also propose that the jurisdiction in connection with the telephone service should be placed in the Postmaster General rather than in the hands of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. I may say that within the past year there was a good deal of talk about taking over the telegraph lines owned by the government and placing them in the hands of the Postmaster General. I would like to see that carried out also and I throw out this suggestion now to the Minister of Justice that he should place the jurisdiction and control of the telephone companies under the Postmaster General rather than in the hands of the Railway Committee with the expectation that at an early date Canada intends to take over the telegraph lines and telephone systems of the country. The system adopted in England is this : When municipalities, or local companies, control local exchanges for the exchange of business with outlying places this exchange takes place over the trunk lines owned by the government and controlled by the post office. On the line of progressive reform and of public ownership I bring forward the suggestion to-day that this Bill ought to make provision, and that without delay, for the state taking over the telephone and telegraph lines and vesting the jurisdiction over them in the Post Office Department. If this is done in a short time we will have a system in this country on the same lines as that which they now have in England. Public ownership is in the air. More than that it is in practical effect in a great many places in the world to-day.



Tlie public telephones in Norway and Sweden are the cheapest in the world and the service is the best. The best telephone system in Great Britain is the public owned system of the various cities in the United Kingdom. If ever we are to make a departure in this country in the direction of public ownership, here the opportunity presents itself. I would have thought that with the experience the government has had, and in view of the information they have collected during the last few years, they would have come forward with a proposal of public ownership of the telegraph and telephone systems of Canada. It will take very little money to do it; it will pay from the start and the public will get the best service. Public ownership is the best way whereby such public utilities as the telephone and telegraph can be distributed amongst the greatest number of people at the smallest possible cost. Another reason why I urge public ownership in connection with telephones and telegraphs is, that I want to see it come about in connection with the public ownership of the railways of this country. If there was nothing else to justify public ownership there would be sufficient justification in the fact that patriotism goes with public ownership.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Patronage you; mean.


William Findlay Maclean: Perhaps the hon. gentleman thinks that both go with public ownership, and may be they do, but public ownership tends to exalt patriotism as nothing else does, and railways, telegraphs, and telephones run by the state are run in the interest of the state, whereas under private ownership they are run in the interest of the corporations that own them.


Robert Laird Borden: I find I was right in the suggestion I made to the Minister of Justice. The Act to which I refer will be found in the Statutes for 1888, page 263. It is not granting to the company a charter, but confirming a provincial charter and granting to the company certain powers which could be exercised anywhere in the Dominion of Canada.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: They are not incorporated here.


Robert Laird Borden: Incorporated in Nova Scotia, and has its provincial charter confirmed by this legislature which granted to it certain powers by the Statute to which 1 refer.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: What chapter V


Robert Laird Borden: The chapter is not given in the index. The page is 263.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would the Minister of Justice have an additional quantity of this Bill printed so that we may get some extrp. copies ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: 


William Findlay Maclean: Do I understand the minister to say that the Bill will be referred to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraphs V


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, so that the parties interested can be heard.


William Findlay Maclean: The municipalities all over the country are interested, and there is an issue as to where the telephone companies cross the jurisdiction of the local legislature and the municipalities. They wish to be heard on that very point.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Certainly. Motion agreed to, and Bill read a first time.



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
CANADIAN MILITIA-COURTS MARTIAL, Mr. HUGHES (Victoria) asked :
How many courts-martial have taken place in the Canadian militia since June 1st, 1901 up to January 1st, 1902 ?
What were the offences ?
What were the punishments ?
What is the total permanent force in Canada classified by departments ?
What is the number of minor punishments recorded in the permanent corps for the period above named ?
The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden; :
1. Eighty-live.
2 and 3. 1.-Drunkenness on duty, reduced to ranks.	2.-(1) breaking into barracks, (2) having in possession stolen goods, (3) conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline, forty-two days imprisonment with hard labour.	3.-tl)
breaking into barracks, (2) having in possession stolen goods, (3) conduct to the prejudice, &c., forty-two days imprisonment with hard labour. 4. Absent without leave, reduced to ranks. 5. Absent without leave, fourteen days imprisonment with hard labour and stoppages, $2.87.	6. Absent without
leave, fourteen days imprisonment with hard labour and stoppages, $2.88.	7. Attempting to desert, fourteen days imprisonment with hard labour.	8.-(1) absenting
himself without leave, (2) disobeying a lawful command, (3) drunkenness on duty, (4) offering violence to superior officer, six months imprisonment with hard labour.
9.-(1) deserting His Majesty's service. (2) losing by neglect, &c., fifty-six days imprisonment with hard labour and stoppages, $38.06.	10.-(1) deserting His Majesty's service, (2) losing by neglect, &c., fifty-six days imprisonment with hard labour and stoppages, $2.75.	11.-(1) deserting His Majesty's service, (2) losing by neglect, fifty-six days imprisonment with hard labour and stoppages, $1.20.	12.-(1) deserting His Majesty's service, (2) losing by neglect, &c., thirty-five days imprisonment with hard labour and stoppages, $3:15.	13.-Receiving stolen

goods, forty-two days imprisonment with hard labour.	14.-Receiving stolen goods,
forty-two days imprisonment with hard labour. 15.-Absent without leave, reduced to ranks.	16.-Desertion and loss of kit,
thirty-five days imprisonment with hard labour.	17.-Desertion and loss of kit,-
thirty-flve days imprisonment with hard labour.	18.-Desertion and loss of kit,
thirty-five days imprisonment with hard labour.	19.-Desertion and loss of kit,
ninety days imprisonment with hard labour. 20.-Drunkenness, reduced to ranks.	21.-
Insubordination, forty-two days imprisonment (fourteen days remitted).	22-Striking a soldier, reduced to ranks. 23.-Absent without leave, reduced to ranks. 21. Drunkenness on duty, reduced to bombardier from corporal.	25.-(1) absence, (2)
drunkenness, thirty-five days imprisonment with hard labour.	26.-Offering violence
to superior officer, twenty-one days imprisonment with hard labour. 27.-Absent without leave, reduced to ranks.	28.-
Drunkenness, acquitted. 29.-Drunkenness, thirty-eight days imprisonment with hard labour and fined, $4.86 (twenty-eight days and $2.43 remitted).	30.-Deserting His
Majesty's service, twenty-one days imprisonment with hard labour and reduced to ranks. 31.-Deserting His Majesty's service, eighty-four days imprisonment with hard labour and discharged with ignominy from His Majesty's service.	32.-Wilfully
allowing a prisoner committed to his charge to escape, fifty-six days imprisonment with hard labour. 33.-Deserting His Majesty's service, one hundred and thirteen days imprisonment with hard labour.	34.-Deserting His Majesty's service, fifty-six_days imprisonment with hard labour. 35.-Theft, one hundred and twelve days imprisonment with hard labour. 36.-Deserting His Majesty's service and losing by neglect regimental clothing and necessaries, forty-two days imprisonment with hard labour and stoppages.	37.-Deserting His Majesty's
service and losing by neglect, &c., twenty-eight days imprisonment with hard labour and stoppages. 38.-Deserting His Majesty's service and losing by neglect, &c., forty-two days imprisonment with hard labour and stoppages.	39.-Deserting His Majesty's
service and losing by neglect, &c., fifty-six days imprisonment with hard labour and stoppages.	40.-(1) Wilfully allowing a
prisoner committed to his charge to escape, (2) Conduct to the prejudice, &c., fourteen days imprisonment and hard labour. 41.- (1)' Breaking out of barracks, (2) Drunkenness, sixty days imprisonment with hard labour and discharged with ignominy) from His Majesty's service. 42.-(1) Striking superior oflicer. (2) Using threatening language, sixty days imprisonment with hard labour. 43.-Conduct to the prejudice of, &c.. twenty-one days imprisonment with hard labour.	44.-(1) Deserting His Majesty's service, (2) Losing by neglect, &c.,
24}
fourteen days imprisonment with hard labour. 45.-(1) Drunk on duty, (2) Sleeping on his post, twenty-eight days imprisonment with hard labour (seven days remitted). 46.-Theft, one hundred and twenty-six days imprisonment with hard labour. 47.-(1) Drunk in barracks, (2) Insolence to a non-commissioned officer, twenty-eight days imprisonment with hard labour.	48.-(1) Neglect to the prejudice,
&c.	(2) Allowing a prisoner to escape,
acquitted. 49.-(1) Absent from tattoo roll call, (2) Breaking out of barracks, (3) Drunk, (4) Losing by neglect, equipment, thirty-five days imprisonment with hard labour, and fined $2.44 and stoppages, (seven days remitted). 50.-(1) Absent from parade, (2) Absent from defaulters' parade, (3) Striking a comrade, (4) Resisting the escort, twenty-eight days imprisonment with hard labour. 51.-(1) Attempting escape while a prisoner, twenty-eight days imprisonment with hard labour.	52.-(1)
Drunk on fire engine party parade at tattoo,
(2)	Disobedience of orders, thirty-five days
imprisonment with hard labour.	53.-(1)
Theft, (2) Receiving stolen goods, acquitted. (54) Drunk on guard, twenty-one days imprisonment with hard labour.	55.-Refusing to obey order, (2) Losing by neglect, clothing, &c., thirty-five days imprisonment with hard labour and stoppages. 56.-(1) Deserting His Majesty's! service, (2) Losing by neglect, equipment, &c., thirty-five days imprisonment with hard labour and stoppages. 57.-Absent from tattoo, twenty-eight days imprisonment with hard labour. 58.-Absent from tattoo, thirty-five days imprisonment with hard labour, (ten days remitted). 59.-(1) Feigning disease, (2) Disobedience of orders, thirty-five days imprisonment with hard labour.	60.-(1) Attempting to desert, (2) When a prisoner, attempting to escape, <3) Losing by neglect, clothing, &e., one hundred and twenty-six days imprisonment with hard labour. 61.- (1)'Breaking out of barracks, (2) Absence,
(3)	Losing by neglect, arms, &c., forty-two days imprisonment with hard labour. 62.- (1) Deserting His Majesty's service, (2) Losing by neglect, clothing, &c., sixty-three days imprisonment with hard labour. 63.-Deserting His Majesty's service, twenty-one days imprisonment with hard labour. 64.-
(1)	Drunkenness, (2) Conduct to the prejudice, &c., fourteen days Imprisonment with hard labour, and fined $4.87. 65.-Disobedience of orders, thirty-five days imprisonment with hard labour. 66.-Conduct to the prejudice, &c., fourteen days imprisonment with hard labour.	67.-(1) Drunkenness,
(2)	Conduct to the prejudice, &c., eighteen
days imprisonment with hard labour and fined $1.83.	68.-Allowing a prisoner to
escape, reduced to corporal from sergeant. 69.-(1) Deserting His Majesty's service, (2) Losing by neglect, equipment, &c., thirty-five days imprisonment with hard labour and stoppages. 70.-(1) Stealing the pro-
[Stage Direction]
perty of a comrade, (2) Having the property of a comrade in his possession, twenty-one days imprisonment with hard labour, (seven days remitted).	71.-(1) Deserting
His Majesty's service, (2) Losing by neglect, equipment, &c., thirty days imprisonment with hard labour and stoppages. 72.- (1) Deserting His Majesty's service, (2) Losing by neglect, equipment, &c., (3) While prisoner under escort, attempting to escape, fifty-six days imprisonment with hard labour and stoppages.	73.-(1) Leaving
post as sentry, (2) Drunkenness on duty, twenty-eight days imprisonment with hard labour. 74.-Direct disobedience of orders, twenty-eight days imprisonment with hard labour. 75.-(1) Drunkenness, (2) Conduct to the prejudice, &c., thirty-five days imprisonment with hard labour. 76.-(1) Deserting His Majesty's service, (2) Losing by neglect, equipment, &e., thirty-five days imprisonment with hard labour and stoppages. 77.-(1) Drunkenness, (2) When prisoner under escort, attempting to escape, twenty-eight days imprisonment with hard labour and fined $2.44.	78.-(1) Absent without
leave, (2) Losing by neglect, regimental necessaries, reverted to the rank of private, deprived of six days pay, fourteen days imprisonment with hard labour, and stoppages (seven days imprisonment remitted). 79.- (1) Absenting himself without leave, (2) Losing by neglect, regimental necessaries, deprived of six days pay, fourteen days imprisonment with hard labour. 80.-(1) Deserting His Majesty's service, (2) Losing by neglect, equipment, &c., twenty-eight days imprisonment with hard labour. 81-Drunkenness on duty, thirty-five days imprisonment with hard labour and fined $4.87.	82.-(1) Theft, fifty-six days imprisonment with hard labour (seven days remitted). 83.-Drunkenness on duty, thirty-five days imprisonment with hard labour and fined $1.22, (seven days remitted). 84.- (1) Deserting His Majesty's service, (2) Losing by neglect, equipment, &c., twenty-eight days imprisonment with hard labour and stoppages. 85.-Drunkenness on duty, reverted to permanent grade, twenty-one days imprisonment with hard labour, (seven days remitted).
4. Total permanent force is as follows :
-	Officers.	Staff Sergts. and Sergts.	Rank and File.	Total.
['1.\tYes, samples were collected in February and March, 1901.\n2.\tSamples are collected by food inspectors and analysis thereof made by district analysts and at the laboratory at Ottawa.\n3.\tOut of ninety-nine samples collected and analysed, fifty-six were found genuine, nineteen adulterated and twenty-five sold as pure, but found to be adulterated.\n4.\tThe penalties provided by the Adulteration Act are the payment of the cost of procuring and analyzing the sample ($9) and If the vendor refuses to pay, proceedings are instituted through the Department of Justice for the collection of a penalty not exceeding $100.\n5.\tYes, penalties are enforced.\n6.\tThe collection and examination of samples ns pointed out herein and the publication of a bulletin wherein the public is informed of the result of said examinations.']
Cavalry ..: 10	IS)	80	10!)C.M.R	0	12	42	60R.C.F.A	12	33	203	246R.C.G.A	11	25	173	20!)Infantry	25	. 63	30!)	30704	152	805	1,021
5. 1,146.


Hon. Mr. BORDEN (King's).: 



Mr. LEGRIS asked :: I.	Is the government aware that the quite considerable repairs which the Department of Railways had caused to be done last summer at the Ste. Monique station, on the Intercolonial branch from St. Leonard to Nicolet, have not yet been paid for ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	Considerable repairs were made to Ste. Monique Station, and they have not yet been paid for.
2.	The accounts with accompanying receipts were sent in about June last, and the chief engineer of the Intercolonial Railway wrote Mr. Charles Milot that the charges appeared to be excessive.
3.	The question of payment is in a state of adjustment between Mr. Milot and the chief engineer of the Intercolonial Railway. The chief engineer has not yet been able to determine whether the total of Mr. Milot's charges should be paid.


FRAUDULENT SALE ACT.
Mr. SCHELL asked :: 1.	Is there any inspection under the Act respecting the Fraudulent Sale or Marking of the commercial commodities, white lead, or white lead in oil, with the view to ascertain if these goods offered in public sale to the people of Canada are pure or adulterated ?
2.	If so, by whom is the inspection made ?
3.	What is the result of such inspection ?
i.	In case of adulteration of such manufactures offered for sale to the public in contravention of said Act, what penalties are provided to meet such cases ?
5.	Are such penalties enforced, and, if not, why not ?
6.	What methods are employed to prevent white lead manufacturers placing upon the market adulterated goods to the detriment of the general public ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE (Hon. M. E. Bernier) :: 1.	Yes, samples were collected in February and March, 1901.
2.	Samples are collected by food inspectors and analysis thereof made by district analysts and at the laboratory at Ottawa.
3.	Out of ninety-nine samples collected and analysed, fifty-six were found genuine, nineteen adulterated and twenty-five sold as pure, but found to be adulterated.
4.	The penalties provided by the Adulteration Act are the payment of the cost of procuring and analyzing the sample ($9) and If the vendor refuses to pay, proceedings are instituted through the Department of Justice for the collection of a penalty not exceeding $100.
5.	Yes, penalties are enforced.
6.	The collection and examination of samples ns pointed out herein and the publication of a bulletin wherein the public is informed of the result of said examinations.



WELLAND CANAL WATER PRIVILEGES.

Mr. HOLMES asked :: 1.	What is the nature and extent of the water privileges on the Welland Canal enjoyed by the Riordon Paper Company ? What rental does it pay therefor ? Has it any privileges granted by a former government for which it is not paying the usual rate ? If so, how long has it had the same, and for what length of time is it yet to run ?
2.	Has William Chaplin any water privileges on the Welland Canal for which he is not paying the customary fees ?


The MINISTER OE RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	The Riordon Paper Mills, Limited, has the use of water privileges and mill sites at locks 16, 17, 18, 19 and 21 on the old Welland canal at Merritton.
At lock No.17, In addition to certain lands the company has all the surplus water not required for navigation.
At locks 16, 18, 19 and 21 in addition to certain lands the company has water powers not exceeding 1,500 horse-power.
The rental at lock 17 for the lands and water-power is $200.
The rental at locks 16, 18, 19 and 21 for the lands and 700 horse-power is $240, with $2 per horse-power for balance of horsepowers used up to 1,500 horse-power.
Both of these privileges are held at the usual rates, which vary considerably on this canal.
At lock 17 the privilege has been held since the 21st February, 1870; at locks 16, 18, 19 and 21 the privileges have been held to a greater or less extent since October 1st, 1879; a lease granted on the latter date being superceded, on account of the indefiniteness of its term, by the lease of 28th May, 1896.
The privileges granted by the lease of 21st February, 1870, run in perpetuity w'ithout alteration of terms. The privileges granted by the lease of 28th May, 1896, run for four periods of twenty-one years from its date and thereafter, in perpetuity in periods of ten years, the rental being adjustable at the expiration of any period of renewal.
2.	No, William Chaplin is paying $4 per horse-power.



THE YUKON-ABSENCE OF SHERIFF.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WARD asked ;
1.	From what date in 1901 was leave of absence granted to R. J. Eilbeck, Sheriff of the Yukon ?
2.	For what purpose was such leave granted ?
3.	When does such leave of absence expire ?
The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Hon. H. G. Carroll) :: 1.	From October 1, 1901.
2.	Leave was granted upon his representations that after spending two winters in the Yukon, his health required the change, and that he wished to see his father, whose health was failing.
3.	March 1, 1902.



OYSTER CULTURE.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax) asked :: 1.	What amount has been expended by the government up to the 1st July, 1900, in connection with the development of oyster culture in the harbour of Shediae ?
2.	Were any oyster beds planted by the government in that harbour, and what amount was expended for the purpose, up to the date aforesaid ?
3.	During the year 1900 who had charge of the oyster beds in the harbour of Shediae for the government ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland) :: 1.	Six thousand nine hundred dollars and fifty-eight cents.
2.	Yes. No division of expenditure is shown between actual planting and general development. I might possibly get this information from the local parties if the hon. gentleman is anxious for it, but we have nothing in the department to show it.
8.	William Beal.



STEEL RAILS FOR GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS.

Mr. GANONG asked :: 1.	How many tons of steel rails have been delivered under the contract entered into with F. H. Clergue, of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, and at what price or prices ?
2.	Where were they delivered, on what dates, and in what Quantities ?
3.	Whore were the rails, so delivered, manufactured ?
4.	Has delivery been made of all rails contracted for ? If not, how many tons are still to be delivered, at what points are deliveries to be made, and at what price or prices ?
E. Are all future deliveries to be of Canadian manufacture ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: No steel rails have been delivered by Mr. F. H. Clergue. No arrangements have been made beyond those announced last session.



CANNED BEEF FOR SOUTH AFRICA.

Mr. BOYD asked :: 1.	What quantity of canned beef was sent from Canada to South Africa for the Imperial Government during the past year ?
2.	Was any quantity of the said material returned to Canada by order of the Canadian government, and why was such an order issued ?
3.	Was said material inspected after being returned to Canada, and what was the report upon said inspection ?
4.	What firm or firms of eanners prepared and
furnished said material so returned ? And which firm's goods was found to he good, and which bad, if any, of the said material inspected '!	_


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: This being a matter of business of the War Office, I do not feel at liberty to answer the hon. gentleman's question.

747



INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS OF CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BELL-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	What was the aggregate amount of the manufactures of Canada during the year 1900 ?
2.	What was the aggregate amount of the agricultural products of Canada, including animals and their products, during the same year ?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher.) The returns of the manufacturing schedules of the census have not yet been made out.

Mr. TOLTON asked :: 1.	How much money has been voted for improvements on Collingwood, Meaford, Owen Sound, and Wiarton harbours ?
2.	How much of such several votes has been spent on each of said harbours ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. .7. Israel Tarte) :: 1. For the year ending 30th June, 1902 :
Voted. Expended
Collingwood	
$25,900	00	$25,161	39Meaford	
41,000	00	18,180	48Owen Sound	
28,500	00	28,456	28Wiarton	14,500 00	13,516.20
2. Up to the 30th June, 1091, the amounts expended are :
Harbour
works.
Dredgin".
Total.
Collingwood .	$280,203	61	$138,280	74	$418,484	45


Meaford .. ..: 97,499	11	6,602	13	104,101	24


Owen Sound ..: 262,693	00	39,104	35	301,797	35Wiarton	71,578	91	.. 71,578	91



PUBLIC HOLIDAY ON CORNATION DAY.

Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it the intention of the government to provide that the day which has been fixed for the Coronation of His Most Gracious Majesty King Edward the Seventh, shall be proclaimed as a public holiday throughout the Dominion of Canada ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: This is under consideration.



BULAVER-CLAYTON TREATY AND ALASKAN BOUNDARY.

Mr.  F. D.@: MONK (Jacques Cartier) moved for :
Copy of all correspondence, papers, documents, memoranda and despatches exchanged between the British government and the Canadian authorities in reference to the Bulwer-Cl&yton treaty and the abrogation thereof, as well as in reference to the Alaskan boundary since the last adjournment of the Joint High Commission, appointed in connection with said boundary.
He said :	It seems to me, Mr. Speaker,
that this is a very opportune time for parliament to become possessed of all the corre- J Hon. Mr. FISHER.
spondence between our government and the home authorities, which preceded the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and equally opportune for the production of the correspondence which may have passed between them concerning the Alaskan boundary since the international Joint High Commission has ceased to sit. It is, I believe, a principle of constitutional law that parliament should be fully informed of all correspondence on subjects such as those to which my motion relates. Iu that opinion I am fortified by the words which fell from my lion. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) at the time he saw fit to bring a similar motion to the notice of the House, hut which motion he afterwards withdrew.
I shall be as brief as possible. In the first place, I would like to refer to the rule which prevails in England and that which holds here. On referring to the English rule practice, I find that unquestionably all correspondence of a diplomatic character must be produced in parliament, except in some very extraordinary cases, the principal one of which is when negotiations are still pending. This rule I find very well expressed in Todd's work on parliamentary government in England. At page 439 of that work, Mr. Todd says :
It is imperative that parliament shall be duly informed in every thing that may be necessary to explain the policy and proceedings of the government in any part of the empire ; and the fullest information is communicated by the government to both Houses, from time to time, upon all matters of public concern. For it is in parliament that authoritative statements are made, or information given by ministers, upon public questions ; and no action in parliament should be based upon declarations of policy made elsewhere.
Sometime a statement, by the minister who is specially responsible, is made in one House and not repeated in the other, the ordinary channels of information, i.e., the newspapers, being relied upon to give it general publicity. But such a course is Inconvenient and objectionable. Much ( inconvenience having been occasioned by motions for papers having been agreed to in one House, and opposed by government in the other chamber, it is now understood that when papers are presented to one House they shall also be laid on the Table of the other.
Considerations of public policy, and a due regard to the interests of the state, occasionally demand, however, that information sought for by members of the legislature should be withheld, at the discretion and upon the general responsibility of ministers. This principle is systematically recognized in all parliamentary transactions : were it otherwise, it would be impossible to carry on the government with safety and honour. Whenever it is declared, by the responsible servants of the Crown, that any information sought for in parliament could not be supplied without inconvenience to the public service, or for other sufficient reasons, the House refrains from insisting upon Its production.
And if the government object to produce any documents on the ground that they are of a

private and confidential description, it is not usual to insist upon their being furnished, except under peculiar and imperative circumstances.
Referring to the case of negotiations pending, Mr. Todd thus lays down the rule at page 355 :
It is a necessary rule that the substance of all personal communications between the representatives of the British Crown and the ministers of any foreign country, upon matters of public concern, should be committed to writing, in order that a fair and complete record of the transaction between Great Britain and other states may be preserved in the foreign office, and, in due course, submitted to parliament. The English constitutional system requires that parliament should be informed, from time to time, of everything which is necessary to explain the conduct and policy of the government, whether at home or abroad, in order that it may interpose with advice, assistance, or remonstrance, as the interests of the nation may appear to demand.
In 1810 the House of Commons passed a resolution of censure upon the Earl of Chatham (the Master-General of the Ordinance and a cabinet minister), who had commanded a military expedition to the Scheldt, on account of his having presented to the King a secret report of the expedition, without communicating the same to his colleagues, or. causing it to be considered a public document. It was justly contended, that if such a proceeding were permitted, it would strike at root of ministerial responsibility.
It is unquestionably of immense advantage to the country, that the diplomatic transactions and proceedings of government abroad should be freely communicated to parliament, for thereby the foreign policy of the Crown ordinarily receives the approbation of parliament, and is sustained by the strength of an enlightened public opinion. This in itself confers an additional weight to our policy and opinions abroad. On the other hand, it is notorious that the English system of giving publicity to information obtained by government, in regard to occurrences in foreign countries, is viewed with great disfavour on the continent. A knowledge of the fact that all information procured by our foreign agents is liable to make public militate somewhat against their usefulness, and tends to place them occasionally in an embarrassing position. It induces towards them, moreover, a feeling of reserve on the part of the representatives of other governments ; and necessitates that our ministers should resort, more than they would otherwise do, to the practice of private correspondence.
After giving several cases in which motions for the productions of papers were negatived, Mr. Todd goes on to state cases in which papers have been laid before parliament while negotiations were still pending :
Thus, it is generally inexpedient and highly impolitic to communicate to parliament, papers concerning diplomatic negotiations which are still pending ; and nothing is more prejudicial to the action and efficiency of the diplomatic service than the perpetual motions for the production of papers, which are made by a certain class of politicians, who insist upon the
fullest information on questions of foreign policy at unreasonable times.
It would appear from this enunciation of the doctrine as it exists in England-which enunciation, I find, is confirmed by all the other authors I have had occasion to consult on this subject-that the doctrine is that all correspondence with foreign powers ought to be subject to parliament, that parliament is the legitimate critic of the conduct of the ministers in their foreign policies, and it is only by the means afforded to parliament of having correspondence of the government before it that that assembly is in a position to justly and fairly appreciate the action of the ministers abroad. There is, in the short passage I have just read to the House, an explanation of the methods which render impossible, under certain exceptional circumstances, the production before parliament of the correspondence of ministers in order that parliament should be able to form an opinion. That is the difficulty that exists in carrying on the negotiations with a foreign power, and not only the difficult position in which the executive finds itself under these circumstances, but the courtesy, the rules of honour, if I may use that expression, which the home government is obliged to observe with regard to that foreign power. The rules of confidence which exist between individuals and exist, I may say to even a stronger degreee between independent powers negotiating with one another. And there is also the motive given where the object in view has not been obtained. Where, in other words, negotiations are pending, where the correspondence is expected to lead up' to some definite result, it would be impolitic-not to communicate to parliament, if we were ruled by the olden usages which made the deliberations of parliament secret and private-but to communicate to the public at large the pending negotiation, and, in that manner, interfere, perhaps, with the success, the favourable issue of those negotiations. That is the rule which prevails in England, and, if I emphasize it, it is because I believe that if, to any degree, that rule can obtain here in Canada, it must only be applied with very serious modifications and restrictions. Why ? Because the correspondence asked for here is not an interchange of diplomatic notes between two independent powers, it is not a case of negotiations which must be covered by the principles and rules of propriety which I enunciated a moment ago and as explained by the authority whom I quoted ; but the correspondence we want is a domestic matter. It is a correspondence between the home government, a branch, if I may use that expression of the government, of the empire, and one of the dependencies. That is, strictly speaking, a domestic affair. What we wish to have, and what we are entitled to have at this stage-at this late stage- is the correspondence between the Canadian

government, which is a branch of the government of tlie empire, and the home government in regard to the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. What we want ta know is what inquiries were made of our government at the time cf the negotiations leading up to the abrogation of that treaty, and what answers were given by the executive of this country. This is not, as I repeat, a question where it is absolutely necessary, in order to protect the rights of one nation against the other, to observe strictly the proprieties as pointed out by the authority I quoted as governing the relations tietween two independent powers. But we want to know what representations were made from this part of the empire before the home government-before the two powers concerned-arrived at the conclusion that the abrogation of that treaty was in the interest of both the contracting parties. Let me. for a moment, take up the time of the House to show, what, to my mind, is the rule which obtains here as to the interchange of communications between the home government and our own government. I believe that it can be laid down ns a governing principle, such as obtains in England, that all correspondence passing between the Imperial government and the government of Canada should be submitted to the parliament of this country, except such strictly secret or confidential letters as are required by the Secretary of State in the Imperial administration, to be kept absolutely from the public gaze. And, even in the case of communications considered absolutely private by the Imperial Secretary of State, tlie government of the day in this c mntry, in refusing to produce that correspondence must take upon itself all responsibility. In other words, since we have here a ministry responsible for every act, of every nature whatsoever, of the head of the executive, if the head of the executive in tills country, under the instructions he receives from the Imperial government, judges fit to withhold from this parliament any part cf that correspondence, he can do so.' But he does it through his responsible ministers, and they assume the responsibility of that refusal. I find, Sir, that, under instructions which are made to accompany the letters patent establishing the function of the Governor General-under the Royal instructions which always accompany the issue of such an important document-dating back thirty years, to the 6th July, 1871. this is what has been laid down :
The communication of the despatches passing between the home government and the government of this country are divided into three classes : Numbered despatches, secret despatches and confidential despatches.
Mr. Todd says in his book on parliamentary government in the British colonies, at page 126 :
By Royal instructions, governors are forbidden to give to any person copies of despatches they


Mr. MONK.: may receive from the Secretary of State-or to allow copies to be taken of them-unless under a general or special authority from that officer. But where responsible government is established, the governor is considered to be at liberty to communicate to his advisers all despatches not marked ' confidential.' And by a circular dated July 10th, 1871, despatches are reclassified as l, llows : (1) Numbered despatches, "which a governor may publish, unless directed not to do so; (2) Secret, which he may, if he thinks fit, communicate, under the obligation of secrecy, to his ministers, and may even make public, if he thinks it necessary. (3) Confidential, which are addressed to a governor personally, and which he is forbidden to make known, without express authority from the Secretary of State.
In laying despatches and other papers before the legislature, the governor of a colony is bound by constitutional practice. In general, the governor in colonies with responsible minis-' tries, takes no personal action, in this matter, in the case of ' numbered ' despatches and ordinary papers, and is rarely even consulted. The ministers lay before the legislature any such documents, on their own discretion and responsibility. But it is generally a reasonable rule of the public service that despatches and other documents forwarded to ihe Imperial gcv-ernment should not be published until they shall have been received and acknowledged by the Secretary of State ; and that no confidential memorandums passing between the ministers and the governor should be laid before the colonial parliament, except on the advice of the ministers concerned.
AVhen advised to do so by his ministers, the governor should lay any numbered and not confidential despatch addressed by him to or received by him from the Secretary of State before the local parliament, unless there be some strong reason to the contrary, such as a pending reference to the Secretary of State.
Exit the Governor must first be advised by his misisters before taking such a step, and ihey . must be prepared to defend his action if it be impugned.
Ministers cannot relieve themselves from the responsibiity of advising as executive councillors; nor is a governor free to act without or against ministerial advice, in cases not involving the rights cr prerogatives of the Crown or Imperial interests.
Tlie author goes on to quote several cases which I think make clear the principle which is laid down. Now, Sir, my hon. friend the member for Lahelle (Mr. Bou-rassa) not only made us acquainted with what many of us knew before but he made us acquainted, and to a certain extent the right hon. the Prime Minister did also, with certain facts which, to my mind, render doubly imperative the demand which we have made for the production of this correspondence, which we have a right to see, not only under the rule which I have just endeavoured to establish pertaining to the constitution of this House, but upon the principle that it is urgent that the correspondence which we now seek for as regards the two matters which are completed, are finished, should be placed in possession of this House in order that we may be in a position to appreciate the action which this government has taken during

the proceedings which led up to the conclusions of the treaty abrogating the Clayton-Bulwer arrangement; and also that we should be fully acquainted with what has passed, with what have been the res gestae of this government since the international commission, having under its charge the treatment of several most important subjects of vital interest to this country, has ceased to exist, or has adjourned, according to the statement of these gentlemen already submitted to this House, sine die. It must not be forgotten we have to bear in mind the fact that my hon. friend from T.abelle acted throughout the proceedings to which I have referred in laying this resolution before the House, in a special capacity. He was there as the official secretary of the commission, he occupied an official position in which it was open for him to acquire absolute knowledge of a multiplicity of facts with which we are unacquainted, and it is right and proper, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, to give considerable weight to the utterances made in this House the other day by that hon. member as to these facts. Now what do we find ?


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman is referring to a previous debate, which he must know is against the rules of the House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think, Mr. Speaker, that rule has been considerably modified in England as long as the reference is not an undue one. It is impossible to discuss a question-that is what I believe they have decided in England-without referring to a certain extent to a past debate. We do it every day, and if that reference is simply in order to sustain an argument and is not prolonged, I understand that under the rules of discussion that obtain in England the reference is allowed. If you rule differently, I submit to your ruling.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The position always taken in this House has been that it is not permissible to refer to a previous debate. In some instances we have gone so far as to decide that no reference should be made to answers to questions, and that has also been decided in England. And so far as this parliament is concerned I think it has been the invariable rule that no reference should be made to a previous debate.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If you apply the rule rigidly, Mr. Speaker, I think you go further than they do in England at the present time. But I am perfectly prepared to submit to your ruling. Still, it seems to me quite within the rules of this House for me to
say that we have had, not only in this House, but time and again outside of this House, public utterances from that hon. gentleman who occupied, as I said, an official and important position during the sittings of this commission; wS have had time and again, in the city of Montreal and elsewhere, admissions from him of the utmost value. He has told us there what he has told us here many a time, that during the proceedings which led up to the abolition of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty the interests of Canada were insufficiently and improperly guarded by this government, that they failed by acts of omission and by acts of commission in accomplishing what to my mind was a sacred duty, in representing to the British government what was so ably represented by the late Minister of Justice, Hon. David Mills, that Great Britain had unquestionable and unquestioned rights in Central America, and that it was of the utmost importance that those rights should not be sacrificed except we received in exchange something for ourselves; that those rights should not be foresworn until we had obtained from the American government something of what we considered our most just and equitable claims in respect to the Alaskan boundary.
Has this government performed its duty, as the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bour-assa) has time and again urged, in representing those claims and our rights to the mother country during the lengthy negotiations which led up to the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and are we not entitled to know by the production of the correspondence in reference to the treaty whether the government has accomplished this duty ? If we have a refusal to produce before this House the correspondence which will show that it has really and earnestly taken up the defence of our interests, that it has not been idle and has done nothing, as has been intimated time and again by the hon. member for Eabelle, we will be entitled to assume that it has not made the representations which it was its duty to make at the time as to our rights and as to the necessity, in the exercise of the treaty making power, not to sacrifice those rights but to see that they were maintained, when they were unquestionably giving up rights accruing to the empire in Central America. We have had that intimation time and again from the hon. member for Labelle. We have had it stated all over the province of Quebec. It is not necessary for me to refer to wlvat may be considered as his more solemn utterances in this chamber, but it is sufficient for me to say that they more than confirm the arguments and statements of fact he has made everywhere. It is necessary for the honour of this government that it should show to this House that at the time and during these delicate and difficult moments when the British government was negotiating for the abrogation of that treaty, it. here, was not failing in its duty to make proper representations to the British government in regard to our claims in Alaska, or in respect to the boundary of Alaska. It is also important to know if at that time the government was urging upon the home government in respectful but in urgent and proper tones our claims in respect to a

variety of other matters of interest to this country and which was its duty to urge upon the home government. Sir, it is an admitted principle in England, and surely we are not going to go back on that principle here, that where a treaty has been concluded, where negotiations are terminated, it belongs to parliament to judge of the acts of the government as to the conduct of those negotiations. It would be impossible for anybody to refute, or even to pul in question before the British parliament, that principle. What have we here ? We have the known fact, the fact known to the public, the official fact, that the abrogation has taken place and upon what ground can the government refuse to lay before the parliament of this country what undoubtedly has been laid, or can be laid, at any moment, upon the demand of a member, before the House of Commons in England ? We are entitled to know what part our government took in these negotiations. It had a part to take, it had a duty to perform, and we are entitled to know how it carried out that duty. In respect to the Alaskan boundary at the time the same arguments were held. We have had the statement of the former Minister of Marine and Fisheries, while in England, to the effect that the commission had sat in Washington without obtaining anything, that he considered the negotiations to be over and terminated for the timebeing. We have had the statement of the secretary of that international commission, made time and again, not only in this House but before the public at large at a great variety of meetings, that the commission had been an utter failure, in respect to the Alaskan boundary, that when they had come to the discussion of that subject all further discussion was impeded and had become impossible. We have had his statement and the statement of the participators in that conference also, that it was impossible to obtain the consent of the United States to the proposal which had been made by our own commissioners to submit the question of tlie Alaskan boundary to a commission of similar composition to the commission which had been proposed by the American authorities themselves to settle the boundary of Venezuela. Therefore, I say we are entitled to consider and the public will consider, as this House ought to consider, that the sittings of that commission are for the present suspended. I submit, under these circumstances, that commission being a distinct body especially created for the settlement of the specific question submitted to it, and that commission having, according to the admission of those who took part in it. on our own behalf, adjourned finally in the face of insurmountable difficulties, that if is the right of this parliament, not, Sir. to pry into the doings of this commission. but it is the right of parliament to know what has passed between our own government and the Imperial authorities since the adjournment of the commission upon Mr. MONK.
the subject of the Alaskan boundary. It is a subject which interests us in the highest degree. We may be wrong, but we live under the belief that a part of that territory belongs to us. It is our property, it is being exploited by a foreign power, and we have the right to know what steps our own government is taking in regard to the authority, which is the only one that can deal with a foreign power and, what have been the doings of this government since that time by correspondence, despatches or otherwise in respect to this most important question. I repeat, Sir, I believe the rule which applies in England, which is a very wise one and which has been applied there with the discretion and moderation which always obtain in the great parliament of that country, should, in this country, receive considerable modification even as to negotiations pending when the desire of this parliament is not to pry into negotiations being carried on by diplomacy between a foreign power and the government of this empire, but when we are asking for documents having reference to our own relations with the British government as to what may be considered, I submit. Sir. an Imperial domestic concern. I submit this motion. Sir.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Respecting the question that has been raised, I may call the attention of the House to two decisions I find in Blackmore. In 1862 and 1863 I see this question was decided in England. It was held in 1862 :
It is out of order to read extracts from speeches made in the same session.
And in 1S63 :
It is irregular to quote extracts from speeches in a past debate.
. I would quote also a decision in reference to the question given in 1880 to the following effect:
An hon. member cannot refer to a late debate; and the same rule applies to the answer to a question as to a debate.
Hon. members will, therefore, see that the rule has gone very far in England.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I must express my surprise that my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) should again bring this question before the House, after the debate which took place only a few days ago. I am still more surprised that he should persist in his intention of forcing the motion on the House in view of the quotations which he himself has read from such a standard constitutional authority as Todd. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) must see that the quotations from Todd defeat the very object which he seeks to obtain by his motion. The whole tenor of the hon. gentleman's speech has been to the effect, that while the rule, that papers are not to be communicated to parliament while negotiations are pending, applies in England, that very same rule should not be adhered to in this country. I am at

a loss to understand liow it is that a rule of parliamentary government in England should not be a rule of parliamentary government in Canada. The only argument which the hon. gentleman made was, that while in England it would not he proper to ask for the production of such papers because it might necessitate the bringing down of secret correspondence with foreign powers, yet this could not occur in Canada with reference to this matter, as it only involved the publication of correspondence between the government of Canada and the government of Great Britain; no foreign power being in the case. A moment of reflection will convince my hon. friend, or ought to convince him, that his contention is purely gratuitous, and that it would be impossible to bring down the correspondence he seeks without at the same time divulging negotiations which are pending between Great Britain and a foreign power. The very contingency which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) said does not exist, does exist, and it exists in a very aggravated form. X hope that a word or two from me will convince the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) that he is in the wrong. The hon. gentleman says that the Clayton-Bulwer treaty is at an end; that therefore there is nothing to conceal; that the treaty negotiated between Lord Lytton and Mr. Clayton has been modified by a recent treaty, and that therefore the papers in the Clayton-Bulwer treaty can be brought down. That reasoning of my hon. friend is fallacious. Canada had no direct interest in the Clayton-Bulwer treaty; Canada had no direct interest in the Nicaragua canal. Canada had no more interest in the negotiation of a treaty which affected the Nicaragua canal than she would have in a treaty in reference to the Suez canal, or in any other question between Great Britain and a foreign power in which she was not interested.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Had we no interest ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Canada had no direct interest. But why did Canada take any interest in the Clayton-Bulwer treaty ? It was not that we had a direct interest in the matter, but it so happened that we had a difficulty to settle with the United States in the northern part of the continent with regard to the Alaskan boundary, and Great Britain had a difficulty to settle in the Isthmus of Nicaragua in the southern part of the continent, and the suggestion being offered that concessions should be made by one power and the other, it was thought opportune that the two questions should be negotiated together, and that the request for the modification of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty should be made the means to an end, in order to obtain our object, which was a settlement of the Alaskan boundary. I would recall to my hon. friend the well known fact, that the only references that were made by the Canadian government at any time with
regard to the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, were simply with the object of having the Alaskan boundary considered together with the Nicaraguan question. We made representations to that effect and though one branch of this subject has been disposed of, the other has not yet been disposed of, though it is still in a fair way towards settlement, and the negotiations are yet pending. My hon. friend will see that it would be impossible to bring down anything concerning the correspondence with regard to the Clayton-Bulwer treaty except such as concerns the Alaskan boundary question, and we could not bring down these papers unless we were to give at once to the public the negotiations which are still going on with regard to the Alaskan boundary. I now come to another branch of the argument made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk). The hon. gentleman has stated that whether negotiations as to the Alaskan boundary are pending or not, we should bring down the representations which had been made by one government to the other. The hon. gentleman will understand that it would be impossible to bring down that correspondence unless jve were to bring down at the same time the protocols exchanged, and the propositions and counter propositions which have been made up to this very moment upon the subject. The hon. gentleman referred to the fact that the Joint High Commission which sat at Quebec and Washington has adjourned sine die, and he says that we should not withhold the correspondence until this commission resumed again. I will at once relieve the apprehension of my hon. friend by telling him, as he knows-because the papers have been placed on the table of the House two years ago-that the Alaskan boundary question has been removed from the commission, and referred by the commission itself to the British government and the Uuited States government, the two interested parties. Since that time, that is to say, since the month of February, 1899, negotiations have been going on between the two governments. Protocols have been exchanged, propositions have been made, counter propositions have been submitted, other propositions have been made again, and the matter has been under consideration and is still under consideration. So that the very argument which my hon. friend has made cannot apply to this matter, for a very obvious reason : that we could not bring down the papers without submitting the very terms of the propositions and counter propositions that have been made. I cannot divulge these secrets to-day ; but it is easy to suppose what has been going on. It is easy to suppose that certain propositions have been made by one government to the other ; that these propositions have been referred to the Canadian government ; that the government have made its comments upon these propositions ; that it has either assented to them

or dissented from them. It is easy to suppose that this is the character of the correspondence which has been going on ever since, which has not been concluded, but which is going on at this very moment; and therefore it would be not only impolitic, but a breach of the etiquette which is due by one nation to another, as well as a breach of the most sacred interests of the Canadian people in connection with the Alaska boundary question, if we were to place on the Table of the House to-day the papers for which my hon. friend asks. Does Thy lion, friend or any other member of the House seriously expect that we could, consistently with the duty we owe to the people of Canada at this very moment, when negotiations are pending, when the British Ambassador at Washington and the American Ambassador at London are exchanging notes, when the two governments are in conference, when we are cognisant of these conferences, when we have submitted our views upon the different propositions which have been made, when the negotiations have reached a certain stage, when it is possible that these negotiations may be completed within a month or so or perhaps longer- does he seriously contemplate that we are going to-day to place on the Table of the House and distribute to the four corners of publicity the negotiations which are still going on, but which I hope may be completed before long ? Sir, the matter is a serious one, and I must express my surprise that the hon. gentleman should not have apprehended the nature of the motion he was making, and should still persevere in the demand that we should lay these matters before the public.
I agree with my hon. friend that the procedure and the methods of the British government are very different from what prevails on the continent. The system of government in Great Britain is a system of publicity-a system based on the idea that nothing should be hidden from parliament or the people. But my hon. friend knows that even in Great Britain, which is the mother of that system, there are some matters which even the representatives of the people cannot have laid before them until the time comes when the communication of them can be made with safety to the public interest. In this matter, it is obvious-I have only to state the case to show at once to every man who views the question unbiased-that it would be highly prejudicial to the public interest to bring down this correspondence. As soon as it is completed the government will be only too happy to bring it down. I have only to express my deep sorrow that the matter is not yet concluded, and my deep hope that it will be concluded at an early day. At all events, no efforts of the government will be spared to bring it to a conclusion as speedily as possible.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: But the parliament of Canada will not be surprised if I say that this is a matter with which we have experienced a great deal of difficulty. The United States government is of all governments the one the most difficult with which to carry on international negotiations, owing to their peculiar constitution, which makes the Senate the treaty-ratifying power. Therefore the Senate has all along to be kept more or less advised- if not the whole Senate, leading members of it. For this reason we have not been able, even after years of persevering and continuous effort, to bring the matter to such a point as to enable me-what otherwise I should be only too happy to do-to gratify the legitimate curiosity of hon. gentlemen opposite to have the full particulars laid before them.
My hon. friend has referred to certain statements which have been made by my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) outside the House. I might suggest to my hon. friend that it would have been perhaps more appropriate, when he lectured my hon. friend a few days ago on a question much akin to this one, to have brought up the references which he has made to-day. But at all events I _ never understood my hon. friend from Labelle to make any statement except by way of argument, that we had not pressed sufficiently the claims of Canada upon the British government in connection with the modification of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. He was only acting upon his own inferences. He had no data to go by. As to the fact that he was connected with the Joint Commission, I do not know that that is relevant at all. As to the other fact, that he alluded to certain statements which have not been made, but which Sir Louis Davies is reported to have made, I have in my hand a letter from Sir Louis Davies denying that he made any such statements. I do not intend, to read the letter to-day, because the hon. member for Labelle is not in his seat, but I intend to do so at the earliest moment.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If the right hon. gentleman refers to the letter of denial, we are entitled to have that letter laid on the Table now.


Tlie PRIME MINISTER.: I am afraid that the letter of Sir Louis Davies, a member of the Supreme Court, cannot be treated as a public document to be laid on the Table of the House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that no minister of the Crown can refer to a document in a statement made by him without depositing that document on the Table of the House.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The letter is not addressed to me as a minister of the Crown. It is addressed to me as a member of the House, asking me to give to the House his denial of a statement which has

been made in the House by a member. I propose to do so, but not to-day, simply on account of the absence of the non. member for Labelle, whose statement it is intended to contradict.
SIR CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER. Will the right hon. Prime Minister allow me to make a suggestion in all friendliness-and I think I speak with the sympathy of both sides of the House. The most important incident in the matter to which the right hon. gentlemen refers was the innuendo in the speech of the hon. member for Labelle in regard to the position of Lord Herscliell; and if the right hon. gentleman could find it proper to give that an emphatic denial, as he could if the facts warranted, and to say that Lord Herschell was not inimical to the claims of Canada, the mind of Canada would be much more easy than in regard to any explanation touching the visit of Sir Louis Davies to Mr. Chamberlain. I think that was really the most serious statement or insinuation that was made.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This is apart altogether from the point that has been raised by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). It is a matter which I also intended to speak about; but in the absence of my hon. friend from Labelle, I prefer not to speak of it to-day, and I am sure that the House will appreciate the position I take.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If we have the assurance of the Prime Minister that he will lay that letter on the Table, and merely express a desire to see the hon. member for Labelle, I will not insist. But what I draw particularly to the attention of the right hon. gentleman is that the hon. member for Labelle has stated repeatedly that a certain utterance had been made in England by Sir Louis Davies, and that Sir Louis Davies never denied having made that utterance.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Order.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Is the hon. member for Jacques Cartier rising to the point of order ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes, and I was interrupted by the right hon. gentleman. The point I raise is this, that no minister of the Crown can refer to any document unless he is prepared to lay it on the Table of the House.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I understood the hon. member for Jacques Cartier to have said a moment ago that he waived his point of order.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to have a decision.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The point raised was that tlie Prime Minister had no right to refer to a document unless he were prepared to lay it on the Table. The hon. gentleman afterwards withdrew his point of order, and gave his reason for withdrawing it that he understood and appreciated the motives
which actuated the Prime Minister in delaying the production of that document.


Robert Laird Borden: If the rule laid down a moment ago is to be carried out in its strictness, it would be very difficult for my right hon. friend to lay at a future date the document on the Table or make any reference to it, because he woxdd then be referring- to a past debate.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I understood the hon. gentleman to have referred also to a debate outside the House.


Robert Laird Borden: This is admittedly not a matter which took place outside the House but in the House.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend is quite in error. It is always allowable to give a personal explanation. Sir Louis Davies simply desires to be allowed to give a personal explanation regarding certain words which have been attributed to him. As regards my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, I am surprised that lie should be still unconvinced. I would be only too glad to read the letter at tiiis moment, but I do not think it would be in accord witli the fitness of things to read it in the absence of the hon. member for Labelle, whose statement it was caused this letter to be written. I propose, on the first occasion when the hon. member for Labelle is in his seat, to bring this letter to his attention and that cf the House on a question of privilege.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 1 ask the ruling of Mr. Speaker upon the point I raised, and if the right hon. gentleman wishes to keep the letter until he sees the hon. member for Labelle, I have no objection. But I am entitled to a ruling.


The MINISTER OE FINANCE.: The point taken by the hon. gentleman does not apply. The Prime Minister has not read any extract from that letter and has not referred to it for the purpose of debate. All he has done is to inform the House that he has the letter and intends to read it at a future day. That cannot be called a reference which brings it within the rule that any document quoted here must be laid on the Table.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The rule no doubt is when a minister of the Crown refers to a public document, he should be prepared to lay it on the Table. But all the First Minister has done on this occasion was to state that he has a letter in his possession and will produce it later on. And the reason he does not lay it on the Table now is because the hon. member, who was the cause of that letter being written, is not here. I do not think that, under the circumstances, the right hon. the First Minister should be forced to produce now the document, more especially as the hon. gentleman who raised the point of order said he fully appreciated the reason why the First Minister did not lay the letter on the Table to-day.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not propose to say any more on the question. I think I have shown to the House the reasons why this motion cannot be granted and have only to ask that the House do not agree to it.
Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPEIi. If the right hon. the leader of the government will bear with me a moment, I think I can show him some difference between the general principle, to which he refers as governing in matters of state, and the peculiar condition of affairs which confront us with regard to these particular negotiations. I would recall to the right hon. gentleman the debate in the session of 1890, and the course then suggested to him by the then leader of the opposition. That suggestion was to this effect, that the unreasonable position taken by the United States authorities made it a matter for serious consideration as to whether the government of Canada should not assume the power of treating American citizens in the admitted portion of British territory in Alaska In a similar manner to that in which British citizens were treated in the admitted portions of the United States territory in that country. If my memory serves me right, the right hon. gentleman considered the proposition worthy of consideration as a possible alternative, without giving expression to any strong opinion one way or the other. Since then the Clayton-Bulwer treaty has been abrogated, and we are entitled to know what steps this government took, if any, to see that our interests were consulted before Great Britain consented to that concession. In pressing our right to the fullest information, we are not interrupting any diplomatic negotiations, because-there is no secret about it-for we have it from the lips of the right hon. gentleman-all negotiations concerning the Alaskan boundary were suddenly broken off a long time ago. As Canadians we ought to be extremely jealous and careful as to the manner in which our interests are treated in any negotiations between the United States and Great Britain; and what we want to know now, and are entitled to know, is : What is the position which this government has taken ? What are the difficulties that have confronted this government, and in what manner has this government availed itself of the various opportunities that offered ? These are questions which we ought to fully discuss.
Take the negotiations concerning the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. Was this government prompt to take advantage of the conditions existing previous to the abrogation of that treaty between Great Britain and the United States ? At that time the United States desired much at the hands of Great Britain, though extremely niggardly of justice and fair play in their relations with His Majesty's Canadian subjects. Was the opportunity which then offered taken advantage of by this government ? Our people


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: are entitled to hold this government responsible. They are entitled to know whether this government kept the home authorities sufficiently advised and sufficiently alive to the importance of seeing that the interests of Canada were not lost sight of.
Now, in regard to what has happened since this extraordinary break off, this stoppage in the diplomatic negotiations touching the Alaskan boundary, surely we are not to wait for ever. It is not a reasonable position for the government to take, that these matters are not finally, finally ended, and that, until they reach an end, be that end good or bad for this country, this country is not to be advised as to the actual position of things touching a matter so vitally important to it. We have had, for instance, statements-I think even reiterated recently-by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) touching that indifference from the mother country to matters purely of Canadian concern, when these matters threatened the relations between the mother country and the United States. I think that since the hon. gentleman became a member of this government he has had the courage to repeat what he said when on this side of the House in regard to how little we owe to Great Britain touching various treaties and matters of Imperial concern where the interests of Canada were involved. Now, we have from another authority these ex cathedra statements of extraordinary and, so far unexplained difficulties that met our representatives at Washington at the hands of a gentleman who was, above all looked upon as the Imperial representative who was to assist and co-operative with the representatives of the Crown from Canada. And, so, not to take up time by relating the whole history of these extraordinary negotiations, we are confronted by a unique condition of affairs, and a condition that 1 think, we speak by the* book of the late Minister of Justice, now one of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada when we say it is unprecedented, in which it would appear, that the rights and interests of Canada stand a good chance of being absolutely sacrificed. Well, are we to wait until our rights and interests are, beyond question and beyond recall, thrown away, or are we to have a government that will take the people of this country into its confidence ? We do not say that the protocols are wanted; we do not say that these private matters require to be placed before parliament-that is not the point. But what the people of Canada, or a great many of the thinking people of Canada who have any regard for these matters of national interest, do want, and, I think, are entitled to. is that such correspondence-whether with the mother country or with other parties-from our own representatives should be laid before parliament as will apprise us of the condition of things that actually

exists. It seems to be-I use the word without offence-a disgraceful condition of things that we are only to guess at it from the unguarded statements of a, perhaps, excited and erratic individual who was attached to the Canadian or British commission. It is an awful thing, and against all the proprieties, that any statement of his that may be unfounded in fact should be allowed to go even twenty-four hours without a clear explanation or an absolute contradiction from the First Minister. Any importance given to the statements bruited abroad among the people of Canada and attributed to that gentleman is not due to his individual status or to the fact that he represents a constituency in this House; but what has given them a good deal of importance, and I think excited considerable alarm, is the fact that he made an insinuation with reference to Lord Herschell and made a direct statement in regard to a colleague of the Prime Minister that, if without warrant and truth, would naturally have brought an instant and indignant contradiction from the Prime Minister himself. It seems to me impossible that Lord Herschell should have been hostile to our claim. It seems impossible that Mr. Chamberlain should have trammelled or put any restriction upon the Imperial representative or others on that commission. And a statement of that kind could not have been made in this House without the right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier) knowing all about it. He was one of that commission, a leading member of it, and he is our Prime Minister; and the very fact that days have elapsed without any authoritative contradiction is, naturally, enough to warrant a motion of this kind. One would have supposed that the right hon. gentleman would have been only "too glad to have had this motion or any other suggestion of the kind made in the House of Commons, so that he could have giveu us the absolute, orthodox statement on all these points. One might reasonably have hoped that he would be able to give the House-without regard to Sir Louis Davies, or without reference to the feelings of a gentleman who, it is quite clear, did not consult his feelings in the matter, and apparently, did not take into consideration the gravity of the case-a statement that we could accept with regard to the views held and the co-operation afforded by Lord Herschell, and also the views of the colonial secretary. For, up to the time of the statements I have referred to, we1 supposed that we should have derived great advantage from the co-operation of Lord Herschell. And. having regard to the Imperial view of Mr. Chamberlain one would have supposed that no man in the United Kingdom could have better supported our claims than that right hon. gentleman. I hope that is true, but we all anxiously await an authoritative statement in the matter. But. in regard
to the point involved in this motion. I would ask the right hon. the premier to reconsider the view he has expressed, and not to fall back on that rigid or technical position which, I think, is justified, only in regard to matters that are actually under treatment and consideration and not those regarding which negotiations are broken off. I do not suppose that the right hon. gentleman pretends that these matters are still under treaty. On the contrary, according to the right hon. gentleman's own explanation the position seems to be this- that Canada has dropped out and that the Alaskan question has been, as he says removed from the management of the government directly concerned


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, but of the Joint Commission.
Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER- from the management of the Joint Commission, as the right hon. gentleman now puts it, to the hands of the mother country and the United States. I will go this far and agree with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) that history does not assure us that, if a matter simply remains in the hands of the mother country and the United States, Canada can expect to get her full measure of justice as the result of the negotiations. We want to know, as Canadians, that our own government is most active and persistent in demanding that there shall be no concession that is no unfair or unreasonable concession-at the hands of the mother country for any consideration like the supposed good will of the United States or any other of these specious excuses that have been used aforetime. How are we to know what is being done ? How are we to judge hon. geptlemen opposite if they retreat behind this barricade and tell us that these matters are absolutely confidential V Ordinarily that is true; but when we are face to face with this critical state of affairs that since 1S99, at least, there has been no declaration other than that a most unreasonable attitude has been assumed by the United States, that the government of this country was at that time ready to consider whether retaliatory legislation would be expedient or not, I say the time has come, and more than come, when we should be reasonably informed as to the attitude of this government. The object of this motion I am sure, is nothing more or less than that we should know what our government has been doing since 1899, whether they have been discharging their responsibilities as the people of this country would expect and require, or whether, according to the position the hon. gentleman takes when he asks 1he House to vote down this motion, there should be simply a blind confidence in the government, and that the members of this House should not have a reasonable curiosity satisfied, but that in due time, when

76S
everything is settled, ended and past, we shall be told what has happened.
Now, there are other matters, too, which suggest all sorts of uneasiness, and, whether they are founded or unfounded, the result will be that in these matters of disquietude will increase rather than decrease, contrary to the prosperity and advantage of this country. X hold in my hands, for instance, a telegraphic information showing that there is an uneasy feeling spreading abroad in this country'in regard to other complications which, judged by this correspondence, the government could settle in a moment. My correspondence states :
Important International communications are passing in reference to this Alaskan boundary question, and the White Pass Railway, that people are rgitating in Seattle and district that government action

That is, I suppose, government action here

-compelling fair rates, strikes at independence of operation in regard to American strip.
That is to say, something affecting this modus vivendi in connection with the attitude the government has taken in order to protect the rights of the people of Canada so far as they can from the exorbitant charges that were made by the White Pass Railway. That is only a suggestion as to what will happen, and what will follow on, following not merely from these references, whether accurate or inaccurate, made by a gentleman on the back benches. It seems to me extraordinary not only that the government will not agree to bring down any statement that is in the correspondence, or make any definite statement as to the status of these diplomatic relations, but are not in a position to state on the spot, let alone in a previous debate, but to-day when the matter is before them on a notice, exactly the true state of affairs touching the attitude of the Colonial Secretary and of the British plenipotentiary who was appointed to assist them in the late negotiations at Washington.
One word more with regard to these matters, and that touches a view that I myself v entured to express in 1891). I recall to the right lion, gentleman's memory the remarks I made in a debate when the Minister of the Interior took very strong grounds in this House touching the possessory rights of the United States in Dyea and Skagway. It seems to me a clear inference to assume that the papers, if brought down, would show that one of the insuperable difficulties so far experienced in regard to the settlement of this Alaskan question is due to the admissions made by members of the Canadian government and by the right hon. gentleman in regard to this question, rather than to the attitude of Lord Herschell apart from anything else, and that it was these admissions that bothered and embarrassed the presentation of the Canadian view. The right hen. gentleman will recall the occasion


Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER.: when, for instance, he appealed to history as showing that from ' time immemorial,' as he put it, Dyea and Skagway had been in the possession, first of the Russians and then of the United States, a fact that was combatted as an historical fact, but which certainly was an argument wholly in favour of the United States contention. Now, then, it is possible that if the right hon. gentleman adheres to his decision of giving us no information as to how this hitch has occurred, why it is prolonged, it is possible that the people of this country may come to the conclusion, not unreasonably, under the circumstances, that it was not altogether because of this proclaimed hostility of one of the commissioners to our view, or of the hostility of the Colonial Secretary, according to Sir Louis Davies; but it was because of these inconvenient statements made on solemn occasions by members of the Canadian government. Therefore, in their own interest and in the interest of the people whose servants they are, in the interest of a country whose rights have not always been regarded as absolutely sacred by the mother country, when in contestation between the mother country and the United States, I think the government ought to have the courage of the convictions they professed when in opposition, and take the House into their confidence. Why, when we attempted to negotiate with Newfoundland in the old days, who can forget the attitude of Sir Louis Davies, now gone to a higher place, and of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) regarding Tory tyranny on the part of the Liberal-Conservative government, because they, in negotiating with Newfoundland, did not take this House into their confidence from day to day when the House was sitting at the moment these negotiations were going on ? Has the right hon. gentleman forgotten all his professions when in opposition ? Wliile we do not want all the protocol, or the absolutely confidential documents, I do submit again that we are entitled, and that we ought to demand, and the country will demand, a clear and explicit statement, at least a compilation from these state documents, that we may know the exact position of the Canadian government, and the position of this question, whether as regards the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or the United States of America.
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright.) My hon. friend (Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper) has been a minister himself, and he is also a member of the legal profession, and in both capacities he knows quite well, I think, that there is nothing more prejudicial, as a general rule, to a fair understanding of any important question than the production of some garbled dtfbuments relating thereto. He knows also that there are grave and serious questions constantly before a govern-

ment, and no graver or serious questions can come before this government or any government of Canada than those affecting the relations of Canada and of the whole empire with the adjoining republic, which questions require to be handled with great care and consideration; and that it would be a great injury to the people of Canada, and in no respect a benefit, if, for the sake of gratifying even a legitimate curiosity, we should in any way imperil the permanent interests of the country. Now, the hon. gentleman knows, I think, and if he does not, I think a good many of our friends on this side of the House know, that I myself am in no respect disposed to sacrifice in any degree or shape the interests of the people of Canada to any other consideration whatever. But, Sir, the interests of Canada and the interests of the empire, as I think hon. gentlemen have frequently pointed out to us, are not divisible but are one; and if we believe that it would not.be advisable-and of course we are bound to take the responsibility of our utterances at this particular moment-to bring down the details of an intricate negotiation, more especially when, as the hon. gentleman is aware, within a very few weeks, I hope, my right hon. friend beside me will have an opportunity of discussing all these questions vive voce with Mr. Chamberlain and with the advisers of the Crown on the other side of the Atlantic, the hon. gentleman can well understand that we might not desire to bring down an imperfect and garbled correspondence, as I have said, until such time as we can present the whole case unimpaired.
But I rose more especially for another object. I had the pleasure, during the somewhat protracted period over which the negotiations of the Joint High Commission extended, of being on reasonably intimate terms with the late Lord Herschell; and I desire to say here for the benefit of all whom it may concern, that no man could have advocated the interests of Canada more sincerely, more energetically, and more ably than Lord Herschell did on all occasions, and notably with respect to this identical Alaska boundary. For that purpose I rose, and for that purpose X have spoken on the the present occasion. I desire that it should be understood by our people from one end of Canada to the other, that they have no ground, not the slightest or the faintest, to complain of the action of the late Lord Herschell in that respect. I will say this, and I think my colleagues will corroborate me, that I do not believe it would have been possible to present our case under any conceivable circumstances with more lucidity, with more ability, or more cogency, than Lord Herschell presented it on that occasion.


Mr. CXIARLTON.: Mr. Speaker, I rise merely for the purpose of corroborating in the fullest and most unequivocal manner the statement that has been made by the 25
Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright). I also had the privilege of watching the course of Lord Herschell on the Joint High Commission, and any aspersion on his character as regard his conduct in regard to Canadian interests is most unjust and unfounded. He presented the case of Canada in such a manner as to promote our best interests, he was true to Canadian interests in every respect and the aspersion upon his memory is a cruel and unjust one.


Mr. A. C. BELL (Pictou).: Mr. Speaker, I think that the argument, so far as it has been made for or against the production of the documents, has been very fully made and I would not have thought it was necessary to make any addition to what has been said, if it were not for a remark of the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) as I understood him, which strikes me as being one of very considerable importance. If I am not mistaken I understood the Prime Minister, in the course of his speech in dealing with the matter that was under the consideration of the plenipotentiaries, who dealt with the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, to say that the Nicaragua canal was of no more interest to the people of Canada than would be the Suez canal or any other canal in any part of the world, and that the only importance attaching to it in this connection was the value it possessed as a factor of concession which might be given in lieu of another concession. This is really a most amazing statement to my mind to be made seriously by the Prime Minister of Canada, because it seems to me that the people of Canada have as great, as natural and as complete an interest in the Nicaragua canal and in anything relating to the subject as have the people of the United States. I am not mistaken, I think, in stating that the gentleman who was iately Minister of Justice in the government of the right hon. gentleman enforced that opinion at very great length and with very great ability, and treated the negotiations dealing with the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty as a matter in respect of which Canada had an interest so deep that no other part of the world could compare with it in respect to its importance. The Nicaragua canal is not within the territory of the United States so that it is not a territorial matter for them. Its interest to them lies in the fact that on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans they have a large extent of coast which would be practically united by the canal penetrating the isthmus. In respect to the matter Canada stands in precisely the same position. We, in Canada, have as large a part of the North America continent as the United States and our interests in the Nicaragua canal, so far as territorial area is concerned, is at least as great as theirs, and looking at the possible extension of



our commerce and ship building and the growth of our population on the two coasts of the Atlantic and the Pacific our interest is as deep in the Nicaragua canal as can possibly be that of the United States. Therefore, I feel I am safe in assuming that if the gentlemen who dealt with the interests of Canada in this matter approached the consideration of this subject with no further knowledge of the importance of the matter than that which has been presented to the House by the right lion. Prime Minister, we need not be surprised if the interests of Canada in this matter were not safeguarded to the extent to which they should have been safeguarded.


William Findlay Maclean: I am prepared to vote for the motion made here to-day not only on its merits but in order to enter my protest against the way Canadian interests have been treated in these negotiations. I have in my hand a despatch written by the Marquis of Lans-downe, Foreign Secretary, to Lord Paunce-fote, dated February 22 of last year, in which despatch he says :
At that time the Joint High Commission, over which the late Lord Herschell presided, was still sitting. That commission was appointed in July, 1898, to discus.! various questions at issue between Great Britain and the United States, namely, the fur seal fishery, the fisheries off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, the Alaskan boundary, alien labour laws, reciprocity, transit of merchandise, mining rights, naval vessels on the great lakes, definition and marking of frontiers, and conveyance of persons in custody. But serious difficulties had arisen in the attempt to arrive at an understanding, and it had become doubtful whether any settlement would be effected.
The third paragraph after this one goes on to say :
Shortly afterwards Lord Herschell intimated that the difficulties in reard to the question of the Alaskan boundary seemed insuperable, and that he feared it might be necessary to break off the negotiations of which he had hitherto had the charge. Upon this Lord Salisbury informed Mr. White that he did not see how Her Majesty's government could sanction any convention for amending the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, as the opinion of this country would hardly support them in making a concession which would be wholly to the benefit of the United States, at a time when they appeared to be so little inclined to come to a satisfactory settlement In regard to the Alaskan frontier.
The whole of the despatch of Lord Lans-downe is an indication of the British position and of our position. He wound up the despatch with this significant sentence :
It would follow, were His Majesty's government to agree to such an arrangement, that while the United States would have a treaty right to interfere with the canal in time of war, or apprehended war, and while other powers could, with a clear conscience, disregard any of the restrictions imposed by the convention, Great Britain alone, in spite of her


Adam Carr Bell: 

AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT-PUBLICATION IN PARTS.

John Charlton: That whereas the yearly Report of the Auditor General is made out so that the expenditure under the control of each department appears as a separate and distinct part, he it resolved, that each such part be in future promptly made public in the ordinary way after it has been prepared.
He said : Sir. Speaker, for many years after confederation the departmental reports were not presented to the public until after the assembling of parliament. Some years ago I made a motion requiring these reports to be circulated as soon as they were prepared. in advance of the assembling of parliament; and also requiring monthly statements as to the public debt, revenue, railway receipts, &c. That motion carried, and since then the reports of the various departments have as a rule been placed in the hands of members before the opening of the session. In all cases where this has been done, it has been found productive of good results, because members can come to their duties informed to some extent with regard to public affairs, and possessing the information which enables them to discharge their duties and to take an interest in the transaction of public business. We have on several occasions been delayed in some branches of the work of this House through a delay in presenting the report of the Auditor General, which is very voluminous and which contains information essential to the discussion of various public questions. I now propose that the information compiled by the Auditor General which relates to the various departments of government should be published and placed in the hands of members as soon as it is prepared, without waiting for the completion of the full report. By this means we will get the reports with regard to Customs, Public Works, and other departments of government, without waiting for the entire report, which comes down sometimes late in the session. The advantages that will be secured by the adoption of this motion are, I think, so obvious that I shall not detain the House further than to propose the motion that I have placed in your hands, Mr. Speaker.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. *S. Fielding).: The chief complaint of the
25i
hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) is that the delay which sometimes occurs in the bringing down of the Auditor General's Report has been inconvenient to members, and has postponed somewhat the transaction of the business of the House. In that I entirely agree. It is very desirable that the Auditor General's Report should be brought down promptly. This year, however, we have had no reason to complain, because the report was brought down immediately after the opening of parliament. If we could always rely on that, I think the House would have no reason to complain. I may say to the hon. gentleman that I do not think that it is desirable that the Auditor General's Report should be prepared in the piece-meal way he proposes. There are probably as good reasons why other reports dealing with the public service should be divided, but there is a manifest convenience in having the volumes brought down as at present, provided they are brought down promptly and that the business of the House is not delayed. If it were necessary, we might be prepared with an amendment to the legislation, the fixing of the time when the Auditor General shall complete his report and deliver it to the King's Printer, and then we would have a reasonable guarantee that it would be brought down promptly.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: What is the English practice ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think it is somewhat similar to our own, except that I do not think that they distribute documents in advance of the opening of parliament, as we have done in some cases. I think we might provide that the Auditor General should, at a reasonable time before parliament meets, complete his work and deliver his manuscript to the King's Printer, leaving himself, of course, free, if anything should arise later, to make a supplementary report. At present the Auditor General, for very worthy purposes, I am sure, likes to keep matters open, and he is always introducing something into his report in the endeavour to bring it down to the moment when parliament assembles. The consequence is that occasionally very serious delays occur. My own judgment is, that at a date to be fixed by parliament, the Auditor General should complete his report and hand it to the King's Printer, and that no alterations should be made in that volume of the report, but that the printer should publish it and deliver it to members promptly. If anything arises with reference to which the Auditor General wishes to make a further communication to parliament, that might be made the subject of a supplementary return. I would suggest to my hon. friend (Mr. Charlton) that every good purpose would be served if we are able to guarantee the bringing down of the Auditor General's Report promptly as it was brought down this year, and as I hope may be the case in the future.


Mr. W. R. BROCK (Toronto Centre).: It is very desirable that the suggestion made by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) should be complied with. This country has such a high idea of the Auditor General as one of the most important employees of this parliament, that it would be a retrograde step if his action should be hampered in any way in the direction which the Finance Minister has suggested. This matter should be left entirely in the hands of the Auditor General.,, If he can see his way, under instructions from this House, to bring down his report after the manner suggested by the hon. member (Mr. Charlton) it would be a very great convenience to us all. That the Auditor General should be hampered by any positive instructions from the House such as the minister has suggested, would be very undesirable. I think that he should be, as he is now, independent of any instructions from the government in this matter.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not propose that he should get any instructions from the government, because he is not an officer of the government. I proposed that whatever instructions we would give him should be incorporated in an Act of parliament, because he is an officer of parliament.


William Rees Brock: I contend that he should not be hampered either by this House or by the government in any way that might prevent him from making any criticisms he may wish to make on the financial affairs of the country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When the financial year is closed, the Auditor General has completed one branch of the subject and his report on that branch is just as complete then as it is when the whole report is presented to parliament. The money has been paid out when the transaction is completed, and the country is interested in knowing how the money was paid. If the motion of the hon. member (Mr. Charlton) were carried, there is no doubt that it would be a great benefit to the country. The transactions referred to in the report would then be fresh in the minds of the representatives of the people when parliament met. We could then take note of the report and digest it far better than under the present system of bringing down the entire report when parliament is in session. We have not time to digest it, the press has not time to go over it, and the result is that although it is a most valuable and important report, there is very little scrutiny of it by parliament, the press or the general public. For these reasons, I do not see any objection to the report being brought down in the way proposed by the hon. member for North Norfolk, and therefore I will support his motion.


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: Mr. li. HOLMES (West Huron). The arguments which have been advanced in support of this motion presuppose that the financial reports are prepared a considerable time before parliament meets. Whether that is the fact or not I do not know; but it seems to me that the Auditor General's Report, in its present form, assuming that it is brought down early, as it has been this year, meets the case better than would a number of volumes. Independent of that, however, the fact is that efforts have been made for some time to facilitate the work in the Printing Bureau. Those who have no technical knowledge of printing will not understand the difficulties which the management of the Bureau have had to contend with in getting out the reports promptly. They have now reached a point at which they are meeting the requirements of the House with great efficiency ; and if the Auditor General's Report were divided into sections, it would simply complicate the work of the Bureau, and make it more difficult for them to issue the report promptly than it is at present. I have some practical knowledge of the matter, and, having looked into the work of the Bureau lately, I believe it is better in every way to issue the report in its present form than to divide it into sections.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is not the same thing done with the report of the Committee on Agriculture 7 The evidence of the different witnesses is printed in sections, and at the end they are all bound up together as one report.


Mr. HOLMES.: Even so, that means a great deal of work for the Printing Bureau which the hon. member for East Grey knows nothing at all about. To prepare these reports and issue them in supplementary form would be to increase the work of the Bureau instead of facilitating it, without benefit to the members of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: Would it not be possible to distribute to members of parliament the various portions of the Auditor General's Report as they are made up and printed ? I do not know whether the printing of the report is all done within a short period of time, or whether it is carried on from the 30th of June of one year to the opening of the session of the following year ; but if the printing covers a considerable period of time, it seems to me that there could be no objection to doing what I suggest. The advantage of that would be that members could make themselves more familiar with the report than it is possible to do at present.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think the Auditor General's practice is to keep his report open in order that he may bring the 'work down to the latest possible date before the meeting of parliament. That is one of the things of which we have oc-

casiomilly complained, although of course recognizing the right of the Auditor General to inform parliament fully of everything in relation to his accounts. I quite agree that if the Auditor completed his main report he would have the right to present to the House a supplementary report at any time. Any difficulty that has occurred has not been owing to what is complained of to-day, but simply to an unusually early meeting of parliament or some other cause. But it seems to me that when the Auditor is able to get his work done and the report issued early, as it has been this year, every interest is served.


John Charlton: The different portions of the Auditor General's Report are prepared one following the other, and many of these are ready and could be submitted to parliament long before the volume is completed. I can state that the Auditor General himself, who is perhaps as good a judge in this matter as any one else, believes that this would be a very advantageous arrangement, as it would enable him to place before members of parliament information which, if it is withheld until the whole report is completed, must be brought down at a late date, in a vast volume, when members cannot give the amount of attention to the various matters contained in the report that is desirable. For this reason, it would be an advantage to me, and in my belief to other members of parliament who desire information on public questions, to have the different portions of the Auditor General's Report issued when completed-not for public distribution, but to members of the House. It could add but slightly if at all to the cost of issuing the volume, because these parts would be assembled together and issued as a volume afterwards. I must say that I think the objections of the hon. Minister of Finance are not well founded. I have the authority of the Auditor General for saying that in his opinion this would be a very desirable and proper method to adopt.
House divided on the motion.

Messieurs
Alcorn,
Avery,
Barker,
Birkett,
Blain,
Borden (Halifax),
Brock,
Broder,
Bruce,
Carscallen,
Charlton,
Clancy,
Clare,
Clarke,
C'ulbert,
Earle,
Fowler,
Ganong,
Lancaster,
LaRiviere,
Lavell,
LeDnox,
Maclean,
McGowan,
Monk,
Morin,
Osier,
Pope,
Pringle,
Futtee,
Richardson,
Robinson (Elgin), Roche (Marquette), Rosamond,
Ross (Victoria, N.S.), Smith (Wentworth),
Gilmour,
Hackett,
Halliday,
Henderson,
Ingram,
Johnston (Cardwell), Kaulbach, ,
Kemp,
Kendrey,
Sprcule,
Taylor,
Tolton,
Tupper (Sir Charles Hibbert),
Vroon an,
Ward,
Wilson.-52.

Messieurs
Angers,
Archambault,
Bazinet,
Beith,
Beland,
Belcourt,
Bernier,
Blair,
Brunet,
Bureau,
Calvert,
Campbell,
Carbonneau,
Carroll,
Cartwright (Sir Rich'd. Champagne,
Christie,
Copp,
Cowan,
Davis,
Demers (Levis), Demers (St.John), Dugas,
Edwards,
Erb,
Ethier,
Farquharson, ' Fielding,
Fisher,
Fitzpatrick,
Flint,
Fortier,
Galliher, [DOT]
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
German,
Gould.
Guthrie,
Harwood,
Heyd,
Holmes,
Horsey,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.) Hyman,
Johnston (Cape Breton) Kendall,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Laurier (L'Assomption)
Lavergne,
I.eBlanc,
Legris,
Lewis,
Lovell,
Macdonald,
Mackie,
MacKinnon,
MacLaren (Hunt'n.), McCarthy,
MoColl,
McCreary,
MeGugan,
McLennan,
) Madore,
Malouin,
Marcil (Bagot), Marcil (Bonaventure), Martineau,
Matheson,
Maxwell,
Meigs,
Mignault,
Monet,
Morrison,
Mulock,
Oliver,
Paterson,
Proulx,
Reid (Restigouche), Riley,
Ross (Ontario), Rousseau,
Russell,
Schell,
Smith (Vancouver),
Stephens,
Sutherland (Oxford), Talbot,
T&rte,
Thompson,
Tobin,
, Tclmie,
Tucker,
, Turcot,
Turgeon,
Wade,
, 'Wright.-96.
PAIRS:
Ministerial.
Logan,
Johnston (Lambton), Fraser,
Dyment,
Biekerdike,
Bruneau,
MeCool,
Emmerson,
Sifton,
Borden (King'3), Bourbonnais,
Brown,
Costigan,
Opposition.
Lefurgey,
Simmons,
Bell,
McCormick,
Bennett,
Leonard,
McLeod,
Wilmot,
Haggart,
Casgrain,
Calvin,
Robinson (Northumberland),
Ball,

Delislc,
Douglas,
Gallery,
Gibson,
Girard,
Harty,
Lang,
Lemleux,
McEwen,
Melsaac,
Murray,
Parmelee,
Power,
Prefontaine,
Roche (Halifax), Scott,
Sutherland (Essex),
Motion negatived.
Cargill,
Hughes (Victoria), Ncrthrup,
McIntosh,
Seagram,
Roddick,
Sherri tt,
Hale,
Cochrane,
Porter,
Tisdale,
Boyd,
MacLaren (Perth), Reid (Grenville), Gourley,
Kidd,
Northrup.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 13) respecting the Canada and Michigan Bridge and Tunnel Company.- Mr. Cowan.
Bill (No. 14) to incorporate the Indian River Railway Company.-Mr. Belaud.
Bill (No. 15) respecting the River St. Clair Railway Bridge and Tunnel Company.-Mr. Ingram.
Bill (No. 17) to incorporate the Lake Bennett Railway Company.-Mr. Maxwell.
Bill (No. 18) to incorporate the Velvet (Rossland) Mine Railway Company.-Mr. Galliher.
Charles Hibbert Tupper: Does the hon. gentleman propose to take up government Bills on a private day with a very thin House, and, as he knows, the House is thin for very serious reasons.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not want to press hon. gentlemen opposite, if my hon. friend wants to adjourn.



PENSIONS TO NORTH-WEST MOUNTED POLICE.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved that to-morrow the House go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that pensions or gratuities may be granted to officers of the North-west mounted police and to the widows and children of such officers, as follows :-
To 8n officer compulsorily retired, for any cause other than misconduct or inefficiency, after 20 years' service, or retiring voluntarily after 35 years' service, a pension not exceeding one-fiftieth of the pay and allowances of his rank or appointment at the time of his retirement for each year of service ; service beyond 35 years not being reckoned.
John Charlton: To an officer who retires voluntarily after 25 years, but less than 35 years' service, a pension 20 per cent less than is above provided for.
Towards making good the said pensions, 5 per cent to be deducted from the pay of officers.
To an officer retiring on account of infirmity, or retiring to promote efficiency or economy in the service, a gratuity not exceeding one month's pay for each year's service ; if retiring on account of injury received in the discharge of his duties, a gratuity not exceeding three months' pay for every two years' service.
To the widow and children of an officer who had served twenty years, and was at the time of his death on full pay, or in receipt of pension, the following pension or allowance :-in the case of the commissioner, $500 to the widow, and $80 to each child ; the assistant commissioner, a pension of $450 to the widow and a yearly allowance of $80 to each child ; a superintendent or surgeon, $350 to widow, and $70 to each child ; an inspector, assistant surgeon or veterinary surgeon, $250 to widow, and $65 to each child ; it being permissible to double the amount to children if they are motherless and in need ; no allowance to be granted to a son aged eighteen or a daughter aged twenty-one ; and the total amount granted to the family of an officer in one year not to exceed the amount of the pension attached to his rank.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 8.10 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 6, 1902.