FIRST READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 140) to incorporate the Bishop of the Orthodox Russo-Greek Catholic Church for North America and Aleutian Islands and each of the parishes and missions of the said church in Manitoba and the North-west Territories.-Mr. Oliver.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 141)
[Stage Direction]
to amend the Act respecting the packing and sale of certain staple commodities. He said: The only alterations proposed by this Bill are the addition of the word ' dealer,' and certain amendments dealing with the penalties to be inflicted in case of infractions of the law.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 142) to further amend the General Inspection Act. He said : The amendment consists in the addition of the word ' binder twine ' to the list of articles covered by the law.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the firsttime.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion being called.
Introduction of Bill intituled : * An Act to amend the Chinese Immigration Act, 1900.'
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) with the consent of the House, I will substitute for this Bill a resolution. The Bill is intended to deal with the disposition of funds collected under the Chinese Immigration Act. I will drop this notice and give notice of a motion.

Mr. N. BOYD (Macdonald).: Before the Orders of the day are called, I desire to ask the government if we are to have the amendments to the Grain Act that were promised early in the session, and, if so, when ? I understand we are approaching the close of the session, and as this is a very important matter to the people of Manitoba and the North-west, I trust that the government will take us into their confidence and let us know when we are to expect this measure, so that we may be prepared to discuss it intelligently.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: We expect that this Bill will be introduced within a day or two.



TORONTO AND NIAGARA FALLS COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 100) to incorporate the Toronto and Niagara Power Company.-Mr. Campbell.
On section 11,
Mr. CLARKE.: I gave notice of an amendment to clause 11, the purport of which is to make it clear that this company, when Incorporated, shall not be permitted to


Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.: discriminate against individuals or municipalities in supplying power for any purpose, whether for lighting, heating or for motive purposes. The clause reads now :
The company may supply hydraulic, electric
or other power	at such rates and
upon such conditions as are agreed upon, a.id the company may contract with any company or person having erected or having power to erect.
I propose to amend the clause as follows :
The company shall supply hydraulic, electric or other power by means of cables, machinery or other forces, to all persons, corporations and municipalities desiring the same along the line of its works, or within a reasonable distance thereof ; and at such rates and upon such conditions as may be agreed upon ; and if unable to agree, upon such terms as may be ordered by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council of Canada.
The object, Mr. Chairman, of the amendment is this : It may be merely a coincidence, but the gentlemen who are now applying for incorporation and asking for this Act from parliament are those who practically control the Toronto Railway Company and the Toronto Electric Light Companies. The franchise of the Toronto Railway Company has some years yet to run ; it will be a most valuable franchise when it falls back again into the possession of the city. If this company is permitted to discriminate in the sale of power, it may render valueless a franchise that otherwise would be of very great value. There is nothing to prevent this company, after it has obtained incorporation, from using the power that it may become possessed of at Niagara Falls, only in its own interests, or in the promotion of those industries, the Electric Light Companies and the Toronto Railway Company, with which it is now specially identified. The feeling in favour of municipalities operating their franchises, such as tramways and lighting, is growing stronger every day. This company is being given very large powers in this Bill, and I think it is not at all unreasonable to make a reasonable provision that if In future, in five years, or three years, or ten years from now, the municipalities along the line of the company's works between Niagara Falls and Toronto should desire to operate a municipal electric light, or to operate their tramways, there should be no discrimination as to the rates at which the power should be supplied by this company. I think that these provisions are so reasonable and so just that the promoters of the Bill cannot offer any serious objection to them. I hope the committee and the promoter of the Bill will agree with me, and allow clause 11 to be amended in the direction I have indicated. It has been suggested that possibly the company might not have enough power to supply all the demands that may be made upon it by the municipalities or by individuals. It is proposed to

obviate a difficulty of that kind, if it should arise, by section 11a of which I have given uotice, that is, that the Railway Committee, upon application, shall adjudicate between the parties.


Hr. CAMPBELL.: This Bill has received very careful attention from the committee, and when these amendments were proposed it was not thought in the interest of the public that they should be adopted. For my part, I cannot see any necessity for changing the word 'may' into 'shall.' We have never done it in any Bills that we have passed through the House. This company is investing a large amount of money in an enterprise that is in the public interest, and like every other company, they have asked the right to supply municipalities, corporations and individuals along their line with hydraulic, and electric; power, and so on. It is, of course, thedr business, and their interest to supply these companies, that is what they are investing their money for, and they hope to make a profit out of it. But when you come on and say that they shall supply-make it compulsory, why, it is going a great length indeed; it is something that I am sure the committee will not insist on, because the company may not be able to supply all the power that is required. The amendment proposes that they shall supply ' to all persons, corporations and municipalities desiring the same along the line of its works or within a reasonable distance thereof.' A far-reaching clause indeed, and I do not think it would be fair at all to put such a clause as that in the Bill. This is not the first instance in which we have had legislation of this kind. Last year this House chartered the St. Lawrence Power Company, assented to on the 23rd of May, of last year, identically the same Act asking for the same power. We did not then find the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) insisting in putting in the word ' shall ' instead of the word ' may.' Again, we have had the Ottawa & Hull Power Company, a company seeking the same powers that this company is doing, asking the same privileges, and there was no question then that the word ' may ' should be struck out and the word ' shall ' be inserted. Then we have had the Ontario and Niagara Falls Power Company, identically the same as this, with the same powers and privileges, authorized by this parliament only two years ago, and in all that Bill there is no such stringent provision-absurd provision to my mind, I may say-as is proposed now by the member for West Toronto.


Mr. COWAN.: And it gets its power from the same source.


Archibald Campbell: Then we have the Hamilton and Lake Erie Power Company also granted a charter by this House, and we have the Continental Light and Heat Company. All these charters have been granted by this parliament on precisely the
same conditions as this company, asking the same privileges for generating heat, light and electricity by hydraulic power, and furnishing it to municipalities and corporations along the line. Parliament has never insisted on those companies being forced to do so, compelled, whether they can or not. The committee can readily see that if that word ' shall ' goes in there instead of ' may,' and if, for any cause, they are unable to furnish the power that might be demanded of them, they would be put in a very disastrous position. The men at the head of this company are men of standing, men of ability, their financial strength is undoubted, they are going on in a regular way, and propose to enter into this as a business venture, and will, I have no doubt, supply all the corporations, municipalities and persons along the line as far as they are able to do it. I, for one, must protest against the amendment that is proposed by the member for Toronto.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland).: I am inclined to agree altogether with the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell). In the first place, we have incorporated a large number of companies giving practically the same power that is given to this company. If it is desirable to have legislation along the lines suggested by the hon. member for West Toronto, then, it should be incorporated in a general Act and all companies should come under this general Act the same as railway companies do. Imagine picking out the Canadian Pacific Railway and saying that that road should be subject to a certain regulations to be fixed by the city of Toronto and at the same time exempting all other companies. It seems to me that if there is anything in the suggestions made by the hon. member for West Toronto they should be introduced into a general Act and made applicable to all companies similarly situated. The city of Toronto was represented by its solicitor before the committee when this Bill was considered and he appeared to agree with the changes and amendments made. Other representatives from the city of Toronto were also preseut at the committee and there was not any prolonged discussion of the matter. There are no extraordinary privileges being granted to this company ; they are simply asking for the usual Act of incorporation to enable them to do business. The hon. gentleman gives notice of an amendment proposing to strike out of clause 13 the words ' unnecessary damage.' Perhaps the committee have gone further on this occasion than is customary in other incorporations of this kind, because, when this point was brought to the attention of the committee, they did strike out the word ' unnecessary.' So, the Bill has been amended so far as this point is concerned. I submit that the amendments of which the hon. member for West Toronto has given notice should be incor-

porated in general legislation and not applied to this Bill, thus placing other companies that have already been incorporated in a better position than this company which is composed of most substantial men and men who are probably more likely than any other to carry out what is desirable in bringing electrical power to Niagara Falls and distributing it through that section of Ontario. I do not know what view I might take upon the merits of these suggestions if they came before the House in a proper way, but, I think it would be most unfair that they should be specially directed against this company, preventing them from going on with their business and leaving the work which they propose to do in the hands of others who are now incorpi'ated. I think that we should not direct this special legislation against this company while not applying it to all other companies.


Mr. PRINGLE.: Mr. Chairman, being a member of the Private Bills Committee, I took some interest in this Bill while it was under discussion. As stated by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Sutherland), the matter was very fully gone into in the committee. Mr. Fullerton, the very able counsel for the city of Toronto, raised a number of points and some of these points were met by the committee. I was under the impression that the Bill as passed was perfectly satisfactory to the representatives of the city of Toronto. I quite agree with the lion. Minister of Marine and Fisheries that if any restrictions are placed on commercial corporations such as this they should be placed by a general Act. We find that some years ago, in the state of New York, a charter was given to a large corporation for the development of power on the American side. In examining that charter I find that there are no restrictions of the sort which it is sought to impose here. It is optional with them to supply power and not imperative as is desired by the hon. mover of this amendment (Mr. Clarke). Tt seems to me that in regard to an enterprise of this sort, it is open to the keenest possible competition, because, there is not only the competition so far as Niagara is concerned, but there is also the competition from other plants and I therefore think that the duty of supplying electricity should not be made imperative as desired by the mover of the amendment. We find that the Ontario and Niagara Falls Power Company have also got large powers, and unquestionably there will he keen competition in so far as these two companies are concerned. Last year I took some interest in the incorporation of the St. Lawrence Power Company. I am aware that that company has developed a very fine power and now they are looking for consumers of that power and I am satisfied that competition will regulate matters of this sort. I find that we have precedent for the Bill which is now before the committee. Al-


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND (Oxford).: most similar provisions are in the Bills of the Bay of Quinte Railway Company, the British American Pulp and Paper Company, the Canadian Power Company and the Welland Canal Power and Supply Company, and dozens of others that have been passed within the last four or five years by this parliament. For these reasons I think the clause settled on by the Private Bills Committee should stand and that this amendment should not carry.


Mr. OSLER.: It is always difficult to frame an amendment to such a Bill as this is. but I think the argument which has been introduced here particularly against this amendment that because other Bills have been passed containing similar provisions tliis amendment should not be adopted is entirely fallacious. I noticed that the chief argument was that because Bills of this character have been passed before, we should not adopt this amendment, but if a wrong has been done in the past, if provisions have been adopted that do not properly protect the public, I think this wrong should not be perpetuated. I believe that all these power companies, from Niagara Falls particularly, will be amalgamated into one company and I venture to make the assertion that in ten years ail of these companies will be under one control. That control will have a franchise that this House will recognize and will be worth an enormous sum of money. We are proposing to grant to this company all the powers of expropriation that a railway company has. For that reason I contend that this company should be under control as completely as any railway company is under control, and while I am not able to agree to some of the amendments which have been suggested to the charter, because it is difficult to say just now wherein the danger lies with a company of this character or with several companies together and combining to control the whole of the electrical power from Niagara, I think the suggestion thrown out by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) is a very good one that such clauses should be embodied in a general Bill. I would suggest that in all these cases that the provisions of this charter should be subject to whatever Acts may be passed by this parliament hereafter. If that clause is put in I think it would safeguard sufficiently all the powers that may be dangerous which are granted in this Bill. I think that clause should be accepted by the promoters of this Bill, and it is one which is entirely on the lines suggested by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) is perhaps not aware that the Railway Act does apply to this company so far as expropriation powers are concerned, and that the clause was most carefully considered by the committee.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Would it do auy harm to put in this simple clause stating that this charter shall be subject to all Acts that may be passed by this House referring to electrical companies of this kind ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There can be no doubt that it is.


Edmund Boyd Osler: We have too many disputes with companies on that very point. In the committee this year we have not had very many disputes, but it is stated that certain companies are under the control of the government and the companies themselves say they are not under the control of the government. Let us make this quite clear. If it is in the clause already, why not insert this and make it without any doubt.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I cannot see the necessity for adding that clause. . Parliament is supreme in these matters, and it can at any time pass a general Bill which will govern matters of this Sort. The clause proposed might be a serious handicap to the people who are endeavouring to develop the power at Niagara. It is very uncertain whether it is possible to profitably transmit power for a long distance, and anything which might hinder the company in its financing would possibly destroy the franchise which they will obtain under this Bill. I know nothing whatever about this company, but it may be that they would require to issue bonds, and I do not think we should put in the Bill anything which would prevent them carrying on their operations. We all know that parliament is supreme and can at any time pass a general Bill, if it is thought that injustice is being done.


Mahlon K. Cowan: As chairman of the Private Bills Committee it is only fair to the House that I should state what took place in that committee. We had probably the largest meeting of the committee which took place this session, when we considered this Bill. Thirty or forty members must have been present. Mr. Fullerton, the solicitor of the city of Toronto, was in attendance. We brought Mr. Fullerton up to the table and told him that the committee was quite willing to extend to him all the privileges of a member, and that if at any time he took objection to a clause, either on behalf of the city of Toronto or any other municipality, the committee would deem it a favour if he drew attention to it. Mr. Fullerton took a seat at the table and several times he made suggestions, very many of which, if not all, were adopted by the committee. Mr. Brock, the member for Centre Toronto, was also present. As we know, Mr. Brock is largely interested in the financial affairs of Toronto, and his business interests are identified with the prosperity and progress of that city. The committee considered this Bill for upwards of two hours, and the following sections were amended : 5, 8, 12, 13, 21. An absolutely new section was inserted, and section 20 with four sub-clauses was stricken out. Mr. Fullerton raised the point concerning the right to supply every municipality, but when his attention was drawn to the fact that section 90 of the Railway Act was incorporated in the Bill, it apparently satisfied his objection. Section 90 of the Railway Act reads :
When any company has power by any Act of the parliament of Canada to construct and maintain lines of telegraph or telephone, or lines for the conveyance of light, heat, power, or electricity, such company may with the consent of the municipal council or other authority having jurisdiction over any highway, square or other public place, enter thereon.
While this company has power to expropriate, they have not the power, without the consent of the municipality, to use these streets or public places, and Mr. Fullerton, as counsel for the city of Toronto, did not deny this. The committee thought the entire matter rested in the hands of the city of Toronto. When this company goes to' erect poles or wires across the streets of Toronto, it can only do so with the consent of the municipal council of that city, or of other municipalities in which it operates. Surely the city of Toronto, with its solicitor, and able representatives like the gentlemen who have spoken to-day, ought to be able to look after this Bill. If the municipal council of Toronto have not sufficient ability to guard the interests of the city and to make a contract that light, heat and power shall be supplied at the current rates, the committee thought that they were not called upon to interfere. I rose for the purpose of stating that this Bill was considered with great care; that no less than uiue amendments were made; one new clause inserted, and one clause with four subsections absolutely stricken out. Whenever a suggestion was made that suggestion was adopted with the unanimous consent of the committee; at no time was there a motion made that did not meet with the approval of the committee, and the committee at no time was divided.


Mr. MONK.: I do not think that because this Bill was not amended in the committee in the sense in which it was desired to amend it now, that we should he estopped from amending it, if it is thought just to do so. It happened that my hou. friend (Mr. Cowan) was not present once when a Bill was considered in committee, and the House came to his relief on that occasion.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Not at all.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I believe it did.


Mahlon K. Cowan: The hou. gentleman is entirely mistaken.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think that was the^ case in connection with the Red Deer Valley Bill.


Mahlon K. Cowan: The motion before the House was to refer it back for further consideration. I never asked to have amended in this House something that had been passed after due deliberation in the committee.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that he was absent from the committee when the Red Deer Bill was considered.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Certainly.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: And he wanted the Bill referred back.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Not because I was absent, but because of a technicality the opponents of the Bill had taken advantage of, and that had never previously been taken in the Railway Committee.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is no question but that my hon. friend (Mr. Osier) has the right to propose any amendment in the House which he deems advisable. I quite agree with the Minister of Marine that it would be desirable to have a general law applicable to companies of this kind, but as I understand, the promoters of this company at present control the Toronto Street Railway as well as the lighting of that city. As was pointed out by my hon. friend (Mr. Osier) the franchise of one of these companies is going to expire within a few years, and it is evident that in this particular case should the city desire to retake control of the franchise it will be quite possible for this company to hold up the city in respect to the power. This is, therefore, a very special case. As coming from the city of Montreal, I may say that we have seen such things happen there. It will be desirable to provide if it is possible to do so by this amendment, that in case of difficulties of that kind arising it would be possible for the city of Toronto to obtain that power upon the payment of what might be considered legitimate compensation to be fixed by an independent authority. It seems to me that if it is possible to provide for this .contingency, as it may present itself very shortly, it would be desirable to do so.


Mr. FRASER.: If that was the point, there might be something in it, although even then it should be done by a general law. -The city of Toronto has power already to acquire the company. It has power to do that, whether the company want to or not.


An hon. MEMBER.: No.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. If ' shall ' was inserted in the place of * may ' that might be the case, but there is not a man along the whole line of this company that can compel them to supply him.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would the hon. gentleman read section 11a.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 


Duncan Cameron Fraser: What has that got to do with it ?	11a will be read in the light of
section 11. It says :
The Railway Committee shall, upon application of the company or any person, corporation or municipality, have power to make an order, in lieu of an agreement under clause II, which shall be binding on the parties.
Until we have a general law covering all such cases, I do not think we should commence with one particular company.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Where are you going to commence ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Commence by bringing in a general law. Why did the hon. gentleman not introduce a Bill in that direction at the beginning of this session ? I regret that these amendments were not moved in the committee ; but at any rate I shall have to vote against compelling the company to do what is proposed, whether it wants to or not.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I have been listening now for four or five years to the argument which is made use of at times and abandoned at times, when it suits the particular exigencies of the case, that because a Bill has happened to pass through a Standing Committee of this House, therefore it ought not to be amended in this House.
Mr. FRASEJt. No, by no means. We can change the whole Bill here if we want to ; but what I said was that after a large committee had gone carefully into a Bill, they had a better opportunity of arriving at a correct decision than we have now.


Mr. WADE.: If the hon. member for West Toronto considers the matter a little more carefully, I think he will see that this amendment is not advisable. I had occasion last year to make inquiries from the very best authorities with regard to the transmission of electricity over long distances, and I learned from those parties that it is an open question to-day whether it is possible to tap a long distance line very frequently along its route. It has not been demonstrated that it can be done successfully ; but the amendment lays on the company the absolute burden of tapping their line from the time they start at Niagara Falls until they reach the city of Toronto. That is absolute and binding. Section 11a, if the interpretation placed upon it by the hon. member for West Toronto is correct, is in conflict with section 11. It seems to me we should have some very good reason before making such a departure as is proposed in the case of this company. We have been granting similar powers to other companies all along. .It may be suggested that we were unwise in doing so ; but if we were, and if a departure is now made, it should be in the form of a general law. If the city of Toronto is going to fall heir to its rights in the street railway in a few years, is there



APKIL 28. 1902

[Stage Direction]
any reason why we should lay this burden on these people ? There is no monopoly in electricity, because there will always be the check involved in the cost of producing it by steam. Besides, the city has the right to harness the power, and bring it in for itself if it likes. If the Bill is amended as the hon. member for West Toronto proposes, you will not find a capitalist to put a dollar into the enterprise, because it will be at the mercy of every person and municipality along the line.
Edward Frederick Clarke: I cannot undertake to express an opinion as to the soundness of the views, of the two hon. gentlemen who have last spoken, not being a lawyer ; but the simple object of these amendments is that this company, which now practically owns the street railway and the electric lighting of the city of Toronto, ought to be compelled, before the powers asked for in this Bill are granted, to supply power to every municipality along its line that may apply for it and may be willing to pay for it, provided the company has the power to dispose of.


Fletcher Bath Wade: What objection would there be to these different municipalities through which this line passes before they give their consent to the erection of poles, saying: * We will only allow you to do this on condition that you supply us with electricity at certain prices ' ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: X am advised that the municipalities have not that power. This company being incorporated as a company to construct works for the general advantage of Canada, is given "a very great privilege.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: How does the hon. gentleman think the company could enter a municipality without its consent ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: The municipality, as I am advised-I speak, of course, as a layman- cannot declare that this company or any similar company must not enter within the limits of the municipality until it agrees to supply power to the municipality on reasonable terms. If the hon. gentlemen opposite, who are objecting to these amendments, will provide in this Bill that this company cannot enter into the city of Toronto or exercise the powers asked for under this Bill without the consent of the municipality, we shall be prepared to withdraw all these amendments. The gentlemen who are applying for this Act of incorporation control the Toronto Street Railway and the Electric Light Companies, and if this provision is not inserted in the Bill, they can sell to themselves all the power available at Niagara Falls.
There is nothing to prevent them from thus possessing themselves of all the power that will be available when these works are constructed. The hon. gentleman asks me why the city does not supply its own power. It endeavoured to obtain authority from
the legislature of Ontario to generate power at the Falls and bring it across for municipal purposes, but was refused that right; and now we have half a dozen private individuals, however worthy they may be, coming to this parliament and asking for authority to construct these works and be given practically a monopoly of all the power generated at the Falls, which they may sell to whom and at what price they please. Is that a reasonable proposition in view of the value of the franchise we are giving them under this Bill ? The hon. gentleman says that Bills giving similar franchises have passed this House time and again.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to put a question to him ? The question I wish to put is : How this section 90 of the Railway Act, as amended in 1889, affects this question ? The amendment is as follows :
When any company has power by any Act of parliament to construct and maintain' lines of telegraph or telephone or lines for the conveyance of light, hear., power or electricity, such company may with the consent of the municipal council or other authority having jurisdiction over any highway, square or other public place, enter thereon, &e.
The reason I pnt my question is this:	We
had this matter up in committee and it was there threshed out. The hon. gentleman was not present. The effect of this amendment of section 90 of the Railway Act was there thoroughly threshed out. I rather gather, from what the hon. gentleman says, that the section of the Act does not mean what it purports. Well, I understand that it means just what it expresses. All companies have to obtain the consent of a municipality before passing through it. And I want to ask, what is the effect on this question of section 90 of the Railway Act, as amended in 1899 ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I did not know that the hon. gentleman was going to make a speech when he asked permission to put a question. Well, I am not qualified to answer what the force and meaning of section 90 of the Consolidated Railway Act really are. But these amendments were prepared by the counsel of the city of Toronto, who considers them essential to protect the interests of the city, and therefore asks that they be incorporated in this Bill before it becomes law. It is surely not unreasonable to ask that a great municipality like the city of Toronto, which contains more than one-tenth the population of the whole province, shall be protected in its rights when a company is seeking incorporation giving it such great power ? There is no desire on the part of the city of Toronto to prevent the incorporation of this company. But what we do desire is that if the company is given power to erect works in order to bring electric energy from Niagara Falls to Toronto, it shall not be allowed to discrimin-

ate after it lias done so, against any individual or corporation, even tile corporation of the city of Toronto. What objection can there be to a provision of that kind, especially when, in case of disagreement or dispute, the Governor in Council is authorized to adjudicate between the parties ? It may be only a coincidence, but it is a fact that the people seeking incorporation control a lot of railway companies, whose franchises are becoming more and more valuable. They control the franchises of the Toronto Railway Company and the suburban roads running out of Toronto, connected with the Toronto Railway Company, and the franchises of the electric light companies, and when these franchises fall in-


An hon. MEMBER.: When will that be ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: It does not make a particle of difference, so far as the principle is concerned. Is it not reasonable to ask this House to provide that when they do fall in, should the municipality decide to operate these franchises itself, it shall be enabled to do so ? That is the effect of the amendment the committee are asked to agree to. It has been said several times that I was not present at the meeting of the committee at which this Bill was considered. Well, I am not a member of that committee, but. I had another committee meeting to attend to, or I would have been there. I do not know what was done at the committee meeting, but, of course, accept unreservedly the statement of hon. gentlemen who were present; blit I siay that these amendments were prepared by the counsel of the city of Toronto, and handed to me before he left Ottawa. If it be said that this company and all other similar companies will come under the operation of a general Act, when it is passed, that need not have a deterent effect on those who propose to put their capital into this scheme. What I assume to provide against, is discrimination, and I contend that there ought to be a clause in this Bill providing that this company shall come under the operation of any general law that may be passed in the future, dealing with this and other companies of a similar nature. Surely it is not unreasonable that we should have a provision of this kind in. the Bill ? It would be a great injustice if parliament were to pass a Bill, under the operation of which this company might hold up any municipality, by having a monopoly of electrical energy, and prevent the people getting the greatest amount of benefit out of any franchise which they desire to dispose of or to operate. There is no desire to prevent the incorporation of this company, but there is no reason why the rights of municipalities should not be protected. I hope, therefore, that the committee will agree to the amendment suggested.
Amendment negatived.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 


Edward Frederick Clarke: I beg to move that the following clause be added :
lla. The Railway Committee shall upon application of the company, or of any person, corporation or municipality have power to make an order in lieu of an agreement, under clause 11 hereof, which shall be binding upon the parties, and may determine to whom' and at what prices and within what distance such power shall be supplied under the provisions of clauses 11, 12 and 13 of this Act.
Bill reported.
Mr. CAMPBELL moved third reading of the Bill.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Notwithstanding the adverse decision of the committee, I desire to take the sense of the House on this measure, and I beg, therefore, to move that the Bill be not now read the third time, but he referred to the Committee of the Whole for further consideration.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Is the amendment in order without notice being given ?


The SPEAKER.: The amendment is in order. It is that the Bill be referred back to the Committee of the Whole for further consideration. Besides I think that notices have been given of the amendments.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Clarke) :
YEkS :
Messieurs
Barker,	Lancaster,
Birkett,	Leonard,
Blain,	McIntosh,
Cargill,	Monk,
Clarke,	Oliver,
Earle,	Osier,
Hackett,	Simmons,
Kaulbach,	Tolton,
Kidd,	Vrooman.-18.
 NAYS : Messieurs
Alcorn,	Macdonald,
Angers,	Mackie,
Bazinet,	MacKinnon,
Beland,	MacLaren
Belcourt,	(Huntingdon),
Blair,	McCool.
Borden (King's, N.S.), McCreary,	
Boyd,	McGugan,
Brunet,	McLennan,
Bureau,	Marcil (Bonayenture)
Calvert,	Matheson,
Campbell,	Maxwell,
Carroll,	Meigs, ,
Champagne,	Monet,
Christie,	Parmelee,
Costigan,	Paterson,
Cowan,	Pringle,
Davis,	Reid (Restigouche),
Demers (St.	John), Richardson,
Douglas,	Riley,
Dugas,	Roche (Halifax),
Dyment,	Rosamond,
Emmerson,	Ross (Ontario),

Farquharson,
Flint,
Fraser,
Gibson,
Girard,
Holmes,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.),
Johnston (Cape Breton),
Johnston (Lambton),
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),
Lavell,
LeBlanc,
Lewis,
Logan,
Loy,
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 99) respecting the Montreal and Southern Counties Railway Company.-Mr. Demers (St. John and Iberville).
Bill (No. 96) to incorporate the Manitoba and Keewatin Railway Company.-Mr. McCreary.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 129) respecting the Great Eastern Railway Company.-Mr. Taylor.
Bill (No. 128) respecting the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company.-Mr. Taylor.
Bill (No. 118) for the relief of James Brown.-Mr. Clarke.
Bill (No. 126) to incorporate the Bishop of Moosonee.-Air. Clarke.
Bill (No. 130) respecting the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.- Mr. Cowan.
Bill (No. 131) respecting the Manitoulin and North Shore Railway Company.-Air. Cowan.
Bill (No. 125) to amend the Acts relating to the Ottawa Northern and Western Railway.-Air. Champagne.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. PORTER-by Air. Roche (Marquette)- asked :
1.	Has any application been made by the commandant of the Royal Military College, Kingston, for leave to have a detachment of the cadets of the college accompany other detachments to the Coronatlon>
?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to send a detachment of cadets from the Royal Military College, Kingston, to attend the Coronation ?
3.	If any application has been made, as in question one, has any, and if so, what, reply has been given there to ?
The MINISTER OF AIILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden).: 1.	No.
2.	No.


SOCKS FOR SOUTH AFRICAN CONSTABULARY.
[Stage Direction]
Air. HENDERSON-by Air. Lancaster- asked :
1.	Were tenders invited for the supply of. socks required for the third contingent of constabulary sent to South Africa ?
2.	If so, to whom was the contract awarded, and at what price per dozen pairs ?
3.	If no tenders were invited, from whom were such goods purchased, and at what price ?
The AIINISTER OF AIILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden).: This is purely an Imperial matter, the contract is for the Imperial government.


TOLLS ON BRITISH YUKON RAILWAY.
Air. CLARKE asked :: 1.	Are the by-laws respecting the tolls and charges to be fixed, regulated and charged by the British Yukon Railway Company, mentioned in the Order in Council published in the 'Canada Gazette' on the 1st day of March, 1902, still in force ?
2.	Has any one, or more, and if so, which, of the said by-laws, or the approval thereof by the Governor in Council, been rescinded ?
3.	With regard to the condition of the said Order in Council :-'That by-laws Nos. 4 and 5 be approved, subject to the express understanding and condition that no tolls deemed excessive by the Governor in Council will be charged for transport over the railway between Skagway and White Pass ; and that, if such excessive tolls are charged, the Governor in Council may rescind any Order in Council approving the tolls fixed by the said by-laws, or may reduce such tolls,' is the government aware that since the date of the said Order in Council, a charge of $31 per ton-taking class 10 as a basis-is made for hauling a ton 21 miles, from Skagway to the Summit, while from1 the Summit to White Pass, 90 miles, the charge is $14 per ton, making a total charge of $45 per ton for 110 miles ?
4.	If such a charge is made, does the government consider the toll excessive, within the intention of the said Order in Council ?
5.	Has the government rescinded the said Order ir. Council in whole or in part, or reduced the tolls thereby approved ?


The AIINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Not any one or more of tlife said bylaws or the approval of the Governor in Council have been rescinded.
3.	The government is not aware that since the date of the said Order in Council a charge of $31 per ton is made for hauling twenty-one miles from Skagway to the Summit while from the Summit to White Pass, ninety miles, the charge is $14 per ton.
Ross (Victoria, N.S.), Russell,
Sifton,
Stewart,
Sutherland (Essex), Sutherland (Oxford), Talbot,
Tarte,
Thompson,
Tucker, .
Turgeon,
Wade,
Ward,
Wright.-74.
;639

4.	The government is not aware that such charge is made, and has therefore had no reason to consider the question.
5.	No, it has not.


GARDEN PRODUCE-A REMODELLING OF THE TARIFF.
Mr. J. E. EMILE LEONARD (Laval).: (Translation.) moved :
That it is greatly in the interest of the market gardeners and the farmers, that the duties on our Canadian garden products be so adjusted as to guarantee the Canadian fanner an effective protection against foreign competition.
In moving this resolution, which is the first one I have the honour to submit to this House, allow me, Mr. Speaker, to define my policy on all matters pertaining to agriculture, which is the corner stone of the prosperity of our country. I am in favour of protecting the Canadian farmer, and that by any means and at any cost ; and to this end, both sides of the House should join hands, and, in discussing this national question, they should meet on neutral ground, when all party divisions being cast aside, we could all direct our common efforts to improving the condition of the farming community. For my part, I have no hesitation in saying that I would be ready to support and co-operate with any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House, and even with out and out Liberals. I have the honour to represent in this House the county of Laval, which is rightly called the garden of Montreal, and in that county, as in most agricultural counties in Canada, garden produce is an important feature of the farming business, and I believe that the government ought, without further delay, to readjust the duties imposed upon market produce imported into this country, so as to satisfy the demands of the gardeners. Several important delegations have waited upon the government with a view to asking for a more efficacious protection in favour of their products, and, since then, our farmers have been anxiously awaiting the changes, the need of which is so keenly felt and which should be granted by any government who strives to protect and encourage the tillers of the soil. What do our market gardeners require at the hands of the government ? What they are asking for, Sir, is but fair and reasonable ; like all workingmen, they want to be well paid for their work, or in other words, they want to be protected from the encroachments of foreigners. Now, Sir, a very simple way of reaching that object would be to change our small ad valorem duty into a specific duty, and that is the only way in which we can give them fair protection. Market gardening is developing very rapidly in this country, and in my county, and in the neighbouring county as well, there are nearly 200 market gardeners, who employ on an


Hon. Mr. BLATR.: average four or five hands each, some of them even employing as many as thirty hands, in the raising of vegetables for the Montreal market. Those gardeners rank in the census as farmers. Out of that number about 125 grow vegetables in hot-beds, and the number of those hot-beds is very near 20,000, of a total value of $150,000, and the capital invested in that business, such as horses, teams and implements or tools, must reach a still higher figure. The implements used by gardeners, the teams, the clothes, and indeed everything that they require, is highly protected by duties to which they do not object, provided that their products receive the same protection. At the present moment, market gardeners in Canada are only protected by a duty ad valorem, based on the cost prices in the Southern States, where those vegetables are raised in open ground at very low cost, at a season of the year when, in Canada, the snow still covers the ground.
I have now on my desk a petition signed by a large number of gardeners of West Lambton, asking for a readjusting of cus

toms duties. That petition has been submitted to the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson), but so far it has remained unanswered. This petition reads as follows :-
We, the undersigned, farmers and gardeners of the electoral division of West Lambton, beg to call respectfully your attention to the following articles of the Am ;ri :an tariff as compared with the Canadian tariff.
Then they go on to say that a duty of 25 cents per bushel is levied on potatoes, whereas, under the Canadian tariff, they pay only 15 cents per bushel. Cabbages must pay a duty of 3 cents each, under the American tariff, whereas the Canadian tariff only imposes a duty ad valorem of 25 per cent. Onions pay a duty of 40 cents per bushel under the American tariff, whereas the Canadian tariff imposes a duty ad valorem of 25 per cent.
They further state that, as to those three articles, the Canadian producer finds it well-nigh impossible to compete on the American market, on account of the difference in tariff rates ; whilst the American producer can easily come in here to compete with the Canadian producer on his own market. As a consequence, the American producer, having the advantage of a milder climate, in the south of the United States, can put his products much earlier on the market, and at the very moment when the Canadian producer could hope to reap the benefit of his early production, he finds his own market flooded with foreign products, which, as is well known, cannot compare in quality with those raised here, but only serve the purpose of lowering prices, to the great detriment of the Canadian producer.
A remodelling of the tariff would, in our opinion, remedy that evil. Such a readjustment should have for its object the raising

of our tariff so as to enhance the price of American vegetables to the Canadian consumer, and enable our farmers to secure a sufficient price for their vegetables grown during the winter season.
This petition is backed by a resolution passed by the Association of market gardeners of Ontario, who also ask the lion. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) to amend the tariff and to impose the following duties
Asparagus, 3 cents per ib.
Cabbages, 3 cents each.
Cauliflowers, 3 cents each.
Celery, 25 cents per doz.
Beans, 50 cents per bushel.
Green Cucumbers, 20 cents per doz.
Onions, 40 cents per bushel of 56 !b.
Beans, 50 cents per bushel.
Tomatoes, 5 cents per lb.
Water melons, 5 cents each.
Musk melons (cantaloupe), 3 cents each.
Spinach, 25 cents per bushel.
Other vegetables, not elsewhere enumerated, including green corn, 25 per cent.
It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to speak at greater length on this question, the more so as the hon. Minister of Customs is perfectly acquainted with the matter, from the great number of petitions bearing on this special subject which have been presented to him within the last two years. The only serious objection that can be raised is that the consumer will have to pay a little more for early vegetables. Well, even this objection falls to the ground if we take into consideration the fact that those who can afford to eat green vegetables in the winter, when there is a great scarcity of them, have certainly the means to pay a little more without inconvenience. Moreover, what has taken place in the case of manufactured products will also happen in the case of farm produce ; and the impetus thus given to market gardening will give rise to local competition, and in the end the consumer will not have to pay any more than he does at present, and we shall have promoted and encouraged an industry which may well be truly called national.
I agree that it is somewhat late, at this stage of the session, to present this resolution. But I could not do it sooner, having had to wait for some of the papers asked [DOT] for, and which the minister has just brought down. At any rate, this question is essentially a Canadian question, and this House, irrespective of party affiliations, ought forthwith to take into consideration the grievances complained of by Canadian market gardeners. Those complaints do not come from any single province, but they come from every province, and, as a matter of fact, the department of the Minister of Customs is flooded with similar requests coming from all parts of the Dominion.
It is not sufficient for the government to encourage railways, and to protect commerce and manufactures, because, if the
wants of the farming community are not attended to, and farmers are unable to get a living, it is to no purpose that we are passing legislation here to encourage railways, manufacturers or immigration, agriculture being the very corner stone of our national prosperity.
Before voting appropriations for immigration, before throwing away our money, and launching upon extravagant schemes, as the present government are doing, we ought to consider if it is not possible for us to remedy the existing evil. What I have just called your attention to is one of those evils which we ought to be able to eradicate. If that evil exists among the farming community it is only for want of adequate protection. I have spoken at greater length than I intended because the question is a very important one, as it affects a large number of our fellow-countrymen. I think all the honourable gentlemen representing agricultural counties ought to participate in this debate and support my demands.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte).: (Translation.) Would the hon. deputy, before resuming his seat, be kind enough to tell me upon what particular articles he desires to have higher duties imposed than those now in force ?


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: (Translation.) I have pointed them out a little while ago, namely, asparagus, 3 cents a pound; cabbages, 3 cents each ; cauliflowers, 3 cents each ; celery, 25 cents a dozen ; green pease, 50 cents a bushel ; green encumbers, 50 cents per dozen ; onions, 40 cents per bushel of 50 pounds ; potatoes, 25 cents per bushel ; melons, 3 cents each ; spinach, 25 cents per bushel ; other vegetables, not elsewhere enumerated, including green corn, 23 per cent. Such are the demands embodied in the petition of the market gardeners.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Mr. Tarte).: (Translation.) One word only. We should bear in mind that the present tariff is the same as was in force in former years. Then it should not be forgotten that the articles on which they want us to impose higher duties are the very same which we cannot produce all the year round. There is a considerable trade in garden produce, especially in Montreal. The city of Montreal is the great distributing point for the products mentioned by the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Leonard.) I entertain considerable doubts as to the increase of duties on those products imported from abroad being likely to result in something practical, if you take into consideration the fact that our farmers cannot supply that foreign market, because they do not produce those vegetables all the year round. Many articles, amongst those just mentioned by the hon. gentleman, are imported from the United States, to which country a little later in tin1 year many similar products of our own are

exported. If we raised the duties on those products as asked for by the hon. gentleman we should incur the risk of retaliation on the part of the United States as to products coming from Canada. We carry on, for instance, a considerable trade in melons with our neighbours, and our duty on that article is 25 per cent, whereas it is on the free list in the United States. What would my hon. friend say if the American government should decide to impose on that article a similar duty to ours ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) That would make no difference.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: (Translation.) The hon. gentleman says that it woud make no difference. But I think it would make a good deal of difference. If it was the same for the United States, why should it not be the same for us ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) They don't grow melons in the United States.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: (Translation.) I may tell the hon. gentleman that I have eaten some excellent melons in the United States.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) They had, no doubt, been grown here.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: (Translation.) Of course, they are not so palatable as those grown by some constituents of my hon. friend. At any rate, it is of public notoriety that the greatest number of the articles, upon which we are asked to increase the duty, are not produced in the winter months. We should thereby be increasing the prices of those products to the great mass of consumers without our market gardeners being benefited thereby.
That question was much debated during the last election in the county of Laval, and that is no doubt, one of the grounds on which my hon. friend (Mr. Leonard) has thought it fit to-day to address the House, in discharge of the mandate received at the hands of those who are anxious to have the duties increased.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: (Translation.) Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: (Translation.) My hon. friend wants us to raise the duties upon lettuce, cucumbers, tomatoes, asparagus, celery, beets, onions, &c. It is well known that in the winter months we do not grow cabbages nor cucumbers. We are also aware that it is extremely difficult to raise tomatoes in the winter season. We had to pay, last winter, 50 cents a pound for tomatoes of Canadian growth, whilst American tomatoes were being sold on the Montreal market at 20 cents a pound.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: I am no free trader, but it is necessary to use common sense in our transactions in this world, and I declare here and now that I object to paying 50 cents a pound for Canadian tomatoes, when I can have American tomatoes for 20 cents. It is really going too far. This shows conclusively that tomatoes cannot be grown here with advantage in the winter months. So with asparagus and cucumbers. We do not produce asparagus nor celery in the winter season. There is not to be found one single gardener in the whole island of Montreal, or around Ottawa or Toronto, who can grpw lettuce as good as that imported from the United States in the winter.
It is idle to appeal to prejudices. There are enough people buying tomatoes and lettuce, for let it be known that I am speaking the plain unvarnished truth. Cauliflowers are not grown in the winter months in Canada. I agree that during a certain season of the year they can be kept, perhaps during two or three months. The cauliflowers we buy in the winter are imported from the United States.
In short, I believe that what the hon. gentleman is aiming at is to make political capital with the electors and to catch popular favour rather than appealing to their reason. Let my hon. friend allow me, in all due deference, to call his attention to the fact that, in the province of Quebec, as elsewhere, farmers have a great deal of common sense. Go through the county of Laval and ask the market gardeners if they can produce cucumbers, celery, tomatoes and cauliflowers in the winter months, and they will tell you that they cannot do so.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: (Translation.) How then does the hon. minister account for the uneasiness which prevails among market gardeners ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: (Translation.) It is very easy to create ill-feeling among people who think they do not sell their products high enough ; but that grievance can easily be remedied. The market gardeners around Montreal receive just as much protection as any other class of the community does, and I may further say that those gardeners are the most prosperous people in the country. Should I be disposed, _ nevertheless, to add something to their hap- " piness, would that be conducive to the happiness of other classes of the community much more numerous than the market gardeners are. To my mind, the consumers of Montreal should not be forced to pay extravagant prices for these products.
The consumers would be forced either to deprive themselves of vegetables or to pay exorbitant prices for them. Should we impose additional duties, consumers would have to pay 25 or 30 per cent more, nor could we hope thereby to increase the production of those articles which cannot be grown to advantage in this country the

whole year round. There are seasons when we must import vegetables from the United States, because they can there be grown more easily and much more cheaply.
As I have stated before, the Canadian tariff is the same as the American tariff.


Mr. TALBOT.: (Translation.) With the exception of potatoes, which pay 10 cents more in the United States.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. (Mr. Tarte).: (Translation.) I say that our tariff is about the same. Now, by increasing our tariff all we would gain would be to see our products shut out from the United States.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: (Translation.) There is this great difference, that the climate of the United States is favourable to the production of vegetables, whereas the ~ Canadian climate is not so advantageous. And that is why our farmers ought to receive more protection than is given to the farmers in the United States.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: (Translation.) My hon. friend knows very well that, even if additional duties were imposed on peas, tomatoes, cucumbers and other vegetables, that would neither improve the climate nor enable us to grow those vegetables to advantage during the winter months. The increase in the duties asked for by my hon. friend would only result in forcing the consumer to pay more for those products, without improving the condition of the Canadian producer. To my mind, such a proposition is preposterous.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) is not very familiar with the subject, but that does not surprise me, because it is not in his department. I am sorry that he should look upon this matter as a purely electoral matter. I am afraid that the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) looks upon it in the same light, from the words which fell from his lips while the hon. Minister of Public Works was answering my hon. friend from Laval (Mr. Leonard). It is not a mere electoral matter. It is a serious question. Although a local question, it interests deeply all the gardeners who live in the vicinity of large cities, not around Montreal only, but in the vicinity of Toronto and all of the great cities of this Dominion, and if that statement is well founded, I do not think a matter which interests such a large class of people should be treated in the light manner in which it has been treated by the hon. Minister of Public Works. Of course, it is not in his department, but it is surprising that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) should not be here and say a few words upon this matter and be able to give us the views of the government. This motion has been on the Order paper since the first day of the session. It
has been the first order on the paper for ten days, and under these circumstances, as this is the last day, if I understand it aright, reserved for motions of this sort, I submit that it was the duty of the hon. Minister of Agriculture to be here in his seat and tell us what the position of the government is upon the question.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I am sure my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) will be sorry to know that if the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) is not in his seat to-day it is because he is unwell and cannot attend.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am sorry to hear that the hon. Minister of Agriculture is unwell, but in his absence, I presume, that some members of the government will be able to give to the question a little more consideration than it has been possible for the hon. Minister of Public Works to do. This is not a new matter, before this parliament, or before the government. It has been pending for two years. [DOT] It is a matter affecting not only interests of the market gardeners of my own province, represented here by the hon. member for Laval, and by myself, but of the gardeners of the province of Ontario, for, Sir, it is not very long ago that the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) who, at that time, seemed to be extremely zealous in the interests of the gardeners of West York, came down and met me here in Ottawa. I came with a delegation of the Association of Market Gardeners of the province of Quebec and with the delegates of the Association of Market Gardeners of West York, the delegates of the Association of the province of Quebec waited upon the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), and I think the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson), and there exposed what was considered to be a real grievance. This was just before the election in West York, and although no positive assurance was given us by the government, we went away having been assured by the three members of the government present that our requests and petitions would receive the earnest consideration of the government. Now, it seems to me, that that earnest con sideration is not manifested by the few remarks which the hon. Minister of Public Works has made. It is impossible, I deem it, Sir, that the requests and the claims we made could have been as carefully investigated as we were promised, if, as I take it, the answer of the government is contained in what was said here by the hon. Minister of Public Works. Not only was this important step taken by the market gardeners of both provinces, but both provinces were absolutely in accord, not only as to the necessity for a change in the tariff, as a matter of justice, but even, what is more remarkable, both the association of the province of Ontario and the association of the province of Quebec, without

having conferred previously, came to precisely the same conclusions as to the alterations to be made. This, it seems to me, is an indication that there is something more in what we are doing now than a mere election clamour. There is a grievance, and it is the duty of this government to remedy that grievance. Take the city of Montreal-I have no doubt the hon. member for West York will1 continue to support us in the demand we are making and will give us a similar explanation as to the condition of things in his own neighbourhood-in the neighbourhood of the city of Montreal we have over 200 gardeners. This will be news, I am sure, to the hon. Minister of Public Works, and to some other members of this House. We have over 200 gardeners who each employ 4 or 5 people.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to tell me how many of these gardeners are carrying on winter culture ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Winter culture ? Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Tarte) tell me if he means the early culture that takes place in the beginning of spring when the snow is still on the ground ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Because, if he does it affects these two hundred men. As to those who have hot houses or conservatories around Montreal, I could not speak, but there is a large number. Mr. Legare, in my own county, I should say, has one mile nearly of conservatories and he burns 1,200 tons of coal in carrying on winter culture.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What kind of products is Mr. Legare selling in the winter months ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend will see in a moment how entirely erroneous his statement is in regard to winter culture, because there is not a single vegetable, except asparagus, on which we are asking for no protection, that we cannot produce and that is the reason why we want some change in the tariff.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would like to know what products these gentlemen put on the market in the winter months. Take Mr. Legare, for instance; he does not produce beans and peas in the winter.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: He produces them all.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend is wrongly informed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They are all produced, but they are not produced to any considerable extent, because they cannot compete with the American producer. We are not Negroes or Chinese, and we do not live in South Carolina. If we were, and if we lived in South Carolina, we could compete, Mr. MONK.
but we cannot do it under existing conditions. 1 say that these two hundred men in the vicinity of Montreal employ from four to five persons each. That is the average number of men which they employ. Some of them employ twenty-five and even thirty men. These two hundred people, with the others I have mentioned, cultivate vegetables purely and simply-exclusively vegetables for the Montreal market. They are not farmers in the ordinary sense of the word; they are market gardeners, and it is they and others in a like position whose interests we are defending here. The hon. Minister of Public Works spoke about winter culture. That, of course, is an interesting question, because there is a beginning of winter culture which would be greatly increased if we could only obtain what we are asking. The hon. Minister of Public Works, himself, eloquently, at a banquet at Montreal not very long ago, a very important banquet, the banquet of the Board of Trade at which the hon. Minister of Finance was present, and eloquent as the hon. Minister of Finance is. to my mind, the hon. Minister of Public Works was far more eloquent upon that occasion-advocated reciprocity of tariffs with the Americans and the adoption of a higher tariff to protect us. That is all that we have asked. We do not ask for anything more than that. We ask to be placed, as respects American garden produce, not on the higher plane, but on the same plane as the Americans.


The MINISTER QF PUBLIC WORKS.: Are we not on the same plane now ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, that is where the hon. gentleman makes a mistake and that is why 1 say this subject has not been investigated, because, if it had been my hon. friend would not have committed himself to such a heresy as that. The Americans have heavier duties against us than we have against them, and what the market gardeu-ers of Canada ask for is similarity of tariff's with the Americans. I have not the privilege of being a market gardener myself, but I am speaking from information furnished to my hon. friend from Laval (Mr. Leonard) and to myself by the market gardeners who live in the vicinity of Montreal, and I may say that a more competent and capable body of market gardeners you cannot find in the whole Dominion of Canada. There are about one hundred and twenty-five of these market gardeners who cultivate in the very early spring which begins in the month of March, and they use about 20,000 glass coverings which cost all told about $150,000. Even under the unfavourable tariff at present they have $150,000 invested in the vicinity of Montreal In this one particular item of their trade, and excluding of course such articles as implements, carriages, horses, and other things which they require in the pursuit of their industry. If these were included the capital invested in the business would be found to be a large sum

indeed. The implements-l'outillage as they are called in French-have a 35 per cent protection, and the carriages, carts, and vehicles, are also amply protected. The very clothes that these market gardeners wear are protected. They do not object to that ; they accept the principle of protection but they ask that they shall have protection themselves, just as well as the manufacturers, the farmers, and the fruit-growers. As regards the products of the farmers we have specific duties ; on hay, $4 a ton ; on meat, 2 and 3 cents a pound ; on eggs, 3 cents a dozen ; butter, 4 cents a pound ; cheese, 3 cents a pound ; grain, 10 and 15 cents a bushel ; honey, 20 cents a gallon. Again the fruit-growers have specific duties on their products, and let me say that it is only by specific duties that we can be protected in respect to garden produce. The fruit-growers have a protection of : 40 cents a bushed on apples ; peaches, 1 cent a pound ; grapes, 2 cents a pound ; strawberries and raspberries, 2 cents a pound. The market gardeners are protected merely by a small ad valorem duty of 25 per cent upon the immense importation of vegetables that come here in the early spring and which are produced in the fields of South Carolina by negro labour, and in the fields of California by Chinese labour. Every one who has knowledge of the trade knows, that the valuation of these vegetables is on the basis of the value at the-b>lace of production which is extremely lowt and which is made as low as possible when they are entered up at customs. These vegetables are sold on the Montreal market at a very high price, and a very large profit goes for the benefit of some people in the States, and perhaps a few dealers in the city of Montreal. I am afraid that personally the Minister of Public Works does not know much more about market gardening than I do, but there is this difference that he has not been to the sources of information as I have been. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Tarte) spoke about celery, and I may tell him that celery is kept in Montreal the whole year round.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not produced.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is not produced the whole year round, but it is kept in storage and it is ready for our markets on the 1st of April. Canadian cabbages are placed upon the market about the 15th of .Tune, and they are easily kept in good condition during the whole winter until the 15th of May. The Canadian market gardeners meet the competition of the American cabbages from the 1st of April until the month of July. I am informed that cucumbers may be cultivated in the vicinity of Montreal during the entire winter.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They have never been to very large extent.	'


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They never can be unless* you give protection.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS'. I am afraid that protection will not change the course of the sun.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Perhaps we could get the sun to change.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) says that we must get the sun to change and I hear my hon. friend from B'ellechasse (Mr. Talbot) sneer.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Where did the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) get the sneer from ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I got it from the other side of the House, and I thought I got it from you.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: You are mistaken.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The market gardeners of the vicinity of Montreal contend that they can cultivate cucumbers for the Montreal market very early in the spring.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I make bold to say that there is not a Canadian cucumber in the Montreal market before June or July.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Give them protection and you will have them.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: How would any amount of protection do that unless you have hot houses ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We have. Does my hon. friend (Mr. Fraser) think that we live in Montreal as he does in Guysborough. If my hon. friend will come down with me and spend a Sunday in Montreal I| will show iiim one of the most extensive hot houses in Canada, which it will take him two hours to go through.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Has the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) any suspicion that the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) is a hot house plant.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: We live as God gives us opportunity.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend is a free ti ader, and I refer him to the able speech made in Montreal some time ago by the Minister of Public Works.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I said nothing that was not common sense.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I stated that the protection of our clients, if I may use that expression-


The PRIME MINISTER.: Hear, hear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The hon. Prime Minister laughs at that expression, but I think he will admit that to a certain extent the constituents of members of this House are their clients in the broader sense of the word.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Do not explain.
I think it is quite natural.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They state that cucumbers can be cultivated here during the whole year if properly protected. Cucumbers arrive in our markets from the States about the 10th of June.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have them now. We buy them every day.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If my hon. friend will allow me, I say they appear in great quantities about that time, though there is no doubt that some people get them before, and what comes is the surplus from the markets of New York and Boston. What cannot be sold there is sent here in large quantities, and is entered at a very low valuation, and is sold for what it will bring. The same thing happens with peas, beans, tomatoes, cauliflower, lettuce, onions, radishes, parsley and watercress. My hon. friend asked what vegetables could be cultivated here by our own market gardeners. They can cultivate lettuce, radishes, parsley, watercress and mushrooms, a very great industry in France, as it might be in this country if properly protected.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: We have it. We have all the mushrooms we want in Nova Scotia.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We have not enough in Montreal. We want more and we want to be able to say that we are eating Canadian vegetables. All these vegetables can be cultivated all the year round in Canada in large quantities. That is what my information is, and it is a matter for verification. My hon. friend, the Minister of Public Works, who seemed at the time the delegation came here to take a lively interest in this matter, asked if, as a matter of fact, some of the vegetables mentioned were cultivated. Let me tell him that cucumbers, tomatoes and cauliflowers are cultivated all the year round by many persons in the district of Montreal. Sly hon. friend shakes his head, but that information, though second hand, is very good.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 would be much interested to learn that cauliflowers and cucumbers are produced in Montreal during the winter months.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is a matter I would be very glad if my hon. friend would investigate, and I will give him every opportunity to investigate it in my own county next winter if he will do me the honour of coming down there. Of course, our pretention is, as the House will readily imagine, that the cultivation would greatly increase if it were better protected. Now, my hon. friend made a mistake when he said a moment ago that we have the same tariff as the Americans. That is not so; but that is what we are asking, and what we claim this govern-Mr. MONK.
ment should give us. Our climatic conditions are not as favourable as those of the United States, and therefore we think we are entitled at least to the same protection that they have, if not more. A few years ago, under the Dingley tariff, I think it was, the Canadian market gardeners sold very large quantities of cabbages to the Americans. The same remark applies to onions and potatoes, of which we sold car load after car load. But under their present tariff, with 3 cents a head on cabbages, 40 cents a bushel on onions, and 25 cents a bushel on potatoes, we are not selling them any more, and there is no fear of retaliation, because retaliation is not possible, except in melons, as my hon. friend suggested. But the Americans will not retaliate in melons, because in the state of New York and in the New England states they have no melons, or scarcely any; they have no good melons; and therefore they open their gates to the entry of Canadian melons, and we send them very large quantities, and they have a special value. Now,
I will not weary the House by reading the petition made by the market gardeners. That petition, though adressed to the government in French, was brought here, I believe, by the representatives from both the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario, and this is what was asked simultaneously by the market gardeners of both^provinces, who agree absolutely to a cent as to the rate they ask, without having had any previous consultation: Cucumbers, 25 cents a dozen; lettuce, 25 cents a dozen; celery, 25 cents a dozen; cauliflower, 25 cents a dozen; green peas, beans and spinach, 50 cents a bushel; tomatoes. 5 cents a pound; onions and potatoes, 25 cents a bushel; cabbages, 3 cents a head; radishes, 10 cents a pound; parsley and watercress. 25 cents a pound. This petition I will leave with the reporter of ' Hansard,' in order that he may have it textually placed on the official report.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I would call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that if he wants the matter to be inserted in the debates, he will have to read it to the House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then I will give it up, rather than take up the time of the House. The reason I wish that their petition be entered is that they gave one of their reasons, their faith in the present government.
The American tariff is not yet put on the same line as that mentioned in the petition. I believe that vegetables in general are subjected, as the hon. minister has said, to a duty of 25 per cent ad valorem, but beans have a special duty, under article 241 of the American tariff, of 45 cents per bushel of 60 pounds.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We do not import them in the summer months.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, this duty would be specially useful to us in the spring, perhaps in three or four months of the year, and why should we not have a sliding scale of duties in order to protect our market gardeners and thus develop that most useful industry, which is not only profitable to the large class engaged in it, but is a course of instruction for our farmers around our cities. Under article 242 of the American tariff, cabbages are charged a duty of 3 cents per head. Article 249 imposes 40 cents per bushel on onions; article 250 charges 40 cents per bushel on green pease; article 253 fixes the duty on potatoes at 25 cents per bushel, and under article 247 fresh tomatoes are charged 25 per cent. In his organ in the city of Montreal, the Minister of Public Works has argued that the time of production of the American vegetables is different from ours, and he asks why should we deprive the consumers in our cities of those vegetables at a time when the Canadian market gardener is not in a position to compete. That contention, however, is not correct. Take, for instance, lettuce, we produce very large quantities all the year round in Montreal. Go into any of the green grocers' stores, and you will find Canadian lettuce side by side with the American all the year round. The date when American lettuce competes is from December until May. The contention of my hon. friend was that lettuce is produced in Canada about the middle of April, and that the American competition was in October and May. But that statement is not correct, according to our information which, I believe, is more reliable. In rhubarb there is no competition. In cabbages, the Canadian vegetable is produced from the 15th June until the 15th May following, and the American competition is from April to July. My hon. friend must see at once that we suffer from that competition. Some people contend that the cabbage is not produced until the middle of July in Canada, but that is erroneous. We compete with the American cabbage from the 15th June onward.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We could not get fresh cabbages in Canada at the time when we import the American ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They are fresh enough for our people. Our Canadian cucumbers are on the market from the 10th June, and the American competition is from May until July. Peas and beans are produced in Canada, in the ordinary course, on the 1st July, and the American competition is from May until the end of July. So that if you take these vegetables one by one, you will find that in all of them we have to meet American competition. Of course, I am not speaking of our vegetables, which are produced in the field, without any extraordinary effort, and which perhaps come up at dates that may not coincide with the American seasons exactly. But if we had the prolific
tection against American vegetables, which the Americans have against ours, we would produce these vegetables the whole year round and that industry, which at present is not very considerable in the vicinity of Montreal, would be increased tenfold within five years. And these vegetables which come from the United States are sold in Montreal at exorbitant prices, although they cost scarcely anything in their own country, and although they are admitted here at very low valuation and pay but 25 per cent ad valorem duty and no specific duty. Still they are sold during the winter and early spring at the same prices as our market gardeners would ask were they protected as the Americans are. Under the circumstances, it is only fair that we should give our people the same protection against the Americans as they give their people against us. We are not asking for anything more. Everything we work with is protected. There are duties of from 30 per cent to 35 per cent upon our tools, vehicles, horses, and the clothes we wear, and yet our produce is only protected to the extent of 25 per cent ad valorem against American vegetables, which are entered at extremely low figures-figures very often absurdly small. I see no reason why we should not be protected against the American negro and the Chinamen of California. Let me give two or three figures to show the increase of importations from the United States. At the port of Montreal in 1900 we brought in from the United States, 1,607 bushels of potatoes. In the following year, 1901, we imported 6,498 bushels. Of fresh tomatoes, we imported into Montreal from the United States in 1900, 6,548 bushels, and In 1901, 9,764. And this applies to Toronto in the same way. We are here pleading the cause of the constituents of my hon. friend from West York (Mr. Campbell) and I hope he will join us. In Toronto the quantity of fresh tomatoes imported from the United States in 1900 was 2,937 bushels, and in 1901 it was 6,066 bushels. I will not take up the time of the House in quoting all the figures I have here, but these that I have quoted are enough, I think, to show that this is a case which commends itself to the attention of the government; and t we are very anxious to know if the government will entertain our claim and remedy our grievance.


Mr.  T. O.@: TALBOT (Bellechasse.) (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the position taken by my hon. friend from Laval (Mr. Leonard), on that question of the protection to be accorded to market gardeners in the vicinity of Montreal and of the larger cities of the province of Ontario. And, when I say that,
I am surprised, it is because I do not see what advantage my hon. friend can expect to accrue from it, at least in favour of the working classes. My hon. friend is no doubt logical in the stand he has taken, be-

cause, (luring the last election in Laval, he has clearly given some pledges to the market gardeners of his county. But, even supposing that the government would increase the duty on the articles already enumerated, how does he make it out that the working classes would be benefited thereby ? What he asks for would only result in preventing those early products, coming in from the south of the United States. As we all know, the working classes do not consume those products in the winter, the prices being too high. The working classes will only buy them when they are put on the market at reasonable prices, and when his resources allow him to make that expenditure. What is my hon. friend asking for, by his motion ? He is asking for protection in favour of the market gardeners of Montreal and Toronto. As the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) remarked a moment ago, we have to contend in this country with climateric conditions well nigh insurmountable. On the other hand, there is no winter in the southern States. In my opinion, it would be idle to attempt remedying that state of things by readjusting the tariff. If, for instance, the United States produce water melons in large quantities, and can export them to this country by car-load lots, I do not see how my hon. friend can remedy the evil without shutting out their water melons from our markets. We are asked to protect the melons of Canadian growth. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has stated that in the United States melons are not so good as our Canadian melons. I do not agree with him on that point ; but why should we be asked to increase the duties, for closing our doors to products which are scarcely grown at all in the United States ?
Now, if we look at the tariif, what do we find ? We find that on the staple articles of market gardening the tariff of both countries is absolutely similar. Thus, cucumbers pay 2*5 per cent under the tariif of both countries. There is, however, an exception in favour of cabbages which are charged a duty of 3 cents per head in the United States, whereas the rate in this country is 25 per cent ad valorem. My hon. friend from Laval knowns very well that, were cabbages charged 3 cAits each in this country, that would be a prohibitive tariff. The consumers, in the district of Quebec, get their cabbages from Montreal, and we pay for them 3 or 4 cents per head. As I said were they charged a duty of 3 cents, the price would become so exorbitant as to be almost prohibitive. Take tomatoes : under the United States tariff, they pay a duty of 25 per cent per bushel. In Canada, the duty is 20 per cent. The difference is very slight. Lettuce is 25 per cent. The rate is the same in Canada. Asparagus, 25 per cent : same rate in Canada. Take radishes, the tariff is 25 per cent in both countries.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: So with cauliflowers, celery, beets, artichokes, carrots, leeks, parsley, turnips and parsnips. And those are the staple articles which are consumed by the working classes.
Now, let me ask my hon. friend from Laval : when do workingmen in Montreal eat cucumbers when they sell at 25 cents ? Most assuredly, they never eat any in the winter season nor in the early spring.
The government is asked to impose a protective tariff on those early vegetables which are only bought by people in easy circumstances. If such a demand were granted, what would happen ? Simply, that rich people would be deterred from buying by those prohibitive prices.
What do we see just now ? Is it not a fact that American market gardeners stop exporting their produce as soon as our farmers can supply the local market ? Thus, lettuce is put on our market by the end of April, cabbages by the end of July ; cucumbers, towards the end of July ; tomatoes, from the middle to the end of July. Asparagus, at the end of May or the beginning of June. Celery, in August. So with beets and carrots. Onions are offered for sale in September and October. And we export those products not only to the United States but even to Europe.
Leeks are offered for sale in September and October. Radishes, in June. Cauliflowers, parsley, mushrooms, turnips, potatoes, beans, parsnips, in July. Those are the different dates on which those products are put on the Canadian market by our own producers.
We are being told that we need protection. But if there is one class more than another which deserves to be protected, it is surely that of the consumers which for the most part, consists in workingmen.
I am strongly opposed to any protection which would, only result beneficially to a certain class of people, and detrimentally to many others, not to say to almost all classes of the community. As to protecting articles which we cannot grow in this country, that is out of the question. During the winter, we cannot import vegetables in large quantities from abroad because the freight rates- I mean the railway rates-are too high, and because also the risks are too considerable. It is only in the spring of the year, when cold storage cars are available, that we begin to import those vegetables. Now. no sooner do our own products reach the local markets, when imports come to an end, because they can no longer stand local eom-I>etition. As to fruit-growing, take the peaches which we cultivate in this country, you will find that they pay in the United States, a duty of 25 cents per bushel. In Canada, the duty is one cent a pound, [DOT]including package. Strawberries and raspberries, blackberries, currants, in fact all the small fruits grown by our farmers, are charged a cent per quart, whilst under the

Canadian tariff they are charged two cents a pound, including package. So, as will be seen, as to those products, although they are not necessaries of life-are none the less palatable and of great value to the workingmen, the Canadian tariff is higher than the American tariff. The government is asked to impose duties well nigh prohibitive on articles which we do not produce in this country, or which we do not produce all the year round, with a view to protecting a few market gardeners in the vicinity of Montreal and Toronto. Such a policy would only result in enhancing the prices, to the great detriment of consumers at large, and to the benefit of a few individuals.
To sum up, let me say that it is perfectly useless for my hon. friend from Laval- except in so far as he may wish to redeem his pledges to the Laval electors during the last electoral campaign-to come and ask the government to increase the duties on articles which are not articles of household necessity, with no other result than that of saddling the working classes with new burdens. Although I represent here an agricultural district, I am opposed to the increase of duties on the articles which he has mentioned.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Archibald Campbell: I regret very much that I was not able to follow the remarks of the hon. gentleman for Laval (Mr. Leonard) in introducing this motion, owing to not understanding the language in which he addressed the House. However, I think it is only right that I should say a few words on this question. In the first place, I regret very much that the hon. member has seen fit to bring forward this motion at this particular time. He put this notice on the Order paper, I believe, in the first days of the session. This was before the House and the government had come to a decision as to what should be done with the tariff. Then was an opportune time to have discussed this question ; we could have discussed it then with a good deal of profit, not only to ourselves, but also, I hope, to the market gardeners. But, though this order has been called day after day, and week after week for over two months, the hon. gentleman has allowed it to remain. He has been like the dog in the manger that could not eat the hay himself and would not let any other creature eat it-for nobody else could proceed with a motion of this kind while the hon. gentleman had this order upon the paper. And, after allowing it to stand all this time, he now, near the close of the session, when the government have decided, and the House also have decided by a large majority, that there is to be no change in the J
tariff this session, the hon. gentleman brings forward this resolution. What possible good can he achieve by having the matter discussed at this time ? What can be the hon. gentleman's object ? Is it to make political capital out of the question? It would seem so. Certainly no other object is to be attained by discussing it now. But if the hon. gentleman thinks he will make political capital out of the question, I think he will find himself very much mistaken. If the market gardeners of this country are suffering under any grievance, to whom do they owe it, and who is responsible for it ? Why, the party which the hon. gentleman for Laval supports. For, in 1894, when the tar-riff was revised by the administration that preceded this one, the duty on market garden stuff was very largely reduced. There were no objections then by the hon. member who has brought forward this motion or any of his friends. They accepted the reduction that was made without raising any protest at all. This continued from 1894 until 1896, when there was a change of government and the Liberal party came into power. They left the duty as it was before. No protest had been entered by the hon. gentlemen who are now so solicitious for the welfare of the market gardeners-they had raised no voice of protest against the action taken by their friends in reducing the tariff. It was quite natural, therefore, that this government}, on coming into power shold leave the duty as they found it. During the last few years, there has been some agitation on the part of the market gardeners claiming that they were not sufficiently protected. Last year I had the honour to be asked by the Market Gardeners Association of West York to come down with them early in the season to interview the government here. This was a long time before the election in West York took place, in fact, it was before there was a vacancy in West York at all. Therefore, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) was altogether astray when he said that this was immediately before the-election in West York. However, as I say, the Market Gardener's Association asked me to come down with them and lay their case before the government of the day. I thought it was my duty to comply with their request. They are a very large body of people. Immediately surrounding the city of Toronto there are 2,000 or 2,500 men, women and children who get their livelihood altogether from the raising of vegetables for the market.
Around the city of Montreal and all the great cities of this vast Dominion you find market gardeners a hardy, industrious and saving people, who are well to do, and working hard, men, women and children. They are cultivating a small quantity of land. A farmer works two or three hundred a'cres of land, a market gardener works probably four or

five acres, and he employs on those four or five acres more people than would be employed perhaps on two hundred acres in the country. Therefore, if the raising of vegetables in this country can be encouraged, with a due regard to the interests of the consumers, I think that it is' a question that should receive the careful attention of the government. The government have to look at this question from two sides :	They not only, as this resolution
states, have to look at it from the standpoint of the market gardener and the farmer, they must also look at it from the standpoint of the consumer. So that while perhaps we are a little prejudiced, and while we may be a little partial in our views, looking at it from the interest of one class alone, I can readily see that the government must view the question from the standpoint of the consumer as well as of the producer.
As I say, there are around the city of Toronto between 2,000 and 2,500 people engaged in this industry. It is certainly hard for these people to find, after they have raised their vegetables and got them ready for market, that across from Buffalo and from the other ports of the United States, there are large quantities of vegetables thrown on the market of the city of Toronto, thus depressing the price and taking the ground away from these people. They are satisfied with the priees they obtain, but they find that when their vegetables are ready for the market, a large quantity of foreign vegetables are thrown in and the market is flooded with them. Now, our gardeners say that these goods are brought in at a great undervaluation. I have known it to be the case that these goods are often brought in in carload lots, and as the duty is an ad valorem one, they are invoiced as damaged goods. The appraiser of course goes to look at the car, he takes the invoice and sees it is a very small, miserable price, and he goes and opens the car. He perhaps may not have any intimate knowledge of the particular kind of products, but he sees that these are, especially on the top, damaged vegetables, and he passes them along ; and so these goods are entered, I am told, very much below their actual value, and consequently the duty imposed upon them is almost nil. You can readily see by the statement that was made before the House by the Minister of Customs a short time ago that the amount of duty collected in Montreal last year was a little over $9,000 on all the vegetables imported from the United States. Now, I say, that to my mind is a hardship, and I believe it would be wise for the government carefully to consider this question. I would like to see them increase the duty a little. I dont think we need go very far, because if the effect of the increase in that duty is to advance the price of these vegetables in the early spring, it is only the well-to-do people who consume them. If you pay a


Archibald Campbell: cent, or two cents, more for your cabbages to get them in April or May, it is only the wealthy classes that use those goods at that season, it is not the poor people that consume them. Then when our own vegetables come into the market our people will be able to supply the market of Canada with all the goods the consumers require, and there is sulfficient competition among the market gardeners in Canada themselves to keep the prices right.
As I said before, I do not think this is an opportune time to discuss this question.
I think the mover of the resolution, if he had been sincere and had the interests of the market gardeners at heart, would not have brought forward this motion to-day. No possible good can be achieved by discussing it now, it is not the right time. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk)^ and myself, who introduced the deputation from Montreal and Toronto last year, took a very opportune time to approach the government. We made a very strong case, and I was in hopes that some result would follow from it. But I do not despair. The government, as everybody knows, are going to send a representation to the colonial conference in England, when the premiers of all the provinces of this Dominion will meet there and adjudicate upon the tariff, in reference not only to the colonies, but to the mother country as well. So it is quite in order for the government to say this session, we will make no changes in the tariff this year, we will see what is the outcome of this colonial conference, and then we will be able to decide how far we shall go, and what we shall do another year. So I think the government's position is a strong one this year, and recognizing that, I would have been glad had there been no discussion on this question at all until after the conference is held ; and then, by bringing this matter before the government in a proper way and discussing it fully, I am in hopes that some result will flow from it. But the moment yon throw this question into the political arena, whenever a member gets up and tries to make political capital out of it for his party or for his friends, he has damaged the cause he has at heart, and he is doing harm to those he is trying to support. So I think that the market gardeners of this country will not thank the hon. member (Mr. Leonard) for bringing forward this motion to-day. I believe that it is greatly in the interests of the people of this country that we should increase the population as rapidly as we can, and wherever we can, and I think that might be done by some simple modification of the tariff, either by the reduction of the duty on the raw material, or by a slight increase of the duties on manufactured goods ; we can thereby build up the great institutions of this country and develop our resources. I say that is the wisest thing for us to do. In this particular case I believe

that a very slight increase of the duty on some things -would not entail increased prices to the consumer, except it might be early in the spring when only those who are well able to pay the price of those goods would purchase them, and the competition between the market gardeners and dealers in our own country will regulate the price.
X am in hopes that when the proper time comes we will be able to discuss this matter free from politics altogether. It is not a question that should enter into the political arena. I say again that I regret for my part that the matter has been evidently brought forward, not for the purpose of doing any good to the market gardeners, but for the evident purpose of manufacturing a little political clap-trap to the advantage of the hon. member who has brought it forward.	_
The hon. gentleman will make nothing out of it, because the market gardeners know that for the eighteen long years during which our Conservative friends ruled the destinies of this country there was no help then for the market gardeners. They appealed in vain ; in other words, they asked for bread and they got a stone. That is the way they were treated by our Conservative friends. I have confidence in this government. I believe that this government will see that their rights and privileges are maintained. I repeat, that I have confidence in this government knowing the ability and statesmanlike character of the hon. gentlemen who comprise it, and I believe that when the proper time comes that all interests. all classes, all creeds and all parties will be properly protected.


Hon. WM. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: Mr. Speaker, I hope that when a colonial conference takes place in London it will have questions of greater importance to discuss than the question of the market gardeners in and around Montreal. If the representatives of Canada descend to the consideration of questions of that character they will be open to censure when they return to this country. The last speaker has referred to the desirability of increasing the population of this country. As to that I think we all agree, but we want the people of all the provinces of the Dominion to be allowed to eat fruit and to buy it when they find it is not produced in this country. We know that in the spring of the year and in the early part of the summer, if we are to have fruit at all. we have to depend upon the United States for it, but once our ow.n fruit is brought into the market, there is no competition. The people buy our own fruit at the proper time and no other. We, in Nova Scotia, have first to buy American strawberries, then we have to buy Ontario strawberries until our own are ready, and when our own strawberries are ready we would not look at either of these. Now, speaking about the quality of the cabbages that come from the United States, I would say that it
is only their surplus, after their own market is well supplied, and of a very inferior quality, that we receive. As to the value it will be based on what the cabbage would bring in the United States at the time it would be exported, so that, I think it would be only right to collect duty on the value of the cabbage in the United States at the time it is exported. But, we must not forget that there are other people in this world besides the market gardeners in and around Montreal, and that we have to protect also the interests of those people who mnst be permitted to buy fruit even from the United States when it cannot be produced in their own country. We have, in Nova Scotia, perhaps the best quality of fruit in its proper time that there is in-the world-I was going to say.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Hear, hear.


William Ross: Whenever it is fit for market we use it and use it alone and we only use other fruit when we cannot get our own. Therefore, let us be true to ourselves and consider that we have other interests to protect besides the interests of the market gardeners in and around Montreal.


Mr. R. BLAIN (Peel).: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say. a very few words upon this important resolution now before the House. I am a little surprised that we find representatives on the other side of the House who would oppose this simple, yet important resolution. Let me read it :
That it is greatly in the interest of the market gardeners and the farmers that the duties on our Canadian garden products be no adjusted as to guarantee the Canadian farmer an effective protection against foreign competition.
We have had to-night another illustration of the difference of opinion which exists upon the other side of the House. From the remarks of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Hon. Mr. Ross, Victoria), I would judge that he is an ardent free trader. However, he ventured to remark that the vegetables that come into Canada now are simply the surplus. He made the statement that after their own people are supplied the trade in the United States send their surplus to the Canadian market. That, I think, is a strong reason why the Canadian farmer and market gardener should be protected from the surplus production of the American farmer and market gardener. Just let me quote from page 142 of the Trade and Navigation Returns for the year 1901. Under the item of vegetables, including potatoes, tomatoes, and other vegetables imported into Canada, I find that we imported last year $445,385 worth of vegetables, coming from the United States and competing with the products of the Canadian farmer and market gardener. I wish to say that in my opinion the resolution is making a very simple and reasonable demand upon this government.

It is asking not that the government shall obtain for the market gardeners and farmers of this country the market of the United States, which they cannot obtain, but it is asking that this government shall so arrange the tariff that the market gardeners and farmers of Canada shall have their own market for their own supply. I think that is a reasonable demand. It was said by the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte), I think, if I caught what he said correctly, that it was impossible for the Canadian gardener to produce these vegetables in time for the Canadian market. What I have to say is that if the government will so arrange the tariff that the market gardeners and farmers in Canada will understand that they are securely protected from foreign competition, then I have faith in believing that the Canadian market gardeners and farmers will so equip their plants that they will be able to produce all the vegetables that the Canadian people want throughout the whole season. Between the city of Toronto and the city of Hamilton, as an illustration of the conditions that we have in Ontario, I may say that there is a large quantity of land which is suitable for the growth of this kind of product. In Ontario it is well known that we cannot produce grain now in competition with the western country, and it is well known, further, that the population of the central counties of Ontario is fast decreasing. Why is it decreasing ? For the reason that the people are going to the west and notwithstanding what has been said in this House they are still going to the United States from the province of Ontario. If that condition of things exists, as it does exist in Ontario, then, it is the duty of this government to so arrange the tariff that every article that can be produced on the farm, whether a small or large farm, shall receive the protection that it deserves, so that the producers who pay the taxes in Canada shall have at least the market of the five and a half millions of people that we have here to-day. It has been said during this debate that our climatic conditions are such that we cannot produce these particular products of the farm and the market garden early enough in the year for consumption in the large cities. I wish to say, that if the government will arrange and increase the tariff so that the market gardeners will understand mat the higher tariff would be permanent-and it will be permanent so far as the Conservative party in Canada is concerned-then we will be able as Canadians, in and around the great cities of Montreal, Hamilton, Toronto and others, to produce every dollar's worth of these products that the people want, and we will give them a better article than they get now, and we will give them that article as early in the season as it is required. I was surprised at the wonderful statement made by the hon. member Mr. BLAIN.
for West York (Mr. Campbell). The hon. member for Laval (Mr. Leonard) is in this House for the first time ; a young man who won a county for the Conservative party against great odds, and it was unkindly at least to find this old parliamentarian (Mr. Campbell) who has held a seat so long in this House, rebuke that young Canadian member ; still more strange was it that he rebuked him for trying to advance the interests of a class of our population to whom the member for West York (Mr. Campbell) made great promises during the election campaign. I had the honour of listening to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) on the hustings.


Mahlon K. Cowan: They say you elected him in West York.


Richard Blain: If I did you ought not complain. I have no quarrel with the electors of West York for what they have done, but I would remind the hon. member and his friends, that there is another time coming soon. The hon. member (Mr. Campbell) went up and down the county specially pleading from every platform, that he had come to this government as a delegate to lay the case of the market gardeners of Canada before the government, and he promised these 2,500 people, many of whom are market gardeners of West York, that if they helped to elect him he would stand up in parliament to advocate an increase of duties on their products. Well, the electors of West York have long memories, and when the proper time comes they will not forget the strange manner in which their representative failed to redeem his promise to-day. What does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) say ? He tells us that this wicked member from Laval stood in the way of his purpose, because he put a resolution on the Order paper which prevented the hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) from advocating in this House what he promised the people he would advocate. Does any one suppose that the electors of West York will be deceived by such a plea as that ? Do you think they will take any stock in an excuse of that kind, coming as it does from a member who is so well versed by experience in parliamentary procedure. Do you think they will accept that explanation from the hon. gentleman who promised from every platform in the county that he would support just such a motion as this, and whose promise was published in the ' Globe ' newspaper, and endorsed by his friends in that campaign. These gentlemen went from one end of the county to the other urging the electors to support the hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) on the ground that he could get very much more from the government than could a member who sat in opposition. Bht, mark the contrast to-day between the conduct of the hon. gentleman who represents Laval (Mr. Leonard) and the conduct of the hon. gentleman who represents West

York (Mr. Campbell). We see the Conservative member for Laval standing on the floor of this House to advocate a higher protection in the interest of the farmers and market gardeners of Canada, and we see the Liberal member for West York combatting that principle, although he made solemn promises to his electors that he would take a different course. Mark the member on the Conservative side of tne House redeeming his promise to his electors, and mark the conduct of the member for West York who also made these binding promises to his constituents, and who at the very first opportunity calls on the House to vote down the resolution of the hon. member for Laval because he says forsooth that it is Inopportune. He declares : Wait until you see us nxet year ; and see what we will do for the market gardeners then.
For myself, Sir, I am strongly in favour of this resolution. I believe it is the duty of this government to so alter the tariff that the market gardeners and the farmers of this Dominion may have a profitable return from the results of their labour. I am glad, Sir, that the principle set forth in this resolution suits every part of the Dominion. I was delighted to find representatives from the great province of Quebec advocating in this matter exactly what is required by the farmers and market gardeners of the great province of Ontario. In every province in this Dominion, from the far east to the far west, we find that the people are in accord with the resolution moved by the hon. member (Mr. Leonard). I trust that every hon. gentleman on either side of the House, especially those who represent the farming districts, will give their support to this resolution. I trust that on this important question they will take one part of the advice of the member for West York and let politics go. I trust the government will see their way clear to so arrange the tariff that we will not allow one dollar's worth of these products to come in from the United States, I say that, not in any spirit of retaliation, because I do not believe in retaliation ; but I do believe that the adoption of the principle of this resolution is a sound policy for Canada and is a policy in the best interests of our own people.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I do not rise for the purpose of engaging in the general discussion, but merely to repeat, if it be necessary, what was stated early in this session ; that the view of the government-I say this particularly in answer to my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) who is anxious there should be a definite statement on this question-the view of the government is that no tariff changes of this character shall be made during this present session. I thought that understanding was clear and distinct enough to have removed it from any possibility of
doubt. But, if it is necessary to repeat that statement I say now :	That it is not the
policy of this government to make any tariff changes this session other than those trifling ones as to which notice has already been given. As to what may happen at a future stage, it will be time enough to consider when we reach that stage. There is one thing however I would remind my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) of, and that is, that in this particular matter we happen to have precisely the same rate of duty that we had under the so called national policy. Sometimes hon. gentlemen opposite like to allege that our present tariff is simply the national policy over again, although at other times they tell a different story. But whatever may be said as to the tariff generally, there Is no room to doubt that on this particular class of goods the duties are as they were under the national policy. Where the duties were not excessive it was not deemed wise to reduce them, and the duty on this class of goods was 25 per cent. It was not thought to be a very excessive duty, and it was not deemed necessary to reduce it. That does not necessarily prove that it was a good duty, of course ; but it does prove that so far as that item is concerned there is nothing to complain of as between the two political parties ; it happens to be one on which both agree. Hbw-ever, I only rose to say that the policy of the government is not to make any change in the duties this session, and that being the case, I move that the debate be now adjourned.
House divided on motion for adjournment of debate.
TEAS:
Messieurs
Bazinet,	Lovell,
Beland,	l.oy,
Brown,	Macdonald,
Brunet,	Mackie,
Bureau,	MacLaren (Hunting'n),
Calvert,	McCool.
Calvin,	McCreary,
Campbell,	McGugan,
Carroll,	Mclsaac,
Champagne,	McLennan,
Cowan,	Mad ore,
Davis,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Demers (St. John),	Matbesoni,
Douglas,	Meigs,
Dugas,	Monet,
Edwards,	Oliver,
Emmerson,	Paterson,
Farqubarson,	Pow'er,
Fielding,	Pr6fontaine,
Fortier,	Proulx,
Fraser,	Puttee,
Gallery,	Reid (Restigouche),
Geoffrion,	Riley,
Gibson,	Ross (Ontario),
Girard.	Rcss (Victoria, N.S.),
Gould,	Russell,
Guthrie,	Sclie'll,
Heyd,	Scott,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.),Sifton,	
Johnston (Cape Breton), Smith (Vancouver),	

Kendall,	Stewart,
Lang,	Talbot,
Laurier fSir Wilfrid),	Tarte,
Lavergne,	Tobin,
LeBlane,	Wiight-71.
Lemieux,	
NAYS :	
Messieurs-	
Alcorn,	Kidd,
Avery,	Lancaster,
Barker,	La Riviere,
Bell,	Lennox,
Bennett,	Leonard,
Blain,	McIntosh,
Borden (Halifax),	Monk,
Boyd,	Morin,
Clarke,	Osier,
Cochrane,	Richardson,
Culhert,	Roclio (Marquette),
Earie,	Taylor,
Fowler,	Tolton,
Gourley,	Vrooman,
Hackett,	Wilraot,
Halliday,	Wilson.-S3.
Hughes (Victoria),	
PAIRS :	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Christie,	Roddick,
Hyman,	Gilmour,
Logan,	Lefurgey,
Cartwright,	Tapper,
Johnston (Lnmbton),	Simmons,
McColl,	Ward,
Horsey,	Pringle,
Dyment,	McCormick,
McEwen,	Sherritt,
Harty,	Reid (Grenville),
Charlton,	Tisdale,
Bickerdike,	Cargill,
Sutherland Oxford),	Kaggart,
Farmelee,	Pope,
Arehambault,	Ball,
Eeith,	Birkett,
Belcourt,	Brock,
Bernier,	Eroder,
Itlair,	Bruce,
Borden (King's),	Carscallen,
Bruneau,	Casgrain,
Copp,	Clare,
Costigan,	Ganong,
Delisle,	Hale,
Demers (Levis),	Henderson,
Erh,	Johnston (Cardwell),
Fisher,	Kaulback,
Fitzpatrick,	Kemp,
Flint,	Kendrey,
German,	Maclean,
Harwood,	McGowan,
Holmes,	McLeod,
Laurier (L'Assomp.),	Porter,
Lewis,	Rosamond,
MacKinnon,	Seagram,
McCarthy,	Smith (Wentworth),
Mulock,	Clancy,
Stephens,	Lavell,
Sutherland (Essex),	Northrup,
Thompson,	Ingram,
Tolmie,	Robinson (Elgin),
Wade,	Sproule,
Morrison,	McLaren (Perth),


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and debate adjourned.
Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: 


COLONIAL APPEALS TO THE IMPERIAL PRIVY COUNCIL.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. It. LEMIEUX (Gaspfi) (translation) asked for :
Copies of the correspondence exchanged between the Imperial authorities and the Canadian government, in reference to the colonial conference respecting colonial appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Mr. Speaker, the motion which I have the honour to submit to the consideration of this House requires very little explanation. I shall therefore confine myself to offering a few 'brief remarks called for by the importance of the matter. I am asking for copies of the correspondence exchanged between the imperial authorities and the government of Canada, in connection with the colonial conference, which was called together and sat in Loudon, last summer, in order to modify the composition of the judicial committee of the Privy Council. I think it is desirable that this official correspondence should be brought down, so that there may be no missing link in the chain of evidence as to such attempts as have been made in high places to impose upon us imperialism under one of its forms. That is a chapter that will later on make interesting reading in the history of this country. Of course, that pet scheme of the Colonial Secretary could not fail to arouse the attention of the members of the legal profession, in the province of Quebec and elsewhere. I may say here and now, that the course of action of the present government, under the circumstances, was one that ought to commend itself to the approbation of the people of this country. It is only fair to state that the reply sent by the federal government to the invitation extended to them by Mr. Chamberlain embodied a flat refusal on their part to endorse the pet scheme of the Colonial Secretary.
Allow me, Sir, to read an extract from the Order in Council recommending that the hon. David Mills be deputed to attend the colonial conference in London :
The committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a despatch hereto annexed, dated the 15th February, 1901, from the Right Honourable Mr. Chamberlain, Secretary of State for the Colonies, referring to a contemplated measure 'to provide for strengthening the representation of the self-governing colonies on the Judical Committee of the Privy Council by the creation of four additional law Lords with seats in the House of Lords as well as ou the Judicial Committee,' and requesting the appointment by Your Excellency's government of a delegate qualified by his legal knowledge to represent it at a proposed conference with the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers of the Crown, having for its object the solution of a question vitally affecting the common interest of the empire.
The committee recommend that Your Excellency's government do co-operate with His Majesty's government by deputing the Honourable David Mills, the Minister of Justice, to
[Stage Direction]
attend such conference, and represent Your Excellency's government thereat.
The committee would at the same time observe that Your Excellency's government is not dissatisfied with the manner in which the board of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is at present constituted, and is now advised that they do not see any advantage to be gained by the creation of four additional law Lords, to be chosen from the self-governing colonies with seats in the House of Lords as well as on1 the Judicial Committee.
As will be seen from the above, Sir, it was on good grounds that I stated that the reply sent by the present government, embodied a flat refusal to acquiesce In the contemplated measure, and the government deserve great credit for having taken such a decided stand on that question, and one which tallies with the feelings of the people of this country.
Now, when taking such a stand in their dealings with the imperial authorities, have they not given their traducers a most unequivocal answer ? Moreover, the appointment of the hon. Mr. Mills was a guarantee that the constitution of the country was not to be interfered with. The former Minister of Justice is a thorough Canadian, in the truest acceptation of the word, and we knew that he would vigorously oppose any ^scheme affecting the relations of Canada with the empire. As upon many other occasions, so upon this occasion, this great experience coupled with his thorough knowledge of the constitutional Haw did prove of the greatest value and assistance to this country ; and Canadians owe him a debt of gratitude, for the efllcient manner in which he has discharged his duties.
Moreover, from that pet scheme of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, no advantage was likely to accrue to Canada in her relations with the empire. No advantage is to be gained by tbe contemplated change in the composition of the judicial committee of the Privy Council and by the creation of additional judges to be chosen from the ranks of judges or lawyers in the self-governing colonies. And no wonder that this imperialistic scheme was denounced by the most eminent members of the Canadian bar. I happen to have before me clippings from newspapers containing the views expressed by members of the legal profession in the province of Quebec, by English-speaking and French-speaking lawyers as well. Let me quote from a letter published in the Montreal ' Gazette ' of the 10th July last, in which the writer, who is an English lawyer of Montreal, adduces overwhelming evidence, in my opinion, against the contentions of those who support Mr. Chamberlain's scheme :
Admitting then, that the Privy Council is, and has been, quite satisfactory and free from this reproach, the only grounds in favour cf the proposal which have been urged are :
First-That the creation of an imperial court, on which permanent representatives from the colonies and India would sit, .in London, would
have the effect of stimulating the imperial political idea and of emphasizing and crystallizing the unity of the British empire ;
Second-That the local knowledge of judges from different quarters of the empire would be of assistance to the Judicial Committee, in arriving at proper conclusions.
With reference to the first point, the very reverse would seem to me to be the case.
Apart from the hopelessness of using the composition cf a court of justice as a warming-pan for imperialism, it seems to me there is great danger of imperilling the very object which it is designed to promote.
If, for instance, Australians objected to having their cases decided by a board of judges from South Africa, India, Canada, Hong Kong, Ceylon and Newfoundland, or if Canadians were similarly dissatisfied because of the British members of the court were outnumbered by the other colonial dignitaries, of whom they had little acquaintance, and in whom they had, naturally, little or no confidence, the result would be that, in a short time, the court would lose its prestige, and would bo avoided by suitors.
In the long run, the value of the court must depend upon confidence which suitors have in its members and in their decisions, and if there are no appeals to the Privy Council, the court itself will become valueless, and the idea It was intended to embody, namely, imperial unity, receive a decided blow. I believe such would be the result.
And further he goes on to say :
Another question which arises is the following :
Of what value would the judgment of Canadian lawyers be upon Indian appeals, where the customs, laws and procedure are completely foreign to anythin^that we have ever known ?
Undoubtedly a position on the Judicial Committee is one to which Canadians ought not to he forbidden to aspire ; but if in the future wo produce jurists of sufficient eminence to warrant their being selected for that honour, there is nothing to prevent His Majesty from creating such persons members of his Privy Council.
It Is tho permanent appointment of colonial judges that is objectionable, and I venture to say that the opinion of nine-tenths of the profession in Canada is that such appointments would weaken and seriously damage the court, which, on all hands, is now regarded as satisfactory.	. ,
The attendance of colonial judges occasionally, in the last two or three years, has not, in rny opinion, tended to increase the efficiency of the court.
The PRIME MINISTER (The Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: (Translation). Would the hon. gentleman give us the name of the lawyer who signed that letter ?


Mr. LEMIEUX. (Translation).: The writer is Mr. R, D. McGibbon. In addition to the above, I could give the views expressed by the hon. Mr. Beique, by tbe lion, member from Montmorency (Mr. Oasgrain) and by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and many others as well. As a matter of fact, that scheme was endorsed by but an insignificant minority of the Bar.
As I said before, tbe changes suggested by Mr. Chamberlain in tbe composition of tbe

judicial committee of the Privy Council are utterly at variance with the views of the people of this country, and I daresay that, had Canada acquiesced in the contemplated measure, she would take a step back to past ages. The pact which binds us to the mother country ought to be scrupulously respected and adhered to by both parties, and I may say that when the government declined to co-operate with Mr. Chamberlain and to approve of his scheme, they did the right thing and their action, I daresay, will be en-dor.sed by all those who believe in the future of this country of ours.
When I am on my feet, Sir, allow me to say further in connection with this matter of the Privy Council, that the right of appeal ought to be restricted, rather than enlarged. I think we, in Canada, ought to take a leaf from the history of Australia, as to those appeals to the Privy Council. In the Commonwealth of Australia, as we ail know, no appeals to the Privy Council are allowed except in constitutional matters. It is a matter of public notoriety that in Canada, our appeals are the ruination of poor litigants. None but powerful corporations can avail themselves of the right of appeal by going from the lower courts to the courts of last resort, as is generally the case, when they go to law against private individuals in reduced circumstances. Last year, Sir, Alexander Lacoste, chief justice of the province of Quebec, speaking at the annual banquet of the .Montreal Bar Association, "did not hesitate to say that the number of appeals ought to be restricted. So far as the Privy Council is concerned) we are told that it is the inherent right of every British subject to go to the foot of the Throne ; but it should be borne in mind that the Privy Council is by no 'manner of means the only tribunal of justice entrusted with the administration of justice, in the name of royalty. To hold the contrary doctrine would be an egregious mistake. Justice, Sir, no matter where it is administered, no matter before which tribunal it is appealed to, always is and under any circumstances, an emanation of sovereignty. Whether you appeal to the Court of Appeals, or whether you appeal to the Superior Court, the judges that sit on those tribunals do administer justice, in the name of the King, as truly and as efficiently as the Lords of the Privy Council do. And in so saying, I do not think I am saying anything in the least derogatory to the members of that high tribunal.
Before resuming my seat, I wish to say once more that the composition of the Privy Council should not be changed, but what is more desirable is that the right of appeal to that tribunal should be curtailed. I cannot help reminding the House of the disastrous effect of a judgment just rendered by that tribunal. I say without any hesitation that the judgment in the case of Roy vs. the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is an unqualified outrage against our civil code, Mr. LEMIEUX.
and that our whole jurisprudence has been upset and replaced by English common law. Although the Privy Council, as a rule, has respected our constitution in those cases in which the provinces were opposing encroachments upon the rights of the Dominion government, and dispute the fact that we owe that tribunal a debt of gratitude on that score, it is none the less true that for many years to come, the remembrance of that judgment, which has provoked a debate in this House at an earlier stage of this session, will rankle in the breasts of the judiciary, of the Bar and of those who are amenable to the courts of justice in the province of Quebec.


Mr. L. P. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).: 
APKIL 28. 1902
[Stage Direction]
easily understood. Justice like men, is liable to error, even in clear cases. As to doubtful cases, it is in the interest of the litigants that they should be settled with as little delay as possible.
I hope the government will not recede from the position they have taken and that they will avail themselves of such opportunities as may offer to secure changes in the composition of the judiciary committee of the Privy Council.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Hon. Mr. Carroll)-(Translation). There can be no objection to the paper asked for by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux), being brought down, and I would not have risen to take part in this debate, but for certain remarks fallen from the lips of the hon. gentleman. There is a prevailing feeling in the province of Quebec, that the judgment rendered by the Privy Council in the case of Roy vs. the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, strikes at the very root of the Civil Code of the province.
I am quite free to say that as a matter of fact, the jurisprudence that had obtained so far under the civil code of the province has been changed by that judgment. But I also hold that the Privy Council did not override the law, and to prove my contention. it will suffice to quote from the very judgment of the Privy Council
The argument appears to he founded on the suggestion that Quebec has a civil law of its own and that in that province all corporations like all other persons are responsible for causing damage to their neighbours by a fault that is to say, any objectionable wrong whether imprudence or want of skill, and another article of the code provides that civil corporations constituting by the fact of their incorporation, ideal or artificial persons are as1 such governed by the laws affecting individuals saving the privileges they enjoy and the disabilities they are subjected to.
If the immunity claimed for the appellants were simply claimed upon the ground that they were a corporation without reference to what they are authorized to do in that capacity, the argument would be well founded, but the fallacy of the suggestion lies in supposing that that immunity is claimed because they are a corporation1. If it were so there would he no difference between the law' of England and the lav/ as so expounded in the province of Quebec, hut the ground upon which the immunity of a railway company for injury caused by the normal use of their line is based is that the legislature which is supreme has authorized the particular thing so done in the place and by the means contemplated by the legislature, and that cannot constitute an actionable wrong in England any more than it can constitute a fault by the Quebec Code. The principle has been lucidly expounded by Lord Hatherley in the case of Geddis vs Proprietors of Bann Reservoir, L.R.. Appeal Cases, Vol., 3, page 433, thus :
And further :-
Much was argued by the learned counsel for the respondent as to the peculiar jurisprudence of Quebec, but in truth there is no such differ [DOT]
ence between the law of England and the law of Quebec in>
this respect as he seemd to suppose. The law of England equally with the law of the province in question affirms the axiom : Sic utere tuo ut alienumi non laedes, but the previous state of the law whether in Quebec or France or England caimot render inoperative the positive enactment of a statute and the whole case turns not upon what was the common law of either country but what is the true construction of plain words authorizing the doing of the very thing complained of.
The legislature is supreme and if it has enacted that a thing is lawful such a thing cannot be a fault or an actionable wrong. The thing to be done is a privilege as well as a right and duty and it seems to their Lordships it comes within the expressed language of the Code (Art. 356.)
As will be seen from the above, the Privy Council bolds that the doing by a company of the tiling it is authorized to do in the place and by the means contemplated by the legislature, cannot constitute an actionable wrong, according to the construction put upon sections 1053 and 386 of the Civil Code. Such is the decision of the Privy Council and it cannot be said that the law Lords have wrongly interpreted those articles. '
We are told that the Privy Council has set aside the law of the province of Quebec. I think there is a mistaken notion prevailing in that respect, in the province of Quebec, which requires to be corrected.
It must be borne in mind that our jurisprudence originates from the French law. A statute was passed under Louis Philippe in 1845, under which proprietors were forbidden to put up any building within sixty feet from the railway line. Under that statute, the responsibility of railway companies has been restricted. Of course, our jurisprudence was overridden by the Privy Council, but I hold that the principles of our civil law have not been set aside by the Privy Council, to adopt the English common law.
As to the question of appeals, I may say that I was rather taken by surprise, and that I am not ready to discuss it now. But I should like my hon. friend to tell me one thing : If the right of appeal were done away with, does he think that those who are amenable to the tribunals would be satisfied with such a state of things ? Certainly not, and I do not think my hon. friend will gainsay it. If you look around you, and take a survey of what is transpiring and what is being said, you cannot fail to come to the conclusion that under the conditions which prevail in the community, the right of appeal is still of great value and assistance and that it is better not to do away with it now.
Motion agreed to.

Mr.  T. O.@: DAYIS (Saskatchewan) moved for :

Return showing the amount of money spent on the St. Lawrence river from Montreal to Quebec, with the object of making Montreal a National port.
He said : The subject brought up in this motion is one that has been discussed in this House at great length on several former occasions. The transportation problem, is, in my opinion, the greatest we have before us to-day. It is the great national problem of this country, and will have to be dealt with in the near future, if we are ever to attain the position to which our natural resources and position entitle us. I have no desire to discuss the question from the standpoint of a province or a territory, but from a national standpoint and on broad lines. Regarding the amount of money spent, for the details of which I am now moving, on the route between Montreal and Quebec, I may say, from what I have been able to gather-and I have given the matter a great deal of study-it appears to me that Montreal is not likely to ever become the great national port of this country.
An kon. MEMBER. How do you know ?


Mr. DAVIS.: Because there is not sufficient water in the channel between those two cities to float the class of ships now being built. Another reason that it can be used only during five or six months in the year, and lion, members who are acquainted with the growth and development of the west, must know that it is impossible for us to depend on a port which can only be kept open during that period.
We had a great deal of discussion the other day about the Intercolonial Railway, and I wish to begin my remarks with a consideration of the role which that road may be made to play in working out the transportation problem. According to the figures in the blue-book, it has not been financially a paying concern, but in order to ascertain its real value as an asset, we must not confine ourselves to one point of view. The question to my mind is this : Does it pay the people ? Is it a great advantage to the people of the lower provinces ? The matter of a deficit of a few hundred thousand dallars here or there does not amount to very much provided the people of that end of the country are being benefited, provided that railway gives them cheap rates and transportation. Another feature we must not lose sight of is the fact that the Intercolonial Railway belongs to the people. True, it has cost us some-think like $60,000,000, but we own the road, and I believe that the time will come when it will be a valuable asset. I believe that it will become in the near future the starting point of a great national railway. It has occurred to me that if the government were to extend the Intercolonial Railway over some of the proposed lines we see outlined on the map, across through the province of Quebec by James Bay, and extend Mr. DAVIS.
it out to Port Simpson on the Pacific coast, we would then have the shortest transcontinental route on this continent, and one which would belong to the people. True, we have paid something like $60,000,000 for the road, but we have likewise paid something like $234,000,000 in money and lands to the Canadian Pacific Railway, which we do not own, over which we have no control, and the road-bed and equipment of which are exempt from taxation for all time to come. So that, comparing the cost of the two and bearing in mind the fact that we own the Intercolonial Railway, the expenditure on that road, no matter what people may say, may be considered a good investment for the country. Looking over the report of the Canadian Pacific Railway, I find that they have still on hand 16,000,000 acres of land out of the grant given them on their main line and branches. Estimating that at $4 an acre, at which price they could sell it at once and get their money, that amounts to something like $64,000,000 that we have given them. Then, take the town sites which they own in Vancouver and other places, and which they have also received as free gifts, their value would amount to something like $20,000,000 more. And besides there is the cash bonuses and other moneys paid them, amounting to something like $35,000,000. To all this we must add a certain mileage of completed road, handed over to that company, worth $65,000,000. Then take the lands which they have sold and of which they have realized a sum of about $48,000,000. Adding all these together you will find that in all we have paid out $232,000,000 of our wealth for the building of that road, and we do not own one mile of it. And yet some hon. gentlemen will still carp because we have put $60,000,000 into the Intercolonial Railway, which we own ourselves and which will become a valuable asset later on. I believe that the government made a mistake in not having bought the control of the Canada Atlantic some time ago. The Intercolonial Railway should have been extended from Montreal to Depot Harbour, on the great lakes, so as to give an outlet by the government road from the great lakes to the seaboard. I believe also that we should continue the Intercolonial Railway through the province of Quebec, direct from the city of Quebec, the whole way to the Pacific coast, and we would then have a through rail route to the heart of the North-west Territories, and touching an ocean port at both sides of the continent, one open the year round, and the other of which could be kept open from nine to ten months in the year, or go further down to an ocean port that could be kept open the entire year. You could then have a system of transportation over which you could carry the products of the west to the sea,' and which could be open every month in the year. That would be a main artery,

under the exclusive control ot the people of this country. The 10 per cent clause then in the Canadian Pacific Railway agreement would evaporate into thin air. It would melt away like snow in the spring, because if you had a competing road owned by the government, the Canadian Pacific Railway, in order to hold their share of the trade, would have to reduce their freight rates to such an extent that the 10 per cent clause would be utterly ineffective. The government could then grant charters to any company to build branches to its main line as feeders of that road. These branches would be good paying institutions, and by this means the people of the west would be able to market their produce twelve months in the year.
I wish now to deal with the port of Montreal. With the modern progress we are making, with the enlarged vessels we are building, it will be found impossible to utilize that port as a national port. It will be impossible to get the larger ships into it, and we will find that we have spent a lot of money on it which might have been much better spent elsewhere. Montreal will always be a port of some importance, but not a great national port. The government should decide at once on some port as the national port of this country, and the government railways and its branches should touch that port. Then we should proceed to erect facilities there for handling the produce of the west and avoid the delays now experienced at Montreal and the head of Lake Superior. I have heard this question discussed in this House on other occasions, but I am sorry to say that nearly every one who has given his views on the question has had a port of his own to advocate. But we cannot all have ocean ports or lake ports at our own doors, and we ought to look at this matter from a national standpoint, with a sole eye to the development of the whole country from one end to the other. Unfortunately the larger part of the agricultural lands are situated about 2,000 miles away from the Atlantic seaboard, and the great problem we have to solve is, how we are going to get the produce of the prairies to an ocean port as cheaply as the produce of the western states is carried to the American sea coast, and thus give our people a chance of earning fair remuneration for their labour. From my standpoint, what we require is a through road from Quebec right through to the heart of the territories and thence on to the Pacific coast.
Now, as I have said before in this House, we have only 400,000 people on those plains, and last year, these people produced over 100,000,000 bushels of grain and also an enormous quantity of cattle, dairy products and other commodities. And I venture to say that if you were to put a fair valuation on that grain and those cattle and dairy products, and divide the total by the number of people in Manitoba and the Northwest, you would get a result showing an
average of production higher than that of any state in the Union or any province in this Dominion. The total value of these products represents an enormous sum of money. That money is not spent in the west, but comes down here to be spent in commodities that are needed for consumption by the people there. It is time that the business men of these older provinces, particularly those of the large cities and great manufacturing centres, should wake up to the fact that there is a long stretch of rocky land between North Bay and the head of Lake Superior, and that if we do not get better communication with the west than we have at the present time, that is, if we do not get better freight rates on our products from the North-west, the people that are now going into that country, at something like sixty or seventy thousand a year- and I believe it will be one hundred thousand this year-most of them coming from the United States, and not being accustomed to labour under these disadvantages of high freight rates on their freight products, will be sure to turn their eyes to the United States for an outlet for their products and a place for purchasing goods of all kinds. Now, this country east and west should stand together. The interests of the east, generally speaking, are those of manufacturing, while ours are almost entirely agricultural. Both interests should work together trying to solve this problem, that the trade of the North-west may be kept for this country.
Now, what position have the people of the North-west been in this year ? We have already discussed in this House the shortage of cars and the grain blockade, and I think hon. members are seized of the facts in connection with those matters. Last year we did not have half enough rolling stock to move the crop that was grown in the North-west. The consequence was that the farmers lost something like six cents a bushel on a large portion of their crop. And I will explain why. The grain buyers in the west in ordinary seasons begin about the middle of November to pay less for wheat than in the early part of the season, because they must count upon it being stored at the head of the lakes during winter, on account of the closing of navigation. Last year they knew that the grain could not be moved before the close of navigation, and so they started early in October to buy on the basis of winter storage at the head of the lakes. If a farmer happened to get a car, load it and send it down to the head of Lake Superior in time for export, he was paid on the basis of six cents a bushel higher than the dealer was giving him. The farmer, therefore, naturally came to the conclusion that the dealers were robbing him to that extent. But I suppose that the dealer was hardly to blame, for he was merely protecting himself against the danger of not being able to get the grain out that



stuff out or in for nothing, but I do expect that a railroad commission will see that the people in the western country are treated as well as the people in, the eastern country. I have pointed out before in this House that as soon as we get west of Lake Superior we pay just double what you pay east of Lake Superior. Take the tariffs of the great railroads, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway, and you will see that we are paying in local rates and in through rates just double what the people in the east are paying. The 10 per cent in the original charter of the Canadian Pacific Railway does not extend to branch lines, and there at least the government have control over that company, and that control should be exercised in such a manner that the people got fair and decent treatment on those lines.
When we have paid for these roads and made a present of them to the railway companies I hold that we should get fair and reasonable freight rates, because that is what we expect. We expect that a railway commission will deal with that phase of the question and that they will take up and go into this question of discrimination and see that we are not paying any more for the transportation of our grain, our animals and our other produce than any other persons are called upon to pay. Why should we pay more for the transportation of our produce than the people down here are called upon to pay ? I do not see why we , should be called upon to pay more, because it is a well known fact that we furnish a greatest portion of the freight traffic that the Canadian Pacific Railway have and they cannot say that it is on account of us not furnishing them with trade. We are paying double what we should pay for hauling our products and this is a question that a railway commission should be called upon to regulate.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Mr. Speaker, X rise to a point of order. I do not wish in any way to prevent the hon. member (Mr. Davis) from arguing his motion, but it seems to me that he is going beyond his motion. As this is the last day for motions I venture to raise that point. My hon. friend's motion is for :
Return showing the amount of money spent, on the St. Lawrence River from Montreal to Quebec, with the object of making Montreal a national port.
The hon. gentleman has no right, upon that motion, to discuss freight rates of railways in the west.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I think that under this resolution, which is a resolution dealing with the transportation problem, I should he permitted to discuss these questions. I have been speaking of railways in the west right along. I have been alluding to the fact that the harbour of Montreal will never make a national harbour. I have been alluding to the fact that there has been a lot of money


Thomas Osborne Davis: spent on that harbour and on the canals. I do not think that I have been outside of the question before the House. However, I will submit to the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I would caution hon. members. I would ask those who are discussing these matters to keep as near to the resolution as possible. I would say that there is a great deal of time lost in this House by wandering too far afield, and therefore I ask hon. members to discuss the question that is before them as closely as they can.


Thomas Osborne Davis: My hon. friend the leader pro tern of the opposition (Mr. Monk), I see, does not care to hear about the grievances of the people of the west. I have no doubt they do not interest him to the same extent that they interest myself and other hon. gentlemen in this House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think my hon. friend has a right to say that.


Thomas Osborne Davis: And if he takes exception to that I think it is well the western farmers should know it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I take a great interest in these grievances but they have a place in the discussions of this House.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I think their place is here and now and whenever we can get an opportunity of speaking of them. I am very much obliged to the hon. gentleman for keeping me closely to the question as he thinks I have been wandering far afield. I was going to mention, in connection with this phase of the question, the large amount of money that has been spent on the harbour of Montreal and tbe large amount of money that has been spent in deepening the channel between Montreal and Quebec for the purpose of allowing larger ships to come up, and I suppose that as the harbour of Quebec is connected with this part of the resolution, my hon. friend will not object if I proceed to discuss it. Therefore, I intend to say a few words in connection with the harbour of Quebec. I had the pleasure of visiting the city of Quebec something like a year ago and it appeared to me from what I saw that the harbour of Quebec is a much superior harbour to that of Montreal for the reasons that there is a greater depth of water, that it is closer to the ocean, that the tide keeps the ice from freezing to any great extent, so that, with proper facilities for ice breaking, it should be possible to keep the harbour of Quebec open for ten months in the year. If we could not do that you could easily go a little farther down and get a harbour which would be kept open for ten months In the year. The great and important need in the west is of some means, railroad, or railroads, that will take our produce out of the country during twelve months in the year, so that, as soon

as navigation closes on the great lakes, we can run ,our stuff out by rail. We might just as well store our wheat at the head of Lake Superior as bring it down and store it at Montreal. We want to market our wheat at the proper time, so that we can get our money out of it and so that we can take advantage of a rise in the market when a rise takes place. At the present time, not only the farmers, but the grain buyers, are unable to get the grain out of the country and to take advantage of any rise in price. For instance, if grain went up in the fall 25 cents a bushel it would be of no advantage to the grain buyers, or the producers, because they could not get the grain out. They would have to sit and look at it and wait until the price went down again. We want facilities whereby we can send the grain out of the country during twelve months in the year. Now, there are three propositions before the country which it might be well to consider. As far as extending the Intercolonial Railway t'o the Pacific coast is concerned, I do not expect that my advice will be accepted in that respect. But, we have other schemes before the House. We have one scheme which has been submitted to the House and to which a charter has been granted-the Canadian Northern Railway. A charter has been granted to the promoters of this enterprise for the purpose of enabling them to continue the road through the centre of the territories and on to Port Simpson, with a branch running down through the Yellow Head pass. Then a charter has been granted to them under which they can extend their line through the territories and along near the edge of James' bay. It is a small matter to build a railway to James' bay and to a navigable port on that body of water. A great many people in the west believe that the Hudson's bay route is feasible and that some day in the near future it will be possible to send the produce of the west out in that way. If it should become an established fact that we can navigate Hudson's bay we will be able to utilize that railway, ship our produce over that branch to James' bay and send it out in that way. Then, in addition to these lines the charter provides for a branch to Port Arthur, another to Montreal, one to this city, and one to Quebec.
We have another scheme which involves a still shorter route-the trans-Canada railway, running from the city of Quebec straight to James' bay and right along the northern portion of the North-west Territories to Port Simpson on the Pacific coast. I desire to say a word or two in connection with this route. It has been said that this trans-Canada route is useless for the reason that, as it is said, while it is hundreds and hundreds of miles shorter than the Canadian Pacific Railway, the character of the country is such that there would be no local traffic and that you would have 2,500 miles of railway running from Quebec to 1164
Port Simpson on the Pacific coast without any local traffic whatever. I do not think that that statement is correct. I believe that the greater portion of the road running through the northern part of Quebec will pass through good agricultural lands. There are great resources in timber and minerals all through that portion of Quebec and when the road reaches the vicinity of James' bay it will pass through good farming land. I can tell hon. gentlemen that after the road passes the narrows of Lake Winnipeg and gets up into the northern country it will pass through just as good agricultural land as there is to be found in the province of Ontario. In the Peace river valley and all through the Smoky river region there will be found a magnificent farming country, and when that road is built and the country is by this means opened up there will be found room for millions of people, and the result will be that this will be the shortest and most direct trans-continental route on this continent. That is a question that the government might take up. Here, then, are three alternatives ; you could extend the Intercolonial Railway to the Pacific coast, and [DOT] I would prefer that because it would be a government road. The money expended in the extension of that road will be well spent because it will belong to us, the existence of the road will be a safeguard against monopoly and excessive freight rates and against those large American syndicates coming in here and getting control of our railways. We will thus have a main artery owned and controlled by the government. Then, again, you have the Mackenzie & Mann proposition and then you have this trans-Canada railway. The government of Canada will have to take up one of these three schemes in the near future.
We want a policy that will develop that country. We are getting the people in now, but if we are going to retain them we must have some way of opening up the land for settlement and affording the producers a cheap mean&- of getting their products to markets from the west. It is time that some definite scheme of transportation were inaugurated* by the government. We should determine on what should be the national port, and we should spend money prudently on it, but we should not rashly decide on a port which in a few years hence we may discover will be of no use because it has not sufficient water. The government has a splendid opportunity now to open up the large tracts of land in the Saskatchewan and Assiniboia valleys as well as in other parts of that vast country. I have been told that it is the duty of the provinces to subsidize railways, but taking into consideration that 80,000,000 acres of our land were taken from us for the purpose of building railways, wisely or otherwise, it surely rests upon this federal government to do that work. At all events we have no province there now. and I do not think we will have one in the very near future.

If the government handles this question, and deals with it energetically they will find that they will have a hundred fold return In the increased population of the west, the increased consequent prosperity of the east; the increased value of Dominion lands, and the increased capital which will be invested in the country. Why, Sir, as I have already said, we have enough laDd out there to pay the whole national debt of Canada. *This is a great national question. Some gentlemen may think that the members from the North-west take up too much time in discussing their affairs But if the Ontario members or the members from the lower provinces laboured under the difficulties we experienced last year in the matter of the transportation of our wheat, they would be sure to make a greater noise than we do. We are sent here to let the people of Canada and the government know the wants of the North-west, and so far as I am concerned I will not be silent on that question. If this question is dealt with intelligently now it will be only a few years until this country will increase in po-[DOT] pulation as rapidly as the United States ever did, and then Canada will become to a far greater extent than to-day, the grandest colony in the British empire.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte).: There is of course no objection to- bringing down the statement that my hon. friend (Mr. Davis) has asked for. I may tell him at once, however, that there has been no public money spent in the harbour of Montreal ; not one single dollar. That statement will I suppose set at rest the mind of my hon. friend (Mr. Davis) who is so much down on us every session of this House. I repeat:	There has not been a
single dollar of public money spent in the port of Montreal. There is in Montreal a body politic called the harbour commissioners who have borrowed money on which they have faithfully paid every cent of interest that was due. As to the deepening and widening of the St. Lawrence between Quebec and Montreal there has been spent, in round numbers, $5,000,000 on that work- $3,000,000 before 1888 and about* $2,000,000 since. This a very small amount of money after all compared to what we have spent for the North-west in the past. It has been expended on a distance of 55 miles of the St. Lawrence river. When the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, about 30 years ago, undertook to deepen the St. Lawrence there were only about 11 feet of water in Lake St. Peter as compared with 271 feet now. Within two years there will be over 30 feet of water between the sea and the city of Montreal at the lowest possible state of the water, which is in the months of October and November. During the other months there will of course be more water.


Mr. BELL.: How much over 30 feet ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In the months of May, June, July and August, there will be between 33 feet and 35 feet ; let us say 33 feet-in the month of the lowest water there will be at least 30 feet. Thanks to the generosity of parliament, I might add, thanks to the intelligence of parliament is represented by both sides of the House, my department is now completing the great undertaking of widening and deepening the St. Lawrence between not only Quebec and Montreal, but between Montreal and the Gulf to a depth of at least 30 feet, and to a width of 450 feet in the straight parts of the dredged channel and to 500 feet, 600 feet and even 800 feet in the curves. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) was good enough to pay us a visit to the St. Lawrence river below Montreal a few days ago for which I am very thankful indeed. Like a good business man he came down to see what is going on so that he may contribute his share to the national work. I do not think that it is necessary to be a prophet to say now, that when the supplementary estimates come down the country will be happy to see in them the amount necessary to buoy and light the St. Lawrence in a proper way from the Strait of Belle Isle to the city of Montreal. My hon. friend (Mr. Davis) has never spared us during the last five or six sessions. He has invited us to close our canals ; he has invited us to be good enough not to deepen our waterways any further. I do not see what our friends of the North-west have to gain by asking the rest of the country to do everything for them and at the same time to deny us the right to do what we wish to do for the benefit of all Canada. I believe I give expression to the feelings on both sides of the House when I say that we have a great deal too much of that kind of talk here.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, I know I am expressing the feelings of both sides of the House in making this statement. What is the use of saying that the waterways are of no value to this country ? My hon. friend (Mr. Davis) has not studied the question at all I am sorry to say. He has just stated a minute ago, that a bushel of grain can be taken from Chicago to New York for 4i cents. Does he really mean that ? Why, to-day the rate on grain from Buffalo to New York is 11 cents per 100 pounds. What does the statement of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) mean in view of that fact ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: I took it from the report of the Minister of Railways last year. Something may have happened in the meantime, but that is the average.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Davis) is speaking


Thomas Osborne Davis: from a local standpoint only. Now, here are the facts. For some months In the year a bushel of grain can be taken from Chicago to New York for five or six cents ; but those are only the summer months. My hon. friend ignores this fact altogether. The waterways are the only cause of cheap rates. The rates he has quoted are the Buffalo rates. A bushel of grain is loaded on a steamer at Duluth or Chicago or Milwaukee and taken to Buffalo for about one and a quarter cents, the same rate, I may say in passing, at which a bushel of grain is taken to our Canadian ports on the Georgian Bay. During the summer months, while the Erie canal is open that bushel of grain is taken from Buffalo to New York for about three cents. As soon as the waterways are closed up go the rates. My hon. friend wants us to have no more waterways. If we had only railways from one end of the country to the other we would simply have to close our shop. My hon. friend invites us to build another transcontinental railway without any delay whatever. Let us have no more waterways, lie would say, and let the poor little village of Montreal be consigned to obscurity. We have in Montreal only a little population of about 400,000, about the same as that of the whole North-west combined. Last year the trade of Montreal represented only the very negligible quantity of $133,000,000. Let us shut the port of Montreal for the benefit of my hon. friend, and let us build another transcontinental railway without any delay. My hon. friend should not speak in that way. I can assure our hon. friends from the North-west that we entertain the best feelings towards them, but they must not ask us to give up everything. We won't do it; it is no use.


Thomas Osborne Davis: You don't now.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Our friends in the North-west have beeu treated in the most kind way. The Canadian Pacific Railway has been built with the money of Canada, and I make bold to say-and a railway commission will establish the fact-that the rates of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the North-west are lower than the rates of any of the American railways which parallel it. If my hon. friend inquires he will find that seventy per cent of the American farmers have built granaries for themselves at their own cost, while ' the Canadian farmers in the North-west do not build any granaries. Our farmers in Quebec do not ask us to build granaries for them, but they build their own granaries. Our friends in the North-west do not build granaries, but want every facility to be provided for them. The Canadian Pacific Railway was not able last year to accomodate them any more than the American railways were able fib accommodate the western states. The Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern, which I am glad to say is about completed, will in a year or two be in a better condition. But when my hon. friend asks us to believe that if we build another railway for their benefit all their grain will be carried on railways he is not speaking by the book. There are about eight or ten weeks in the fall during which the crops are moved. How are they moved ? They are moved to the ports on the great lakes. Our Canadian crops are moved to Fort William and Port Arthur, which are our natural ports on Lake Superior, and from there they are carried in Canadian and American bottoms to the seaboard. No railway can compete with waterways for such a long distance ; it is out of the question'. I am not adverse to giving to the North-west every possible accommodation, but our friends must not ask us, I say again, to give up everything for them. The port of Montreal is one of our national ports, as New York is one of the national ports of the United States of America. Quebec is also one of our national ports ; Three Rivers will be one ; St. John is one ; Halifax is one. Sydney will also be a great port. At the very moment when my hon. friend is asking us not to do any more to deepen the St. Lawrence, our magnificient highway, the Grand Trunk Railway Company are asking us to give them the right and privilege of settling down in the port of Montreal. I had the pleasure of reading yesterday a statement that their able manager was asking us permission to build on the Windmill Basin a large elevator of 1,000,000 bushels capacity as the beginning and also a large warehouse. In other words the Grand Trunk Railway Company are prepared to spend a large amount of money, amounting to probably a million dollars, in that small inferior port of Montreal. What does this mean 1 It means that the Grand Trunk Railway Company will develop their trade through Canadian channels and Canadian waterways, that the Grand Trunk Railway will carry to the port of Montreal grain that will be carried from the west to a Canadian port on the lakes. I do not know what that port will be. The Grand Trunk Railway has several ports at its disposal. Midland, Meaford, Collingwood, Owen Sound, are all Grand Trunk ports. We are developing all these ports to make them reservoirs of trade for the St. Lawrence route. Sir, this country will not develop if we do not stand together, and I blame our friends from the North-west because they are threatening to look to the other side of the line. I do not say at all that all the members from the North-west have done so. Several members of parliament have represented to me that my hon. friend should not have spoken as he has done. We are friends of the North-west, while the Americans are not. What is the use of turning our eyes to the Americans ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. I do not threaten. I only made the statement that we are getting immigration to the extent of 100,000 a year from the United States, and that if this kept up, these people, not having the means of marketing their produce, would naturally look to the other side of the boundary instead of coming here, and it would be well for us to take that into consideration and provide means to hold the trade.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am very glad to accept that explanation. I accept it cheerfully, but it reminds me of what is going on in the North-west. We are spending about a half million dollars for. immigration to that country. The older provinces are paying a large shhre of that money every year. But our eastern provinces have also magnificent lands. In the province of Quebec there are magnificent lands. My hon. friends complain that they have not sufficient railway facilities in the west. But I know of splendid districts in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario which have no railways and which do not turn their eyes to the United States of America for relief. Let us have a little patience. Our friends were bl-essed last year with a splendid crop. Providence was kind to them -too kind I am afraid. They had too much of a good thing, and we could not carry the whole of their trade as quickly as they desired.
We have spent, not $240,000,000 on the Canadian Pacific Railway, but $100,000,000, which is a large sum of money. I do not hesitate to say-I may be wrong in my view -that I view with some apprehension that large immigration from the United States to this country. I may be altogether wrong. I know that my views are not shared by everybody, but I am such a strong Canadian, from my feet to my head, that I would rather not dispose too quickly of our national heritage to foreigners, and would rather develop the country on safe lines than go too fast. My hon. friend says that those Americans, if we do not treat them better than we do our own citizens, will look to their own mother land. Then let us not go too fast, for we must not develop only one part of the country. Let us develop the country gradually as a whole. I cannot forget that there are maritime provinces, that we have a fast line in view, which will be a great benefit to this country ; that we have our canals to provide for and our other water-ways and the French river scheme and that all these undertakings are destined not only to feed our summer ports but our winter ports also. The port of Montreal, which is so heavily condemned by my hon. friend, is the largest commercial port in this country. We shall not close it, and my hon. friend will send his grain down there. Why? Because that is the cheapest route. I say without hesitation that when our canals are completely equipped, when the port of Mon-Hon. Mr. TARTE.
treal is completely equipped, it will be cheaper to send a bushel of grain from Fort William, Milwaukee or Chicago by the St. Lawrence route than any other. Will my hon. friend allow me to tell him that at this very moment grain is taken from Chicago to the city of Quebec for 5} cents per bushel.


Thomas Osborne Davis: What is the distance ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About 1,100 miles. From Fort William to the port of Montreal by that French river scheme, which my hon. friend condemns so much, the distance will be S90 miles. From Fort William to New York there are 1,192 miles. From New York to Liverpool the distance is 3,105 miles. From Montreal to Liverpool 2,773. In round numbers we would have an advantage of over 600 miles in favour of the St. Lawrence route. From Fort William to Fort Colborne, let us take the canals, the distance is 737 miles; from Fort Colborne to Montreal it is 320 miles, making a total 1.058 miles. From Fort William to Buffalo there are 750 miles, and from Buffalo to New York, 500 miles, making in all 1,250 miles. The distance is in our favour. Let us equip the St. Lawrence route and make it what it should be, because we have the distance with us. My hon. friend says that the St. Lawrence route is closed six months in the year. In that he is wrong. It is not closed more than five months in the year. The port of Buffalo is closed .lust as soon as Montreal. And how many bushels of grain were shipped to Buffalo last year ? Over 200,000,000. So that my hon. friend must agree that for a port which closes so early, it is doing quite a little business.
My hon. friend has said that there are not sufficient elevator facilities at Fort William and Port Arthur. That is true, but he cannot ignore the fact that about a week ago the Canadian Pacific Railway gave a contract for an elevator of about 5,000,000 bushels capacity. The Canadian Northern have also a very large elevating capacity. In Montreal the Harbour Commissioners are building a large elevator which will be completed for the opening of the next season, and the Grand Trunk Railway will no doubt build a large elevator also. The Canadian Pacific Railway have already two elevators, and I have no doubt that when the eastern portion of the harbour is completed, they will have another elevator or two there. There will then be sufficient elevating capacity in the port of Montreal.
My hon. friends must not make up their minds that the country will build railways to allow them to ship their grain and other products to American ports. As long as I am here I will do what I can to prevent anything of that kind, if they have such an idea in their minds, and I believe that the country will be behind me and the government.

I firmly believe that the port of St. Jolm is the one which is the best suited for our winter port. It is to-day a successful winter port. The Canadian Pacific Railway are taking a large quantity of traffic to it, not only from our own North-west but from the American North-west, as well. They have their connections not only with our Canadian North-west but with the American west. They are feeding the port of St. John in the winter months with American and Canadian grain.
When we are better equipped, when that French river scheme which my hon. friend so much condemns has been carried through, I do not believe that 1,000,000 bushels of Canadian grain will go to American ports.
My hon. friend has reproached us for not having purchased the Canada Atlantic. I think it would have been the utmost piece of foolishness to have done so. We have perhaps given too many subsidies to that railway. At the time we thought we were doing right, and 1 hope that we have not made a sad mistake. Still I am not sure. Only the future can tell. But If we had bought that road, we have been obliged to equip a fleet on the lakes. Mr. Booth has been able to feed his road and keep it in good fighting condition without losing too much money, because he is a trader and has a fleet on the lakes, which takes American products and American grain to a Canadian port, and because toe is a large lumber merchant who has large mills and is carrying on important operations at Burlington also. Mr. Booth has been able to keep his road open and in working order because he has a large American trade. Mr. Booth has been able to keep his road open and in working order because he has been able to get American trade. Canadian trade would never have kept his road open-everybody	who knows anything
about railways knows that. Had he depended upon Canadian trade his road would have been starved, and he would have lost, I suppose, a million dollars a year. Now, is the Canadian government to engage in the grain trade and in lumbering operations ? Mr. Booth's road is not running to the port of Montreal. To reach that port, it would be necessary for the road to spend a few million dollars. The government has not been ready to do that. The road that has no western connections in the winter months has to be handled with a great deal of care by this government. We are invited to extend the Intercolonial Railway to North Bay. But what good would that do us ? Where are our western connections ? Why, what is the use of talking that way ? If the proposal is made to extend the Intercolonial Railway to the coast, let us discuss it. But we have to consider several railways that have facilities in Canadian ports. The Grand Trunk Railway is carrying on a large business at Midland, and Midland is the most
important port for the Grand Trunk Railway on the lakes. But the Grand Trunk Railway for the winter months is not a Canadian railway, unfortunately, but is located at Portland for the winter, as Mr. Booth's system is located at Boston and Portland during that season. I am not going to spend much money to carry Canadian trade to American ports, if I can help myself. It seems to me we can do better than that. And the sooner our hon. friends who differ with us understand that there are people who will resist and resist firmly,, the better for us all. This country must stand upon its own bottom. Let us have our own tariff, whether high or low

let us have our tariff to suit ourselves. Let us have Canadian bottoms on the lakes and on the high seas. What do we see to-day ? We see an amalgamation of the biggest navigation companies on the high seas. And by whom was that amalgamation carried out ? By American capitalists, who own the American railways and who also control the American bottoms on the lakes. It is not hard to see what will be the result to us of that amalgamation, if we do not stand up like men. Controlling, as I have said, the ships on the seas, the American railways and the carriers on the lakes they will simply make the rates to suit themselves. If we allow them too much latitude, if we have not enough confidence in ourselves to equip this country on independent lines and on national lines, I feel, Sir, that before we are much olden, we shall have very grave results to face. I hope I am wrong in my views, but I firmly believe I am speaking gospel truth in saying this.
This is the reason why our North-west friends must not ask us to spend every dollar of our money in their territory. We will give them as much as we can, but we have something else to take care of. The older provinces also have their interests to be considered. When the Americans have control of the rates, they will squeeze my hon. friend (Mr. Davis) to the best of their ability, there is no doubt about that; and I believe the day is not far distant, when our railway companies will have to face that amalgamation and equip themselves on the seas as the American railways are equipping themselves on the seas-unless we make up our minds not to be a nation, unless we make up our minds not to be anything. It makes me tired and sick when I see the readiness of some of our friends in disposing of our national assets-our waterways, railways, everything, in favour of foreigners. Let us not be too


Thomas Osborne Davis: The hon. gentleman is misquoting me, I did not make any such statement. A moment ago he said that the American companies were getting control of our roads and that we should protect

V
ourselves against that movement. That is exactly what I say. I saicl it might be necessary to build competing roads.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was not alluding to my hon. friend (Mr. Davis), but was speaking in a very general way. Now, I have not much more to say except this-the work of deepening and widening the St. Lawrence will be completed within the next two years. I hope the government will be supported by both sides of the House in what I may call the national policy we are carrying out to-day. We are equipping our ports and harbours in the maritime provinces. We have spent large sums of money on the Intercolonial Railway. I hope and trust the expenditure of this money will have satisfactory results. We are spending money in equipping some of our harbours on the lakes. But not so much as I would like to see. If I had my way, as I have said before, and I may say it again, I would spend more money within the next two or three years to meet the situation we have to face in the United States. However, we are moving as quickly as the public opinion of the whole country will allow us to go. Port Colborne is being equipped. My hon. friend (Mr. Davis) does not believe in the canals. If the hon. gentleman will consider the question he will realize why it is that we have not handled as much trade by the canals as we should have done. We have not a shadow of equipment at Port Colborne. My hon. friend knows that the size of the ships navigating the great lakes is increasing all the time. Buffalo, on one side of Lake Erie, is magnificently equipped. I was there the other day and saw something of what they have. They have five miles of breakwater and they are rebuilding the structure in concrete. The Federal government is spending millions. All the American ports are being splendidly equipped, and Buffalo is their gateway. The biggest ships on the lakes go there. In Buffalo they have fifty-five elevators. In Port Colborne we have not a single elevator. How could we handle grain there in opposition to Buffalo ?
Now we had no equipment in the port of Montreal, and how could we handle grain coming through our canals ? But that trouble will be remedied. This government has grappled with that question, and I am glad to say that we have received assistance from many hon. gentlemen opposite. When the canals are equipped, as they will be presently, when Port Colborne is equipped, as it is being equipped now, when the St. Lawrence is deepened, and widened, and buoyed and lighted, we will have western trade coming through our Canadian channels. There is no doubt as to that.
My hon. friend said a good word for Quebec. Poor old Quebec ! fine old Quebec ! I have spent there the best years of my life. I am glad to see Quebec coming to Mr. DAVIS.
the front and getting a share of the trade, because Montreal is not able to handle all the trade, there will be too much. Three Rivers also' will be equipped, and there Is no doubt a large trade will be handled there also, indeed a large trade is now being handled there. Quebec will receive a large trade through waterways and through railways. My hon. friend must know that the Canadian Pacific Railway has reached Quebec, the Grand Trunk Railway has reached Quebec, the Intercolonial Railway has reached Quebec; still, last year Quebec only handled $10,000,000 worth of trade, while Montreal handled $133,000,000 worth. In Montreal we are not jealous of anybody, we know that last year we were not able to handle the trade, and that is the reason why so much of it has gone to other ports. For myself I am prepared to ask parliament to equip Quebec without any more delay. The equipment of Quebec will be necessary, especially when the fast line is established, and I hope it will be very soon. Quebec will then be more important than it has ever been yet. The port of St. John will also develop, and I hope that old historic city of Halifax will develop. Let us stand by our harbours, whether they are down on the sea, or on the lakes, or on the St. Lawrence. Let us stand by this country, I cannot say it too loudly, let us be Canadians. Let us not turn our eyes towards the United States. They are friends of ours, no doubt, if they could capture all our trade they would do it. But I firmly beliefe that the best thing for us to do is to be friends to ourselves, whether in tariff matters or in the development of our national railways and waterways. In conclusion let me tell my hon. friend that the people of the Northwest will find that even we in Montreal are friends to them, though they have treated us harshly at times, and we will continue to be friends to them if they do not too often turn Turk on us.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I desire to take exception to some remarks made by the Minister of Public Works. I think he has gone a little far afield in trying to impute motives to me when there was no need of it. He said, or insinuated that the people of the Northwest Territories wanted the people of the east to build railroads for them. I do not know that I ever beard any person in the North-west Territories asking 'the people in the east, or asking the government, to spend any money in building railroads for us. We are only asking what any other citizen has a right to ask, that is, proper facilities to handle our products, and that is not only putting money into our pockets, but into the pockets of every citizen of this country. He says the little village of Montreal, with 400,000 inhabitants, has as much population as the whole of the North-west Territories. I want to draw the hon. minister's attention to the fact that the people of the North-west Territories are paying millions

of dollars to the city of Montreal, year by year, to help increase its population. Commercial travellers from the great centre of Montreal are swarming all over the Northwest Territories, to season and out of season, like flies round a honey pot. That is where Montreal is getting its money. If it had'nt been for Montreal's trade with the North-west, there would not be 400,UUO people in the city of Montreal. I have nothing against the city of Montreal, the city of Montreal is all right. I said that the city of Montreal would always have a good trade. There is a certain class of ships that will always go to the port of Montreal. But we must look to the future, and I will tell him that I do not think that the canal system will be sufficient to remove all the crop that we will growl in that country in the next few years.
The hon. gentleman spoke about the amount of money that is being spent in the west. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that if any hon. gentleman will look at the estimates for the North-west. Territories for the last two or three years, he will find nothing to blow about as far as money spent in the west is concerned. I had the honour of receiving about $12 in my constituency last year. I am not complaining about that. We don't want that kind of improvement particularly, but what we do want is increased transportation facilities so that we can handle our crops. We are not looking to these little two-penny halfpenny grants for building wharfs and all that sort of thing. If there are wharfs all along the St. Lawrence, If there are wharfs hanging on every tree between Montreal and Quebec, I am not objecting to it. If there is an ocean port in front of every man's door between Montreal and Quebec, I am not objecting to it. I a-m only bringing out the needs and requirements of the people of the North-west Territories. The hon. gentleman took me to task for complaining about the freight paid on wheat between these different ports. I find in the report of the Minister of Railways and Canals for this year that the average freight rate last year on grain between Chicago and Buffalo was two and a fifth cents. I find in going over another statement of the freight on grain for the last year between Buffalo and New York, that the highest rate was three cents, and the lowest rate a cent and a quarter, an average of one and one eighth cents. That bears out the statement I made, and shows that the Minister of Public Works is not correct. I said that the .canals are not keeping up with the times. I find in the report of the Minister of Railways and Canals a statement giving the tonnage of wheat, food and breadstuffs carried over the canals and over the railroads between Buffalo and New York. I find that in 1894 they carried 1,400,129 tons on canals and that during the same year they carried 5,681,185 tons on railways. I will come down to the last year, and I find that in
1900 they carried 472,857 tons on canals as against 6,525,862 on railways, which goes to show that in every year from 1894 to the present time there has been a gradually decreasing haul on the canals in the United States as compared with the haul on railways. Now, I made a statement and it cannot he contradicted, and I have the statement here taken from the hon. minister's report that there has been a decline in the trade on our canals ever since 1897. The figures are all against canals and all in favour of railways in this century, and 1 think it is going to go on in that direction. My hon. friend says that he wants to be patriotic. I am as patriotic as any man in this country. I have said nothing in this debate that is not patriotic. What 1 say is that we should have more transportation facilities and that we want a railway and an ocean port. My hon. friend goes on to say that Montreal handled so many million bushels of grain last year and that Quebec handled so many bushels, but he did * not tell us how many million bushels of grain went to American ports. My object is to have all that grain handled at an ocean port in this country, and by building or extending our railways in a proper manner ship this grain, which is going to Buffalo and other American ports, through our own country and through Canadian ports.


Mr. BENNETT.: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) how many millions of bushels o,f wheat were received at Buffalo from Canadian ports ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: I have not the figures.


William Humphrey Bennett: I will tell the hon. gentleman there were about 3,000,000 bushels only.


Thomas Osborne Davis: We have heard a great deal of complaint in this House about the trade going from Canadian channels to American ports. Another statement which the hon. Minister of Public Works made was that he wanted Canadian bottoms. Certainly we do I believe that we should have Canadian boats to carry Canadian grain. I believe it was necessary to suspend the coasting regulations three years ago when American vessels were allowed to come in and carry Canadian grain from one Canadian port to another. That is not a desirable thing, but we had not sufficient Canadian bottoms to handle the trade on that occasion and that privilege was given. I may say that the Canadian west has passed its experimental stage now, and that business men might take up the question of providing sufficient tonnage and perhaps get the assistance of the government to do so.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Might I suggest to my hon. friend that there has not been a time when there has not been, a sufficient number of Canadian boats to carry grain from the west to the east.
;G99


Thomas Osborne Davis: I remember the debate that took place in this House after the government suspended the coasting regulations in order to relieve the congestion at the head of the lakes two or three years ago. If there had been a sufficient number of Canadian boats to carry the grain out it would not have been necessary to suspend the regulations.


Edmund Boyd Osler: There was a sufficient number of Canadian bottoms to carry every bushel of grain out and the government were wrong in suspending the coasting laws.
The MINISTER OB' PUBLIC WORKS. The lion. gentleman (Mr. Osier) must not forget one thing. He forgets that half of those ships were engaged in other trade, and were not available for the grain trade. It is all very well to say in vague terms that there are enough Canadian bottoms. There are not enough. Far from it, because half of them are engaged in other , trade.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I might tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Tarte) that at the end of last season's navigation, with the greatest crop that was ever produced in the North-west, there were three boats left at Fort William for the winter, because there was no grain for them to carry out. There were Canadian bottoms to carry out every bushel of grain that was available. Canadian enterprise is building Canadian boats as fast as the demands of the grain trade require.
I speak of knowledge, because I have been interested in Canadian boats on the northern lakes for many years, and I can say that the boat business has been quite up to the gram business, and that the firms which are interested in boats are not only keeping up with the demand, but, are building in. advance of the demand and that within the last week contracts have been let for boats carrying half a million bushels. There has not been a shortage in this matter.
minister of public avorks.
AVould the hon. gentleman allow me to remind him that when this government allowed American bottoms to navigate in Cana-clian waters it was to carry American grain to a Canadian port. Mr. Booth is the gentleman who applied for that privilege. He asked permission to use American bottoms to carry American grain and perhaps along with it Canadian grain.
Mr. OSLEIt. Canadian grain ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS les, and why ? Because he could not find enough Canadian bottoms.


Edmund Boyd Osler: These American bottoms were employed by Mr. Booth to carry American grain to his own port, and then by his own railway to an American port. That is not to a Canadian port.


Thomas Osborne Davis: My hon. friend from Selkirk (Air. AtcCreary) has just placed in Mr. 0SL3R.
my hands a report of the AATnnipeg Board of Trade which deals with the question that the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) spoke about a moment ago, and which I wish to read to the House :
The tonnage of the Canadian lake vessels is not keeping pace with the annually increasing tonnage handled at Fort AVilliam, and it behooves Canadians to move in this matter with despatch, or an unduly increased percentage of Manitoba grain will seek the Atlantic seaboard via Buffalo and American lines. It is doubtful whether, if all the grain offered to the Canadian Pacific Railway last fall had been taken to Fort William, there would have been Canadian vessels to have taken it across the lakes, even when excluding the quantity actually taken to Buffalo in American bottoms. Late in the fall Buffalo was blocked, and owing to the coasting laws, American vessels were not allowed to carry grain from Fort William to another Canadian port. Either the Canadian fleet will have to be largely augmented or the coasting regulations suspended, for Manitoba grain cannot be held back at Fort William or Port Arthur, because the Canadian vessel tonnage is inadequate to handle it.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I think the AVinnipeg Board of Trade are like a great many other western institutions; they anticipate events that do not occur. They anticipate that there will not he a sufficiency of vessels to take out the grain. I made the statement that there were three vessels that were obliged to winter at Fort Wiiliam because there was not enough Afanitotoa wheat at Fort William ready for them to take out on their last trip, and in consequence they had to winter there for want of the cargo which they expected. There was no grain available for them.


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: AVould American boats have loaded themselves with Canadian grain for American ports ?


Peter Macdonald: All this discussion is out of order; let the hon. gentleman (Air. Davis) proceed.


Thomas Osborne Davis: The hon. gentleman (Air. Osier) tells us that there was not sufficient grain with which to load these vessels. One of the reasons why there was not sufficient grain wias that .the Canadian Pacific Railway could not take the grain to the elevators. We had the grain in the west and if it had been brought down to Fort AVilliam these boats would not have been tied up. In reference to what the hon. gentleman said about the Winnipeg Board of Trade *ny hon. .friend (Mr. AIcCreary) informs me that 7,000,000 bushels of grain went via Duluth through American territory because the Canadian Pacific Railway could not bring it to a Canadian .port, which is a lamentable thing. That is what the Winnipeg Board of Trade wants to prevent, and I venture to say there is no body of men in the Dominion that knows as much about the question as the Winnipeg Board of Trade.

There is not a body in Canada that knows j more about grain than does the Winnipeg Board of Trade, and 1 would further point out to my hon. friend (Mr. Osier) that his partner Mr. Nanton is president of that board of trade, and Mr. Nanton is a business man and he knows what he is talking about. The Minister of Public Works said that something might happen that would enable the American railroads to squeeze us. Well, the position I took was that it might be necessary for the people of this country from a national standpoint, to build the Intercolonial Railway to Fort Simpson on the Pacific coast as a main artery controlled by the Canadian government, in vic-w of the fact that some day the Americans mav control the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Grand Trunk Railway and other Canadian roads. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) accused me of making the sweeping statement that our canal system was no good. I did not say that. I said that the canal system would always be valuable for local traffic, but that this was a railway age, and as the canal system was inadequate to serve the transportation purposes of the great North-west it would be necessary to secure transportation by railways. The Minister of Public Works told us that we spent $100,000,000 on the Canadian Pacific Railway. I wonder how he arrived at that figure. The report of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company shows that they still have 16,000,000 acres of land which is worth at least $4 an acre, and that represents $04,000,000. I was under the impression that we gave them $25,000,000 in hard cash, together with a completed portion of the road which cost the government $65,000,000, and that they got another 16,000,000 acres of land which would represent a further sum of $48,000,000. If the Minister of Public Works figures it out, he will find that the people of Canada gave the Canadian Pacific Railway $240,000,000 in lands and money, which is more than the whole system is valued at to-day. I complain that in view of all this we still have to pay the Canadian Pacific Railway exorbitant freight rates to carry our products. The Minister of Public Works told us that grain was carried 1,100 miles for 51 cents, and in view of the fact that we have to pay 8i cents for carrying it 448 miles, is not that a grievance that we suffer? He told us that the people of the North-west Territories were having $500,000 a year spent on immigration for their benefit. I believe that money is well spent but I never heard before that it was not spent in the interest of all Canada. Our immigration agents do not alone represent Manitoba and the North-west, but they represent the older provinces as well. Anyway, every dollar spent in Manitoba and the North-west Territories is a benefit to the whole Dominion. We are a producing people and we manufacture nothing. The money that we get
for our products comes to the east and helps to build up the eastern cities. We are proud of that, and what I said was that it was necessary to take other steps to bring the west and the east closer together, so that our trade might increase and so that a friendly feeling might exist. When I said that I spoke from a national standpoint. I repeat that the only solution to the difficulty is for the government to build one great national artery, or if they want to keep to the old policy of assisting companies, let them assist a company to build a great highway from the west to Quebec ox* some port that will be kept opened ten months in the year, so that we may have the advantage of a fair market price for our wheat and not be compelled to store it all winter. Suppose we raise 400,000,000 bushels of wheat in the west and have to store it during the winter months, then when that vast quantity would be put on the market in the spring of the year down would go the price, and the farmers would lose not six cents per bushel but perhaps twenty-five cents per bushel. We do not want anything unreasonable in the North-west, we point out here what is required, and when we do that we are only doing our duty to our constituents. We don't want any one to build granaries for us ; we want liberty to build our own granaries though, and we do not want legislation that gives a monopoly to the elevator combine. Give us the reasonable facilities which we want, and you will hear little more about complaints from the west.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. HANCE J. LOGAN (Cumberland) moved :: That considering ibe general prosperity of Canada, the minimum wage to be paid trackmen and other labourers on the government system ot railways should be at least one dollar and a halt per day.
He said :	Mr. Speaker, we have heard a
great deal to-night with reference to the west and I have a grievance to discuss in reference to the east. It is not the great transportation question it is true ; but still it is a question which concerns the working men on the government railways who have wives and families to support on small wages, and it is a question just as important to them as is the question we have been discussing to the farmers in the North-west Territories. I regret very much that the Minister of Railways and Canals is obliged to be absent this evening because I would have liked to address a few remarks particularly to him. I wish to speak Sir, on behalf of two classes of public employees who seem to have been neglected in the


Hance James Logan: amount of credit for having raised the wages of many of the employees of the Intercolonial Railway. I refer particularly to the trainmen, the conductors, the brakemen, the drivers, the firemen, the telegraphers, and the station agents all along the line. The wages of these men have been increased by the present Minister of Railways ; and why is it that the wages of the trackmen, who have to work 10 hours a day, who have serious responsibilities, who are skilled workmen-because a man has to be a skilled workman to be able to look after any system of railways-are kept down to the pittance of $1.20 a day ? We send our immigration agents all over the world to bring men into Canada. It is a poor advertisement for Canada to have it go to the world that the government of this country pays its workingmen only $1.20 a day. Besides, these trackmen have devoted their lives to this work.
I know men in my own constituency who have worked on the railway for 20 years or more as trackmen ; and if they left their job to-morrow, although they are skilled men in keeping up and maintaining a railway, they would be unfitted to earn a livelihood at any other kind of work. In reference to the freight handlers, I may say that these men are compelled by the force of circumstances and the class of work they have to do, to be men of education, men who can read and \yrite well, and who are trustworthy and honest; and yet these men, who have serious responsibilities, who handle hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of freight, are compelled to work for $1.20 a day. Last year there was a strike of the trackmen of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and what was the answer of the company to the men who demanded higher wages ? There answer was, ' You cannot expect us, a soulless corporation, to give you more than the government of Canada pays to its men on the Intercolonial Railway.' It was that argument that killed the strike at that time, and the men were forced to go back to work. Within the last few weeks these men have been again negotiating with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and the company have agreed to increase their wages to $1.25 a day as the minimum rate and to pay more in towns and cities where the cost of living is high. They also agreed to leave the question of the wages of the trackmen to arbitration, in case the trackmen would not accept $1.25 per day. It seems to me that this country cannot afford to continue the present condition of affairs any longer. I am in close contact with these meu. I know many of them in my own constituency. I know their circumstances, and I cannot understand how under the sun a man can keep his family, with six, seven, eight or nine children in some eases, on $1.20 a day. My hon. friend from Montreal (Mr. Gallery) says that the city of Montreal pays $1.50 a day for labourers on the public streets. In the town of Amherst we have to

pay the men who work on the streets much higher wages than are paid on the government railway. It has a deteriorating effect on the workingmen of the country who know that the government does not pay its workingmen sufficient wages. Therefore, without taking up the time of the House at this late hour, I desire to call the attention of the government to this condition of affairs, on behalf of these workingmen, some of whom are among the very best citizens of the country, in the hope that they will immediately take this matter into their consideration, and increase the wages of the trackmen and the freight handlers to a sum that will enable them to keep their wives and children in greater comfort than they can do on their present rate of wages.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES (King's, P.E.I.).: Mr. Speaker, I just rise to endorse and support and emphasize what the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) has said. In his motion he takes in the government railways of Canada, but he confined (his remarks to the Intercolonial Railway. That was probably a mistake. I think that the government, in taking this matter into consideration, should certainly consider it as compre-hensably as the motion on the Order paper, which says the government railways, and consequently includes the Prince Edward Island railway. As a matter of fact, I know that young men who go on the railways and get positions as trackmen, by being saving and sober men, are simply able to support themselves. After some time perhaps they get married, but they are not able to support their families on the wages they receive ; and after they have acquired experience and become more valuable, they are obliged to leave the railway service, and take up some other occupation in order to make a living.
I do not think that such a condition of things ought to be allowed to continue in this country. As my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) has pointed out, the railway trackmen are above the ordinary labourer. Their work requires more intelligence, and in addition they have to be out in all kinds of weather and at all hours, which entails additional expenditure on clothing, etc. They have to provide themselves with suitable clothing to meet the conditions under which they labour or their health will be impaired, and I know of cases of men whose wages did not permit them to clothe themselves suitably to meet all kind of weather and support their families, in consequence of which their health suffered and they were obliged to quit work. Of recent years the cost of living in Canada has increased. It costs more to suppoi*t a family now than it did in former years. Clothing is dearer, rents are higher, and because of the great progress of the country a higher standard of living is necessary. In consequence of all these reasons and others which could be adduced, the wages paid the trackmen are not sufficient to enable them to support their families. The pay of all other men on the government railways has been increased fairly well, but the trackmen are kept just where they were several years ago. I earnestly hope that the government or the Minister of Railways will take up this matter and deal fairly and generously with these men, and I am sure that such a step would commend itself to the House and country.


Mr. DAN. GALLERY (Montreal, St. Anne's).: While I am in entire sympathy with the remarks of the hon. gentlemen who have so well pleaded the cause of the trackmen, I regret that they should have confined themselves to that particular class of labour and other labour on the government railway. There are men employed on our canals whose claims deserve equal attention, and when the government is considering the justice of raising wages on the Intercolonial Railway, I would ask that the claims of these men employed on the canals should also be given some consideration. It seems to me that the minimum rate mentioned in this resolution should be made to apply generally, and if the government will go beyond the resolution when considering the question, and do justice to the conditions and claims of all classes of day labour in its employ, it will take a course that will gain for it' thq support of all the friends of labour in this country.


Mr. A. W. PUTTEE (Winnipeg).: I wish to say a few words to express my sympathy with this resolution. It is one which I thoroughly endorse. I notice that it is directed particularly to the Minister of Railways and Canals, who is not in his place tonight, but I hope that its approval by this House will have the effect of causing him to put it into effect without delay. I would myself have preferred a resolution in more general terms; I would have preferred that the minimum of $1.50 per day should have been made applicable to all classes of labour in the service of the government and not merely to those in its railway service, and in urging that this minimum be fixed, I do not think it is necessary to make any special argument with regard to special training or skill or anything of the-kind. It should only be necessary to mention that the work is required to be done and that men have to be employed to do it. I do not think it is right that this government should hire men at any rate of wages which prevents their entering married life. The government should pay wages sufficient to enable every one employed by it to support a family and not a wage that compels him to remain single. We have on the Intercolonial Railway about 700 trackmen employed, and the

fact that they are not paid a sufficient wage has had a considerably wider effect than many people in the east may suppose. There are now about 12,000 trackmen employed on all the railways, exclusive of .the government road, and I believe that the wages of these men have been kept down during the past few years just because of the low price paid by the government. Other railway companies have pointed to the fact that the people's own employees were getting even less than these companies were paying. This argument was specially used in their strike last year. At present the question of wages on the Canadian Pacific Railway, affecting 6,000 or 8,000 men, is a matter for arbitration, and I believe that if the Minister of Railways would act on this resolution at once and grant the increase asked for, that would have an immediate effect on all other railway companies. I would rather this resolution were drawn in broader terms, because I notice there is a Bill before the House affecting the wages in the Post Office Department. Should that Bill become law the lowest rate paid in that department would be $1.25 per day, and I am totally opposed to this government admitting at all that any man, who is required to give his whole time to the government service, should receive as low as $1.25 per day, because under that rate no man is in a position to support a family.


Mr. H. R. EMMERSON (Westmoreland).: I would like to ask the attention of the House for a few moments while I make reference to the position of the railway freight checkers and freight handlers. 1 fully endorse what has been said with respect to the sectionmen on the track of our government railways, but the freight handlers and freight checkers are obliged to work usually from thirteen to fifteen hours per day, and receive only $1.20, though their work is of a nature that requires some considerable education. I believe that there is a condition inserted in government contracts for public works, which requires the contractor not to pay a less wage than $1.25 per day, and it seems very inconsistent that this government, which insists on such a condition, should pay its own labourers only $1.20 per day.


Mr. TAYLOR.: In these growing times ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, in these progressive, prosperous days. I am sure that the Railway Department is entitled to great credit for what it has already done in this direction. Only a few years ago, previous to 1896, 90 cents and 99 cents per day were paid. The Minister of Railways increased their wages gradually, until now they have reached $1.20, and certainly the time has come when we should pay them a larger per diem allowance. In the railway department at Moncton, there have


Arthur W. Puttee: been a great many increases within the last few years. In the railway offices the wages of the clerks have been very properly increased. They were formerly living upon the most meagre allowance, starvation salaries, but gradually these have been increased. In the workshops at Moncton a system had grown up which1 worked great inequality in wages paid the mechanics. It was suggested that a commission should be appointed to classify the work, and that a certain wage should be fixed for each particular class of work. It seems to me that that would have been a proper course to pursue, but the Minister of Railways took a different course and instructed his officials to make schedules.. Under the old system three or four men would be working at the same bench, each of whom would require the same skill and qualifications. One man, probably, would be getting 15 cents an hour, another 19 cents, another 22 cents-all the result of accident. This was the outcome of the so-called system which has prevailed upon the Intercolonial Railway since it was a railway. The man who was receiving a relatively high wage received it simply because he happened to be more fortunate than his neighbour. Perhaps he had a little more influence, and had been able to secure attention to his claim, while his neighbour had not been so fortunate. There has been a readjustment, and these inequalities have been measurably removed. The men who are working at the same class of work get now the same wage-at least, to a degree that condition exists. It seems to me that a more perfect system could have been inaugurated by a more perfect classification of the work, and scheduling it as to the wages paid, so that there would be no possibility of any political or other influence being exercised in favour of this man or that man, but every one employed on the road would be classified, -and would receive the wage belonging to his classification. I heartily endorse what has been stated by the mover and seconder of this resolution, and would urge that this matter should receive the urgent and prompt attention of the Minister of Railways.


Mr. DONALD A. MACKINNON (East Queen's).: I have listened carefully to the speeches made by those who support this resolution, but I must say that I do rot agree with them. It seems to me -that a matter like this should be left with the Minister of Railways and his department. The work of the Intercolonial may sometimes call for the services of some labouring men who are not worth $1.50 a day.


Hance James Logan: Then, they should not be there.


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: They may -be required for purposes which should not be paid for at that rate. It depends on the labour, and

it depends on the man. Some men are young, some are old; some are able to earn $1.50 a day and some are not. To my mind this is not a matter fo# parliament to regulate. The effect of passing this resolution would be to give both those who are worthy and those who are not worthy this wage of $1.50 a day. To say that they should not be employed unless they can earn that amount -would be to exclude from the service of the railway this class of labour.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: But this applies to the trackmen.


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: I contend that it is a wrong principle to pass a resolution of this kind, and it seems to me to yield too much to pressure from outside. It would not be fair to those whom we charge with the duty of managing this road. Here is a department in charge of the Minister of Railways, who is fit to direct that department; and he has under him managers who are fit for the work they have to do. To take the matter of wages out of their hands, as you will do if you pass this resolution, is to do something unworthy of parliament.


Alexander Johnston: This only fixes a minimum.
*


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: Fixing a minimum or maximum is no part of the duty of parliament. That should be left to the officers of the road. Parliament must not forget other labourers not in government employ who have to contribute towards increased wages. I have every confidence that this question will be fairly dealt with by the Minister of Railways.


Alexander Johnston: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman a question. He talks of a certain class of labour on the road. But this resolution has reference to the trackman. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he knows what the duties of a trackman are ? If he does he must know that these duties are very onerous and exacting. If a man is not fit for such duties he could not be employed as trackman.


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Johnston, Cape Breton) will read the whole resolution, he will see that it refers not only to trackmen but to 'other labourers' as well.


Mr. ARTHUR S. KENDALL (Cape Breton).: I lay it down as a general proposition that no business should exist in this country unless it can stand on its own bottom. I know that many hon. members of this House will dissent from that proposition. But I make this second proposition, which I do not think many will dissent from when they go before the electors-that no business should exist in any civilized country unless it is able to pay its employees sufficient remuneration to keep them and their families according to the requirements of
civilization. I believe that the people of Canada will support that proposition, particularly with relation to the government, and will hold that the government should not engage in any business, unless it can provide for its employees a sufficient wage to maintain them and their families according to the requirements of civilization. I think the country will believe this also-that where the country itself is a great employer of labour, the government that acts on behalf of the country will be expected to be a model employer. Hon. members may recollect that last session I asked the government, during the recess then to follow, to collect information from other countries-New Zealand, Switzerland, Great Britain and others-with regard to the working out of measures which had for their object the betterment of the conditions of labour, particularly along four lines : (1.) A standard minimum wage; (2.) shorter hours of labour; (3.) compensation for injuries and death; (4.; old age pensions We have had mention here of the late Henry A. Harper, who was employd in the Labour Department. Before his untimely death, he collected a large amount of information on these subjects, which has been pur. in my hand. I am glad to see that my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) has dealt with one of these questions, and has brought this resolution before this House. I have given notice of another motion, which, if time permits, I shall refer to later on. Coming back to the question immediately before us-in many of the towns on the Intercolonial Railway, Montreal, Quebec, Moncton, St. John, Amherst, Halifax, New Glasgow, Sydney and others, every one knows that the miserable wage of $1.20 or $1.25 a day must keep the men employed on the road and their families almost in a state of beggary. I say again that the people of this country do not wish the government to engage in a business in which they cannot provide for their employees and their families at least sufficient shelter, clothing, food and fuel. Not very long ago, I pointed out where the government railway of this country was losing a huge sum of money every year, which money it might save by getting its coal at fair prices instead of at exorbitant prices as it is doing to-day. I heartily endorse the motion of the hon. member for Cumberland, and I believe the people of Canada, when the question is properly put before them, will endorse it also.


Mr. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure).: The grievance complained of by our friends iu Nova Scotia exists on the Intercolonial Railway in the province of Quebec, and I have had occasion many times to bring the matter to the attention of the Railway Department but, like my hon. colleague without success. The principle which has been enunciated here this evening that the fixing of the wages of these men should be left to the officials of the railway, is a

wrong one. This parliament fixes the wages and salaries of all its employees in the Dominion of Canada, and I fail to see why the same generosity should not be extended to the poor men. We have been told that the salaries and wages of all the officials of the Intercolonial Railway have been increased. The country will be surprised to learn that the workmen, the trackmen, the labouring men, have been omitted from the benefits which have been extended to the other employees of that road. We all know the difficulties and hardships to which the trackmen are exposed, especially in this country where the winters are so long, and where they have to work for ten or twelve hours in a day, sometimes fourteen hours. If there is any class of men who should be well paid it is those who are charged with supervising the line and keeping the track in order. We travel over Canadian railways every day without realizing to how great an extent our safety, and our lives even, and the lives of those who are dear to us, are dependent upon the vigilance of the men who are looking after the track. I hope the Minister of Railways and Canals will extend the generosity of the government and of the country to the poorer classes of our employees. We are now in a growing and prosperous time, Canada is boasting of its surplus, and while we, the representatives of the people, are dispensing millions and millions of public money, let it not be said that we ask the poor man in our service to bring up a family of six, seven, eight, nine, ten children, as is often the case in the province of Quebec, upon the miserable pittance $1.20 a day.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think while the House is in this generous mood we should extend our sympathies to another class of employees who are at least as much entitled to the consideration of the government as those already mentioned, I refer to the stampers, sorters and letter carriers employed in the Post Office Department. There are many of them in the city of Montreal, and they receive a very inadequate salary, much less than $1.50 a day. Stampers and sorters are just as much entitled to consideration as the humblest employees of the Intercolonial Railway and some of them are obliged to support families on a salary of less than $400. I therefore move to amend the resolution by adding after the word ' railway ' in the motion :
As well as all men employed on the public canals of Canada, and all stampers and sorters, as well as letter carriers in tbs public service of Canada.	.
This is to meet the case mentioned by my hon. friend from Montreal. Many of those employees on the canals are found in my division, and they are as much entitled to receive $1.50 a day as those already mentioned.


Charles Marcil: 


Mr. FLINT.: I would suggest that the amendment should include employees on all the public works of Canada, in that shape I would vote for it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not think that was necessary, because I had confidence that the Minister of Public Works would do justice to his own employees.


Mr. J. B. MORIN (Dorchester).: / I wish to say a word in regard to the salary of the public employees. I have read the list of the employees of the government and have noticed the salaries they are getting, and I do not know whether I am mistaken or whether they are mistaken themselves, but I have failed to hear of any case where they found fault for receiving too much. At the same time I have heard a great many complain that they were not receiving enough. This much I do know, that the salaries of public employees are not equitably divided. I know men who are working in the city of Ottawa here for $1.50 or $1.60 a day, strong, able and healthy men. I know other men who are getting $1,800 a year, $2,000, $2,600 and $2,800. I have felt disposed to ask some of those men whether, if they were dismissed from the public service, they would be- compelled to beg their living, because some of them are hardly able to walk. If you look up their ages in the Civil Service List you will find that some of them are 73 years old. Some of these men get $2,800 a year for working four or five hours a day. That I know to be a fact. I quite agree with what has been said with respect to the wages of men employed on the government railways. A man working on the railway does the hardest kind of work ; he is exposed to heat and cold, to snow and rain. And yet these men are only paid $1.15, $1.20 or $1.25 a day. In many cases they have to beg their way into the service on the railway, and unless they have friends of influence they cannot even get appointed. Now, why should some men work ten and twelve hours a day for $1.15 or $1.25, while other men who can hardly walk get $2,800 a year ? But feeble as they are, they manage to get to their offices, because they have been coming for the last forty years. For my part I desire to see employees of the government treated more equally.


Daniel Gallery: I have been informed that in some departments there are ladies employed getting $1,500 and $2,000 a year. It seems to me very strange that they should be getting such high salaries, when poor labouring men are only getting from one dollar to one dollar and twenty-five cents a day. In the city of Montreal, for instance men employed in scraping the streets get $1.50 a daji. Men who are employed on the canals in all sorts of weather, rain or shine, are deserving at least of $1.50 a day; if not they should not be there at all. I would

remind the House that these men who work in the eanals are only employed seven months in the year, so that hon. gentlemen 'will see that the wages on which they have to support their families for the whole year is very small indeed. I hope the minister will increase the wages of the canal employees at once.


Mr.   D.@: FARQUHARSON (West Queen's, P.E.I.) This is a question in which I take a good deal of interest. A good many men employed on the government railway in Prince Edward Island are not, in my opinion, sufficiently paid. It is a big question, however. The civil service list is au immense list to rearrange and readjust as it should be, and in my opinion it would be a big contract to undertake. The hon. gentleman who just resumed his seat and the previous speaker as well, in my opinion, touched a chord with which I sympathise deeply and that is that while some are getting too much others are getting too little. The remedy is x>erhaps far to seek. From what I have observed since I came to Ottawa and from what I had previously known, I would have thought that there would be many offices where there were too many men employed. I am satisfied that as a rule a great many men are receiving high salaries who do not do very much for them. But we must not complain too much. We find the world over that the men who work the least are paid the most. While that is the rule, I think the discrepancy is too great in this country as it is in any other country. Why should one man sit behind a counter in an office and get $2,000 or $3,000 a year while another man gets $300 or $400 a year under almost similar conditions ? I do not think that is right. I am perhaps too democratic in this respect, but my sympathies run in that direction. Let there be a commission appointed to investigate and make such a rearrangement as will give every man what he deserves, I sympathise with the poor man. He gets too little return for his labour. He has to pay out all he earns to support his family, with nothing for the future, and this is the man whose family is often large. I think we should look into this question, and endeavour to do what is fair to the men employed in this government.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have been very nearly six years in the Department of Public Works, I am paying salaries that seem to be high, and I am paying salaries that are not always high. Now, I am free to say that perhaps we do not pay enough to our employees. It is a peculiar statement, but any business man who handles large business will agree with me that you cannot pay too much to a good employee. If you give $2,000 or $3,000 to a man who has only moderate ability and give $10,000. or $15,000 to a man who has superior ability, the 117
man whom you pay $10,000, or $15,000 will be cheaper than the man to whom you pay $2,000 or $3,000. Look at the large corporations, look at the great railway corporations; I venture to say that in the Canadian Pacific Railway offices in Montreal there are about ten employees who get over $20,000 a year each. These are very large salaries; still, the men who are at the head of the Canadian Pacific Railway and at the head of the Grand Trunk Railway are meu who earn them. They would not pay these high salaries unless they were earned. I believe it would pay this country better if we would make up our minds to get the best possible labour that money can secure. I do not hesitate to say that here. I have increased the salaries in my department. I feel that I am employing a number of men, who, if they were outside of the Public Works, if they had not started life in the public service, would ibe able to earn $10,000 and perhaps $15,000 in a large city. Take Montreal or Toronto; it is easy to see architects in Montreal who earn $10,000 or $15,000, and engineers who earn $10,000 or $15,000 a year. These men are in the public service to-day and they are very able employees indeed. We cannot all earn the same salaries as we cannot all of us be members of parliament. It is out of the question to believe that every person can earn the same salary. Our hon. friends who have stated that employees are not paid enough who get $1.50 a day must not forget one thing; I believe I am not wrong in saying that the ordinary labouring man in Montreal or Toronto does not earu, averaging the year, more than $400. The man who gets into the public service is, as a rule, sure of being employed every day of the year and I can assure my hon. friends that ministers of the Crown have no trouble at all in finding people at the rate of salaries paid now. I have no trouble whatever. The trouble is that I cannot employ all the men who are anxious to sacrifice themselves *on the altar of their country at these low salaries. They are employed every day. Railway employees, I fully grant, have perhaps harder labour, but all the same, they are very glad to work at such employment. I am receiving letters every day in the week by dozens and hundreds from people who are anxious to go into the public service even on a railway and at the low salaries that are paid now. At the same time I grant that some of the salaries are not high enough, but I take this opportunity of saying that if we have good employees we should not hesitate to pay them. We are not paying enough to-day to some of our high officials.


Hon.   WM@: ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) The reason the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) is troubled with too many applications is because he is generous to his workmen. He pays them according to their value and therefore he gets the best class of people to work for him. My idea is



that you will only get labour out of a man according to the wages you pay him, and that if you increase the wages of a man you will get more work than you would get out of a man you employed at a low rate of wages. I think also that if the wages of the men on the Intercolonial Railway were raised to a proper amount you might perhaps reduce the number of men that would be employed, and you would find that four men properly paid would do the work that six men are employed now to do. I think that people should be paid according to their value and that it would also be desirable that none should be employed on public works except men who are qualified to do the best work at a fair rate of wages.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: I would like to say, in regard to the observations of the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte). that while it is quite true that you may be able to get men at small wages; still, you must bear in mind that there are men in the country who, being under the necessity of supporting their families, will accept a wage which they think inadequate, and therefore, it is not perhaps quite fair to put it in the light in which the bon. Minister of Public Works is inclined to put it. I do not know that the resolution is very happily worded. It says :
That considering ilie general prosperity of Canada the minimum wage to be paid trackmen and other labourers on the government system of railways should be at least $1.50 per day.
I would certainly think that whether Canada was prosperous or not the labouring man was entitled to have a fair living wage. There is no doubt that the cost of living has advanced very largely during the past five or six years. That is a circumstance which ought fairly be taken into consideration in dealing with the wages of workmen not only on the Intercolonial Railway, but in all the departments of the public service, including the Post Office Department and Public Works Department. It is true that the men who work on the Intercolonial Railway, the trackmen particularly, have a very responsible position indeed, and lead a very arduous life. That is a consideration which demands the attention of the House, or rather the attention of the Department of Railways and Canals in dealing with so important a subject. It seems a little strange that my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) did not have something of this kind in his mind when he was so ready in the past to vote for transactions such as the acquisition of the Drummond County Railway and the bargain that was made with the Grand Trunk Railway. We know that a very large price-very much more than the cost of that railway-was paid for it, and that a bargain which I think was not very much in the interest Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).
of the country was made with the Grand Trunk Railway. Now, we have a deficit on the Intercolonial Railway; possibly to some extent as the result of that. The deficit on that railway it is true may not be due wholly to these . circumstances, and it is without doubt due to the fact that the Intercolonial Railway is not administered on the same business principles which characterize the administration of railways owned by great corporations in this country and in the United States. If supplies for the Intercolonial Railway were purchased in the same way as they are made by other railway corporations there would be no deficit on the Intercolonial Railway, and these labourers might be paid the wage which is demanded by this resolution without a single dollar of additional burden on the taxpayers of this country- It would, therefore, be well for my hon. friend, from Cumberland and for other gentleman like him who profess to be so solicitous on this subject, to take matters of that kind into consideration so that we may not have this very large deficit on the Intercolonial Railway to be put forward-as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Logan) states it is-by the Minister of Railways as a ground for refusing to these men tlie wage which hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House think is fairly their due. Another consideration which might well attract the attention of the House, is the absence from this debate of the Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) as well as the absence of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Mulock). Where is the Minister of Labour to-night, who is so solicitous about fixing a fair wage in contracts made with the government of this country ? Why has not my hon. friend (Mr. Logan) employed the services of the Minister of Labour to induce the Minister of Railways to do justice to these labourers ?


Hance James Logan: I know that the leader of the opposition would not make these remarks if he knew that the Minister of Labour has been quite ill and has been confined to his house for the past week.


Robert Laird Borden: I regret very much the illness of the minister, which I was not aware of, but my hon. friend (Mr. Logan) had ample opportunity this session to bring up this matter when the Minister of Labour was able to be present and in the House.


Hance James Logan: 1 never had an opportunity of bringing it up when the Minister of Labour was in the House. I never had an opportunity until this time.


Robert Laird Borden: That seems to indicate that the Minister of Labour has not been in the House very often during this session, because this motion has been standing on the Order Paper for the last five or six weeks. Whether or not that be the case, why has not the hon. gentleman

sought the intervention of the Minister of Labour in this connection. That hon. minister prides himself very much it is said; takes very much credit to himself, I know, for the fact that he has established a fair rate of wages in respect to contracts which are granted by the government. Why have not the services of that hon. gentleman been employed with the Minister of Railways ? This government takes so much pains with contracts of this kind, that it publishes its announcements in respect to them in the * Labour Gazette,' yet it is not able to deal effectively, according to my hon. friend from Cumberland, with a subject which has so much importance for a great many people in this country as that which he has brought to the attention of the House to-night. The principle of the resolution which my hon. friend {Mr. Logan) has moved is a commendable one. I do not know myself as to the exact figure, but I do believe that having regard to the increased cost of living-in this country, it is only right and prqper that the wages of these men should be taken into consideration and such an increase made as the existing conditions demand.


Alexander Johnston: I have a few observations to offer on the resolution introduced by my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan). Let me say that it meets with my entire approval. In my constituency there are quite a number of men who are employed on the Intercolonial Railway, and my colleague (Mr. Kendall) and I have brought this matter to the attention of the Railway Department with a view of having their wages increased. The freight handlers and the trackmen particularly are in my judgment receiving insufficient pay. I endorse all that has been said to that effect. Let me say in reply to the leader of the opposition, that while the state of affairs at present on the Intercolonial Railway is not satisfactory to myself or to many hon. members of this House, yet the existing state of affairs on the Intercolonial Railway is very much better than that which prevailed when the Conservatives were managing that railway. I remember very well that when the Intercolonial Railway was being constructed in Cape Breton under the late government, the men were very glad to get 95 cents per day, and the then government never made any effort to secure for them an increase in that miserable rate of pay. While the pay these men receive at the present time is not sufficient to enable them to live as they ought to live, yet we have the consolation to know that it is better than the pay they received when the late government was in power. I shall not discuss to-night with the leader of the opposition the question of the deficits on the Intercolonial Railway. He need not be reminded; the House need not be reminded, and the country need not be reminded, that we had more deficits on the Intercolonial 1171
Railway previous to 1896 than since that time. We, have had fewer deficits since 1896 than we had before, notwithstanding the fact that wages on the Intercolonial Railway are now much, higher than they were before. I rose simply for the purpose of giving my approval to the resolution of my hon. friend (Mr. Logan), which I hope the government will entertain.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir AVilfrid Laurier).: My hon. friend the leader of the opposition has alluded to the fact that the Minister of Railways and Canals and the Postmaster General are not present on this occasion. It is very much to be regretted, I agree with him ; but my bon. friend will agree with me also that members of parliament are sometimes absent from parliament for other duties, or for other reasons, good or bad. If the Minister of Railways and Canals and the Postmaster General are not here, they cannot be accused of being absent from any neglect of their duties. They have not been1 dining or banqueting at other cities. It so happens that they are absent for very cogent reasons which we all deplore. It is well known that the Minister of Railways and Canals has not been in good health this session, and the Postmaster General is laid up with a severe attack which I am sorry to say may prevent his attendance at the House for some time to come. But I hope to relieve the apprehension of the leader of the opposition in regard to this matter. The Postmaster General did not expect that the subject of the wages paid to the packers and sorters would come up for discussion to-day, for the reason that he has a Bill on the Order paper on that very subject to which the amendment of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) would be more germane than it is to this motion. As to the salaries of the men who are the subject of the present motion, the trackmen on the Intercolonial Railway, I am happy to say to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, and happy also to inform my hon. friend (Mr. Logan) who has moved the motion, that this very question is at this moment engaging the attention of the government. Less than ten days ago a delegation of the Association of Trackmen on the Intercolonial Railway had an interview with the government in which they asked not for such a substantial increase in their wages as the motion proposes, but that the government would hear them and discuss with them the question of an increase in their wages. They made a very fair suggestion, but upon it being represented to. them that at this time the minister was too busy to give the matter the attention which it deserved, but that he would discuss it with them after the session, they have agreed to defer it until then, when an interview will take place between them and the Department of Railways and Canals

on the subject. Under such circumstances, I think my hon. friend will agrge with me that his motion might very well be withdrawn, because he will be glad to know, I am sure, that the step which has been taken is satisfactory to the trackmen themselves. With regard to the salaries paid to the men employed on the Intercolonial Railway, I am sure that my hon. friend the mover of this motion and all those who have supported it will admit that the present government have not done badly at all with their employees. All the salaries have been increased since 1896. Even the trackmen, who form the subject of this motion, received an increase two or three years ago. They receive now $1.20 a day. It is not a very large wage, I admit, and there seems to be a general consensus of opinion that it should be Increased. The discussion that has taken place here will no doubt serve a good purpose when the time comgs for the discussion of the matter between the men and the Minister of Railways and Canals. The minister will be very muct assisted by the discussion that has taken place to-day and the general expression of opinion that has been conveyed from all sides of the House that the men who give their time and services to the country ought to receive adequate compensation. My hon. friend whq has moved this motion has sought to make a comparison between the salaries paid on) the Canadian Pacific Railway and those paid on the Intercolonial Railway. He has; stated, and stated truly, that the wages paid on the Canadian Pacific Railway are somewhat higher than the present wages paid on the Intercolonial Railway. I do not know, however, that this is an argument, and I do not chose to discuss the subject on that basis at all. It is very difficult if not impossible, to lay down a uniform rate of wages to be paid to trackmen. It must depend very largely on the locality. There are sections of the country where $1.20 represents much more than it does in cities like Montreal and Ottawa. The men understand that themselves, and are prepared to discuss this view with the government in the conference that is to take place between them, and the administration a few days hence. I hope therefore upon the assurance I have given that the matter will be considered and adjusted, that my hon. friend from Cumberland will agree to withdraw his motion, and I hope my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier will do the same with his amendment.


Hance James Logan: As the Premier states that he is at the present time in negotiation with the Trackmen's Association, of course I do not desire to do anything that is going to injure the chances of the men to have this matter thoroughly discussed, and their wages increased all along the line if possible. I trust the negotiations which are going on at the present time between the Trackmen's Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
Association and the government will lead to the conclusion that the Intercolonial Railway trackmen should be paid the rate of wages which I have suggested in this motion. The rate of $1.50 a day is not proposed as a hard and fast wage to be paid all over the system of railways ; but it is proposed as the minimum wage to be paid to workingmen. I base my case on the simple ground that any man who is fit to be a trackman of the Intercolonial Railway or fit to be a handler of freight, or to be entrusted with hundreds of thousands of dollars of the property of Canada, who Is not worth $1.50 a day, should not be on the Intercolonial Railway or any other railway in Canada. My hon. friend from Prince Edward Island has said that there are men who are worth one dollar per day while others are worth $1.50, but the question I am discussing now is the fixing of a minimum rate, and I am afraid that my hon. friend does not quite understand the responsibilities of the trackmen upon great systems of railways. Before a man can be a trackman, he must , in the first place, go on the road as a sort of apprentice.


An hon. MEMBER.: I wish they were paid $5 instead.


Hance James Logan: As I have already stated, I brought this matter, during four or five years, before the railway department and before the general manager, and as a last resort, I have brought it up in this House. A man has to be an apprentice for several months, and then, if found competent by the trackmaster, he is given a permanent position on the Intercolonial Railway and takes all the responsibility of the work. He has to keep that road in good condition, and is liable to be called out at any time, at any hour of the night or day, even on Sundays. He must be there on all occasions to protect the track and has to work nine and ten and sometimes twelve hours a day. The greater the storms in winter and the hotter the sun in summer, the harder he has to work, and yet we only pay him the miserable sum of $1.20 per day. The hon. leader of the opposition has tried to draw a red herring across the track by seeking to cast reflections on the Minister of Labour and the work of the Labour Department. But that hon. gentleman dare not stand up here and move that the Labour Bureau, established by the Postmaster General be abolished. He knows just as well as I do, that the establishment of that department was a step in the right direction. He knows well that the Minister of Labour has done more for the labouring men of Canada than all the Cabinet Ministers of the Conservative administration were able to do from 1867 down to the advent of the present government. He is perfectly well aware that in the old days, when government work was done down in Nova Scotia, navvies and dagoes were brought In to work for a pittance of

from 60 to 75 cents per day, and our own labouring men had to walk the streets or accept the miserable wages in competition with foreigners. But to-day these workingmen have to be paid the current wages of the locality, and consequently the workingmen men of Canada are given the preference, and these workingmen appreciate what has been done for them by this government. Instead of hon. gentlemen carping and complaining, it seems to me that they ought to support the Minister of Railways in doing more for labouring men than was done for them in the past, by increasing their wages and enabling them to have more home comforts than they formerly enjoyed. I regret that the minister is not here, but I know that his ill health prevents him from attending our evening sessions, but I trust that the negotiations betwen the trackmen and the Minister of Railways and the First Minister and other members of the government will result in an increase of 'their wages. The hon. Minister of Public Works deserves great credit for the manner iri which he treats the labouring men who are working under him. I have no fault to find with him, and I believe that when the trackmen's case is placed before the Minister of Railways by the Trackmen's A sJ sociation, and he is fully seized of the labours and responsibilities of these men, both of which are increased in these days by the faster and heavier trains employed, he will, with that sense of fairness he had shown the other employees on the Intercolonial, increase their wages by fixing a minimum of at least $1.50 per day.
If I can have the consent of the seconder of my motion, I would be disposed td accept the assurances of the First Minister that the case of these men, whose claims I am urging, will receive very consideration.


Edmund Boyd Osler: If the mover of this resolution will get no more satisfaction out of it for the class of men whose claims he is advocating than the letter carriers obtained out of the promise of the First Minister in their case, I am afraid! that he will find that he has taken up the time of this House in vain. A year ago, when I had the pleasure of attending a deputation of the letter carriers who waited on the government, we were told by the ministers then present that their grievances would be considered and justice done to them, but from that day to this nothing has been accomplished, and I am very much afraid that the same result will follow this resolution which the First Minister has asked to be withdrawn.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I regret very much that it is impossible for me to withdraw the amendment. I think that this is the right time to take the sense of the House upon this important question. I quite agree with the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) that the pay of $1.50 a day is quite inadequate, and even if he were disposed to withdraw his resolution, I certainly do not feel warranted in withdrawing the amendment. Whatever doubt there may exist, as the hon. member for Prince Edward Island has said, as to whether some men may be really worth more than $1 aj day or not, there can be no doubt that the men employed on the Lachine canal are worth more than that sum, and as'regards the employees of the post office in the cities of Montreal and Toronto, and in every city where there is a street delivery, the wages paid the letter carriers are a subject of scandal throughout the country. If I were to consent to the withdrawal of the amendment, which brings those two classes under the consideration of the House, I would be doing something which it would be very difficult to explain. We are not enacting a law, we are merely expressing an opinion, and if the government are going to consider the question of wages on the Intercolonial Railway, and if the Postmaster General has a Bill dealing with the question of the letter carriers, stampers, and sorters in Montreal and Toronto, it is well that the House should be now given the opportunity of expressing its views as to the course of conduct which we think ought to guide the government in the consideration of these questions.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I entirely dissent from the view expressed by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that this is the proper moment in which to deal with the question. The resolution and the amendment before the House present two classes of workingmen as deserving of special consideration-those employed on the government railways and those employed in the post office. The First Minister has called attention to the fact that the claims of both these classes are engaging the attention of the government, and that one of them is to be dealt with by a Bill which will be laid before the House by the Postmaster General. Therefore the House will still have ample opportunity of dealing with the claims of the letter carriers in a most effective way when the Bill is submitted to us. There is therefore no need for the House to pass an opinion with regard to the wages of the post office officials. As to the other class, the First Minister has said that an arrangement has been made for a conference to be held at the close of the session between the representatives of these men and the Minister of Railways. My sympathies go out entirely to the workingmen, after the statements that hare been made to-night. I do not say that it would be wise to lay down a universal rule. The resolution does not confine itself to the trackmen, but goes further and says that all other labourers shall receive not less than $1.50 a day.

That is open to some discussion. As a general rule, I would say that ablebodied men doing any intelligent work in Canada should be able to earn $1.50 a day. But let us not conceal from ourselves the fact that many workingmen receive less in private life. I know that there are among our government officials persons who are earning less money, and nobody seems particularly concerned about them. Some are messengers, whose work requires that they shall be very intelligent men, do not receive $1.50 a day. When you consider that the labourer who receives $1.50 a day only works for a portion of his time, you see that he is not so well paid on the whole as others who may get a less rate per day, but who have the advantage of steady employment, as is the case with the men employed in the government service. 1 ami resisting this motion, not for any lack of sympathy for the men concerned, because my sympathies go out entirely to them. I have no doubt that the discussion this evening will have the useful purpose of assisting the ministers concerned in fixing a rate of wages which will be more satisfactory than that of the past. But I believe it is not wise that the House should commit itself in this hasty way in these matters, when they are engaging the attention of the ministers who have the management of these particular branches of the public service. I think we would be unwise to proceed to a division on this motion. I move that the debate be now adjourned.


James Joseph Hughes: In view of the statement made by the Prime Minister, I am willing, as seconder of the motion, that it should be withdrawn.
House divided on amendment (Hon Mr Fielding).
YEAS :
Messieurs
Bazinet,
Beland.
Borden (King's, N.S.), Bourassa,
Bourbonnais,
Brown,
Bureau,
Calvert,
Campbell,
Carbonneau,
Carroll,
Champagne,
Delisle,
Demers (St. John), Dugas,
Emmerson,
Farquharson,
Fielding,
Flint,
Fortier,
Geoffrion,
Girard,	,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), Johnston (Cape Breton),
Lavergne,
Legris,
Lemieux,
Macdonald,
Mackie,
MacKinnon,
MacLaren (Huntingdon) McCreary,
McGugan,
Mclsaac,
McLennan,
Malouin,
Marcil (Bonaventure), Matheson,
Monet,
Paterson,
Ross (Rimouski),
Ross (Victoria, N.S.), Russell,
Scott,	'
Sifton,
Stewart,
Talbot,
Tarte,


William Stevens Fielding: Kendall,
Lang,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),
Alcorn,
Barker,
Blain,
Borden (Halifax), Boyd,
Calvin,
Earle,
Fowler,
Gallery,
Kaulbach,
Kidd.
Lancaster,
Amendment journed.
Tobin,
Tucker,
Turgeon.-54.
NAYS :
Messieurs
LaRiviSre,
Leonard,
Monk,
Morin,
Osier,
Puttee,
. Richardson,
Roche (Marquette), Taylor,
Tolton,
Vrooman.-23.
agreed to, and debate ad-


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
Copies of all tenders received by the Post Office Department in June, 1901, for carrying mail between Hamilton and Guelph.-Mr Smith (Wentworth) by Mr. Taylor.
Copy of the petition sent to the government asking for the dismissal of Mr. H. Therein, postmaster at Grandes Piles, in the province of Quebec; and copies of all correspondence between the government and all persons interested in the subject of such dismissal.-Mr. Bail by Mr Taylor.	'	'
Return showing names of parties who took part in the battle of the 'Windmill,' near Prescott, Ontario, and who have since received pensions ; and for what reasons'. Also, the names of those who are at present receiving pensions on account of said battle.-Mr. Reid (Grenville) by Mr. Taylor.
Copies of the petitions from the electors of the counties of St. John, of Iberville, and of Missisquoi, during the year 1901, objecting to the construction of a new dam at the foot of Ste. Therese Island, in the Richelieu River ; copies of the Chambly Manufacturing Company's petition and plans ; copies of the engineers' reports and of the Order in Council, dated the 30th January, 1902.-Mr. Demers ''St. John and Iberville).
Return showing the number #of locomotives, coaches and cars of the several kinds ou the stock list of the Intercolonial Railway, and the Prince Edward Island Railway, respectively, the designating number of each, the date when it was first received into service, its present condition, whether it is now in active service, and if not, the date on which it was last in service. -Mr. Barker.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 12.55 a.m. Tuesday. *
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, April 29, 1902.