Mr. KEMP moved :: That the evidence taken before the Public Accounts Committee regarding certain purchases by the government from flaudry, be Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
printed, and that -rule 94 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 159) to incorporate the Maritime Stock Breeders' Association-The Minister of Agriculture.
Bill (No. 163) for the relief of Samuel Nelson Chipman.-Mr. Flint.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 164) to amend the Act of 1S99, respecting the city of Ottawa. He said : Mr. Speaker, I thought at one time of making a proposal with the view of consolidating the work of the Ottawa Improvement Commission and the Ottawa Parks Committee, a body under the control of the city of Ottawa, or, a body that has recently been abolished, and its powers transferred to the city of Ottawa by an Ontario Act. However, I realize that at the present stage of the session we would hardly have time to deliberate upon a measure of that kind. The amendment I propose now is merely to enlarge the number of the commission, without in any way changing its powers or responsibilities. It is proposed that there shall be added four commissioners to those already appointed. The object is to broaden the scope of the commission. It is not intended that all these gentlemen shall be from the city of Ottawa, but the design is to take some gentlemen from outside the city of Ottawa, and perhaps some hon. gentlemen sitting in parliament, who have an interest in the national capital, and who will have sufficient leisure to enable them to assist in its improvement. I do not anticipate tuat there will be any objection. If there is, I quite realize that any Bill at this stage will not get through.
Mr. SPROULE.: Is it the Governor in Council who appoints the additional number of commissioners ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Mr. INGRAM.: Before this motion is carried, I would like to draw the attention of the government to the fact that on the 14th day of this session there was supposed to have been a detailed statement brought down to this House concerning the expenditure of this Improvement Commission. It does strike me that the section of the Act requiring this return has not been complied with. I have here a statement as brought down by the commission, and it is not a detailed statement at all. It is not a detailed statement, as the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) will see, by comparing it with the re-

quirements of section 11 of the Act. This section reads :
The commission shall render to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General and to the corporation, on or before the first day of September in each year, detailed statements of aJll their receipts and expenditures up to the last day of June in such year ; and copies of such statements shall be laid before parliament by the Minister of Finance and Receiver General within the first fourteen days of the next following session thereof.
I have the statement here, and although it involves something like $92,000, it does not give the names of the streets that the money has been expended upon. I will read the list that it gives.
Princess Terrace, King street, printing and advertising, Concession and other streets, stationery and office supplies, telephone, rent and storage, Rideau River bridges, road machinery, Ri-deau canal driveway and parks, Rideau street, Keefer property, tools, implements, &c., Wellington street, Bank street, McKay and other streets.
It is due to this. parliament that we should know upon what streets the money is being expended. I did take occasion, when the estimates were before this House, to make some inquiries in connection with this expenditure, and I find that I have been greatly misunderstood. The ' Journal,' of this city, which seems to take great interest in the few remarks I made on that occasion, accuses me of having been loaded up by some disgruntled Liberals of this city, but to clear the mind of the editor of the ' Journal,' let me say that I have not had any conversation with any disgruntled Liberal in this city or outside of this city regarding this question. I have had. no conversation with any of them in connection with this matter, and I am not here for the purpose of cleaning the decks of hon. gentlemen opposite.
It is the duty of the members of this parliament to inquire into an expenditure involving $00,000 a year. If we desire to make this the Washington of the North, it is just as much our duty to consider a matter of this kind as it is the duty of the ' Journal ' newspaper of the city of Ottawa. What I did on that occasion I believe was my duty. I for one am not opposing this expenditure, but I am opposed to this Star Chamber method of doing business. I believe this money should be expended in a business-like manner, as all public money should be expended, and it was for that reason I rose to object to certain things being done by this Improvement Commission. I have been here for a number of years, and I have watched carefully some of the improvements made in the streets of Ottawa, and I wish to say I believe this expenditure could be put to better uses. I have heard rumours going around this city in connection with this expenditure, and one would have to be deaf if he did not hear them. For my part, should I occupy a seat in the House, I intend to pay a little more
attention to this expenditure in years to come. I ask that a more detailed statement of the expenditure of that money be laid before parliament, in order that we may have a chance of sizing up exactly how it is expended. We can criticise the general estimates submitted to parliament, but we have no opportunity in this case of criticising the expenditure unless an amendment is made to the Act. A detailed statement is brought down within the first fourteen days of the session, and that is the only statement upon which we can hope to give the matter fair criticism. I wish to point out that in giving the expenditure a fair criticism, I do so not for the purpose of opposing it, but in order to ensure that the money is not improperly expended.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Although it is not usual to debate the question on the introduction of a Bill, yet I wish to make a few remarks. I have heard it said on thoroughly good authority that this commission transacted business behind closed doors. I regard that as entirely wrong. If there is nothing done which is improper, then they need not be ashamed to have their proceedings open to the public. I agree with the proposition to increase the number of the commissioners, because if the information we have is anything like correct, the whole work is done by one or two individuals, and the disclosures which took place under the late mayor showed a state of things which is anything but proper. My memory is, that one of the commissioners who is largely controlling the business was furnishing the supplies himself ; that practically the money was expended where ever he desired ; that it was expended upon streets where it was in the interests of himself and others that it should be expended, and that in reality the money which parliament voted for the purpose of improving the streets of Ottawa was practically put in the pockets of the commissioners by dealing with themselves through fictitious names. The statement is made that they were enabled to do this largely because of the smallness of the commission. It is, therefore, important that the commission should be enlarged and that some one outside of the corporation should have the authority to appoint the additional commissioner that it is proposed to put on that board.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: I may say that when the gentlemen upon this Ottawa Improvement Commission were appointed I did not know a single one of them personally, and I am not sure that I have known any of them since except that I have once or twice spoken to Mr. Bate and Mr. Cunningham. I have no special acquaintance with the details of their work, but I think I can say that if hon. gentlemen made an examination of it and drove over the work which

has been done, they would say that it would be impossible to do better work or more work for the amount of money expended. That, after all, is the purpose that the government and parliament have in view in the constitution of the commission and its appointment. I am quite satisfied that 1 can safely say that the government and parliament can congratulate themselves upon the fact, that the work undertaken by the commission has been most successfully and most efficiently done. There has been no waste of any kind whatever. There was some discussion in the local press, but if my hon. friend fallows that discussion 1 think they will find that it arose largely from the jealousy between different municipal bodies, which under the circumstances may readily be understood. A close examination of the matter will, I think, show my hon. friends that there is no doubt but that the Ottawa Improvement Commission got first-class value for every dollar of money it expended, and that it would be quite impossible for anybody however constituted to get any better value than they got.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I have the consent of the House to say one or two words more. It was brought out in that examination that load after load of stones was brought around the streets of the city time after time, and the same load weighed and charged to that account and paid for. It was also brought out that materials which went on the streets belonged to one of the commissioners, was taken out of a storehouse of his own under another name, and that it was traced back that it was really sold by the commissioner himself.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not sympathize with the view that the public press should be admitted to every meeting of every public body. There are hundreds of cases where the admission of the press, even to meetings of bodies of a public character, may not be advantageous to the public, and I believe that the best journalists of the country will approve of that view. There is no use generalizing in this matter ; we must take each case as it comes up. Let me point out to the hon. member (Mr. Ingram) that if there was any exception to be taken to the details which were furnished in the statement required by the statute, if the hon. gentleman had called attention to it at an earlier stage of the session I would have been very glad to look into it and see if there was any cause for complaint.


Andrew B. Ingram: When we were discussing the estimates for the Maria street bridge I called the hon. gentleman's attention to it, and the hon. gentleman said: We had better allow that to stand over as I propose to amend the Bill, and when that comes up it will be the proper time to discuss this question.


Hon. Mr. SIFTON.: 


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Certainly it is the proper time, but if the hon. gentleman wanted to complain that any information brought down was defective, the proper time to complain was at an earlier stage of the session when we could make it good, which we cannot do now. In the Act respecting the Ottawa Improvement Commission it is required that the accounts should be audited in the same manner as the accounts of any public department. Every item of the expenditure of that commission is fully set forth in the report of the Auditor-General-as fully as it could have been if it had been the direct expenditure of any department of the government. If the hon. gentleman turns to page G-31 of the Auditor General's report he will find six pages filled with all the details of the expenditure of the Ottawa Improvement Commission down to the last cent.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then, I would like to point out to the hon. gentleman that the statement which he is supposed to receive from that commission is required to be laid before this House.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I had great pleasure in placing that statement before the House as contained within the four corners of this admirable blue-book on almost the first day of the session, and if my hon. friend has not had his attention drawn to it, it only goes to show that he does not value this book as highly as I do. I do not object to any fair criticism ; but I do regret that at this stage of the session observations are made reflecting on the good faith of the members of the commission. I have no special knowledge of the work of the commission other than that which I get from the public reports ; and, while I have a great admiration for the press, and while as an old journalist I should be the last to speak disparagingly of the press, yet I do not think my hon. friend should accept everything that appears in the press as absolutely certain. As the whole matter involved in this Bill is a mere addition to the number of the commissioners, t admit that the discussion upon it might as well take place on the first reading ; and if objection is not to be taken to the Bill itself, I hope lion, gentlemen will not too hastily assume that statements which appear in the public press reflecting on the commission are correct until we can have an opportunity of inquiring into them before the Public Accounts Committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the hon. minister in favour of keeping the press excluded from the meetings of that commission ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I would
reserve my judgment as to that ; but I
would be inclined to think I am.


Mr. N. A. BELCOURT (Ottawa).: I cannot allow this occasion to pass without expressing my regret that the hon. gentlemen opposite who have spoken should on mere street rumour felt themselves called upon to repeat in this House statements which are not only very much exaggerated, but which have been shown to be without any foundation. I do not think the gentlemen who compose this commission-such men as Mr. Henry Bate, Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Riopelle-who have very generously during the last three years given their services gratuitously to the work of the commission, will thank these lion, gentlemen for having made themselves the mouthpieces of these street corner talks, which amount to nothing.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman :	is it true that one of
these commissioners threatened to resign unless the business was transacted in a different manner ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I do not know anything about that ; but I know that these gentlemen have done good service and have received absolutely nothing for it. One of these commissioners, Mr. Riopelle, during the whole of the last working season personally superintended the work. He was on the ground day after day during the whole time the men were there, giving his services without any remuneration whatever. I think it is a very poor recompense to these men, who have shown such public spirit, to be treated in the way hon. gentlemen opposite have treated them. The only statement made, to which the hon. member for East Grey has referred, and which, like all other stories, gets bigger as it is repeated, is that a tender of some relative of one of the commissioners for furnishing cement has been accepted.


Mr. BENNETT.: Was that not charged in one of the public newspapers in the city of Ottawa ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I do not know. I do not follow all that the newspapers say, and I do not attach the same importance that the hon. gentleman does to what appears in them. If that charge was made, it should have been investigated ; I do not know why it wa's not. I do not think there is any truth in it. But I am not directing my attention to that. What I am finding fault with is that gentlemen who have given their services to the public for nothing should be treated in this way. If there is any accusation to be brought against any one of them, it is only fair and just that it should be properly made and investigated, and that mere street rumours should not be repeated in this House, and amplified and exaggerated in the way these statements have been to-day.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to ask the hon. member if he supposes that the statement
I made was exaggerated. I gave it exactly as it was given to me by a reliable and respectable citizen of Ottawa, and I gave it as nearly as I could in his own words ; and, so far as I can judge, I believe the. statement to be correct.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.	-


Mr. MORIN asked :: 
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock).: Mr. Thomas Doyon was dismissed from his position as postmaster at St. Odilon on the statement of Mr. O. E. Talbot, M.P., to the effect that during the last Dominion election Mr. Doyon had been an active political partisan. There appearing no doubt as to the accuracy of the charge-a formal investigation was not deemed necessary.


ST. EUGENE DE GRANTHAM MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. LEONARD asked :: 1.	Did the Post Office Department, in July last, receive any tenders for the carrying of the mail between St. EugSne de Grantham and the Intercolonial Railway station ?
2.	What tenders did the department receive ?
3.	Did the department accord the said carrying of the mail to Francois Vadnais, of St. Eugene de Grantham V
4.	Did the department have him sign a contract to that effect ?
5.	Why does not the said Francois Vadnais carry out that contract ?
6.	What person or persons object to the said Francois Vadnais having that contract ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock) :: 1 and 2. No.
3	and 4. Yes ; but under a temporary agreement only, which, however, did not go into effect.
5 and 6. This agreement, which was entered into temporarily, was subsequently terminated and on Mr. Lavergne's recommendation the service was awarded to Mr. D. Belleville, at the same rate.


Mr. LEONARD asked :: 1.	Who is the present contractor for th" carrying of the mail between St. EugSne de Grantham and the Intercolonial Railway station ?

2.	Since when has that person be 'n parrying the mail in that place, and what is the amount of his contract ?
3.	Who recommended that person to the department ?
4.	Were tenders called for that-contract ?
5.	What were the tenders sent in ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. We Mulock) :: 1.	D. Belleville.
2.	August 1, 1901, at 33 cents per trip.
3.	Mr. Lavergne, M.P.
4	and 5. Tenders were not invited, but prices were obtained previous to the establishment of a baggage car service over the Canadian Pacific Railway between St. Pie and St. Guillaume station, necessitating a rearrangement of the service between St. EugSne de Grantham and St. Guillaume station. and involving a service between St. EugSne de Grantham and railway station.


THE REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette) asked :: 1.	For what reason were 98 full page pictorial illustrations inserted in the Report of the Department of the Interior for 1901 ?
2.	Where were the halt-tone illustrations made for the Report of the Department of the Interior for 1901 ?
3.	What was the additional cost of inserting 98 full page illustrations on heavy plate paper in the Report of the Department of the Interior for 1901 ?
4.	Are the full page pictures, pages 209, 291, 295, 299, Part III. of the Report of the Department of the Interior for 1901, printed to illustrate types of beauty among inhabitants of Canada ?
5.	Were -the pictures in the Report of the Department of the Interior for 1901, pages 213, 215, Part III., illustrating ice and snow in Canada, in the middle of May, published with a view to encouraging immigration into the Dominion ?
G. AVhat interest of Canada was to be served by printing plate Np. 1, page 159, of Part III. of the Report of the Department of the Interior for 1901 ?
7.	Is the picture, page 165, Part III. of the Report of the Department of the Interior for 1901, calculated to encourage Immigration into Canada ?
8.	Is the full page picture of the ' Maine Hotel, Lake Wares,' on page 191, Part. III. of the Report of the Department of the interior for 1901, intended to win settlers by illustrating the luxury -of Canadian hostelries ?
9.	Were the pictures, pages 211, 221, 223, 225, 227, 231, 233, 243, 253, 259, 261, and 271, Part III., in the Report of the Department of the Interior for 1901, published to illustrate the comforts of Canadian homes ?
10.	Were the pictures, pages 311 and 313, Part III. of the Report of the Department of the Interior for 1901, printed with a view to supplying intending visitors to Canada with an idea of the costumes, weapons and outfit they would require ?
11.	Were the pictures on pages 237, 245, 269, 297, 301, 303, 319, 327 and 329, Part III. of the


Mr. LEONARD.: Report of the Department of the Interior for 1901, printed with a view to arousing the enthusiasm of foreigners over the comforts and conveniences of 'Canadian travel ?
12.	How many copies of the Report of the Department of the Interior for 1901 were printed ; and is the government aware how many of the same have been sent to points outside of Canada ?
13.	Did copies of the Report of the Department of the Interior for 1901, sent to Great Britain and other places outside of Canada, have in them the 98 half-tone plates illustrating Canadian life and scenery ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton) :: 1.	4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. The Illustrations referred to are taken from photographs which accompany the reports of explorers, and the purpose of their insertion in the departmental report was to afford information of an accurate character in regard to the territory traversed by the explorers.
2.	In Ottawa.
3.	41 cents per volume.
12.	4265. No.
13.	Yes.
,	I.C.R.-ROUND-HOUSE AT TRURO.
Mr. GOURLEY-by Mr. Lancaster-asked:
1.	Does the government intend to build a round-house at Truro this summer ?
2.	Is the government aware that the present turntable at Truro is in a dangerous condition and liable to break down at any time, with serious injury to life and property ?
3.	Is the government aware that the present round-house is out of date, and almost useless for the purposes for which it is used ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: The hon. Minister of Railways has furnished the following reply :-
1.	No, there is no appropriation for a round-house at Truro.
2.	The government is not aware that the turntable is in a dangerous condition, but it is too short for the new locomotives and a longer one has been provided which will be placed in position soon. Even if the present turntable should fail, there can be no delay to trains as there is a ' Y ' track convenient for turning locomotives.
3.	The present round-house having been built many years ago, is not as large as is desirable for modern engines, but it will continue to be used until it is possible to increase the accommodation.



I.C.R.-STATION AT TRURO.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GOURLEY-by Mr. Lancaster-asked:
1.	Does the government intend to build a new . Intercolonial Railway station at Truro during this summer ?
2.	Is the government aw ire that the present station is utterly unsuited to meet the just requirements of the travelling public at this point, and the importance of the town as a contributor to the revenue of the railway ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: The hon. Minister of Railways furnishes the following reply :-
1.	It is not intended to build a new Intercolonial Railway station at Truro during this summer.
2.	The government is not aware that the present station is utterly unsuited to meet the just requirements of the travelling public at this point.



POSTMASTER WM. McPHERSON.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PRINGLE-by Mr. Lancaster-asked:
1.	Why was William McPherson, postmaster at Willdamstown, county of Glengarry, Ontario, dismissed from his office ?
2.	What persons laid complaints against the kaid William McPherson ?
3.	Were complaints communicated to the raid William McPherson ?
4.	Did he have an opportunity to exonerate himsolf ?
6.	Who asked for his dismissal ?
6.	Who recommended the said William McPherson's successor ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Will. Mulock) :: 1.	The late postmaster of Williamstown, county of Glengarry, was, on the report of the Post Office inspector, removed from office on account of his intemperate habits.
2.	Representations were made by Miss Catherine Bellemere, Mrs. Sarah McPherson and by Mr. McWhiuney.
3 and 4. The Post Office Inspector visited Williamstown and called upon the postmaster, when the charge of drinking to excess was established and admitted.
5	and C. It was considered necessary in the public Interest to make a new appointment, which was done upon the recommendation of Mr. J. T. Schell, M.P.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved :: That when this House adjourns this day, it stand adjourned until Friday, the 9th instant, at eleven a.m., and that when the House adjourns on that day, it stand adjourned to Saturday, the 10th instant, at eleven a.m., and that Government Orders shall have precedence on that day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) delivered the following messages from His Excellency the Governor General.
Mr. SPEAKER read the messages, as follows :
MINTO.	-
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons further supplementary estimates 137
of sums required for the service of the Dominion for the year ending June 30, 1902, and in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, the Governor General recommends these estimates to the House of Commons.
Government House,
Ottawa, May 6, 1902.
[Stage Direction]
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons supplementary estimates of sums required for the service of the Dominion for the year ending June 30, 1903, and In accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, the Governor General recommends these estimates to the House of Commons.
Government House,
Ottawa, May 6, 1902.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved that the messages of His Excellency together with the estimates be referred to the Committee of Supply.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 141) to amend the Act respecting the packing and sale of certain commodities.-The Minister of Trade and Commerce.
On section 1,
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: Some hon. gentlemen have expressed the desire that stocks held toy dealers should be exempt from the operation of this Act, and I agreed to provide an amendment to that effect. I propose, therefore, that a clause be added in these words :
Provided always that nothing in this Act contained shall be construed as affecting any dealer in respect of stocks actually in his possession at the date of the passing of the Act.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 156) to amend the Chinese Immigration Act.-The Minister of Trade and Commerce.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 162) to amend the Manitoba Grain Act of 1900. He said :	It is my intention, when we go
into committee on this Bill, to propose a number of amendments of some importance.
I shall not ask the committee to pass upon them to-day, but what I propose is to submit these amendments to the committee, so
[Stage Direction]


that they may be read by the chairman, and may appear in ' Hansard ' to-morrow morning. I will hare the Bill printed with all possible expedition, with these amendments, so that lion, members may have time to consider them before they are discussed on Friday. That, I suppose, will answer all purposes.
Motion agreed to ; Bill read the second time, and House went into Committee on the Bill.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, The amendments proposed by Sir Bichard Cartwright are as follows :
1. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the expression ' the said Act ' means :
' The Manitoba Grain Act, 1900,' chapter 39 ot the statutes of that year.
(Interpretation.)
3.	In the said Act, unless the context otherwise requires :-(a) The expression * operator ' or the expression ' lessee ' shall include any buyer of grain having allotted to him any storage or working space or bin or bins in any elevator or warehouse ; (b) The expression 'commissioner ' means the warehouse commissioner for the inspection district of Manitoba ; and (c) The expression ' Minister of Inland Revenue ' shall mean the ' Minister of Trade and Commerce.'
3.	Subsection 1 of section 34 of the said Act is hereby amended by inserting between the words ' shall ' and ' keep ' in the second line thereof the words : ' Receive the six standard grades of wheat established and described in the General Inspection Act,' as amended by chapter twenty-flve (25) of the statutes of 1839, and shall.
4.	Subsection 1 of section 41 of the said_Act is hereby repealed and the following subsection substituted in lieu thereof : ' 41. On a written application to the commissioner by any person or persons residing within forty miles of their nearest shipping point, he may give permission to any person or persons to erect under the provisions of this Act, a flat warehouse with power to enlarge the same should necessity require it, at such shipping point. Such flat warehouse shall be erected on the railway company's premises after getting location of a siding, and the railway company shall be compelled to give such location with siding on its premises, in some place of convenient access, to be approved of by the commissioner, at a rental not greater than that charged to standard elevators. If in the judgment of the commissioner more than one such warehouse is required at a station, one or more additional warehouses may be authorized by him, and in such case all the provisions of this section shall apply to the construction of such warehouses.'
5.	Subsection 8 of the said section 41 is hereby repealed.
6.	Section 42 of the s.aid Act is hereby repealed and the following section substituted therefor :
Loading Platforms.
42. On a written application to the commissioner by ten farmers resident within twenty miles of their nearest shipping point, the railway company shall within the time hereinafter mentioned erect and maintain at such point a Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
loading platform, as hereinafler described, suitable for the purpose of loading grain from vehicles direct into cars.
2.	Bach loading platform shall be erected at a siding which the railway company shall provide-on its premises in some place convenient of access to be approved by the commissioner, and shall be at least ten feet wide and of such other dimensions and be constructed of such materials and ip such manner as the comm's-sioner shall designate.
3.	Such loading platforms may be used free of charge for the loading of grain.
4.	The railway company shall construct such loading platform within thirty days after the application is made to such company by the commissioner, and shall be held liable to pay a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars for each day's delay beyond that time. The period in each year within which the commissioner-may receive such applications shall be April 15 to October 15.
5.	Railway companies shall furnish cars to farmers, without undue delay, for the purpose of being loaded at such loading p'atforms ; and at any shipping point where -there is no loading platform cars shall be furnished by the railway company, without undue delay, f:r loading grain direct from vehicles.
Section 57 of the said Act is hereby repealed and the following section substituted therefor :-
57. Any person, firm or a corporation guil y of an infraction of or failing to comply witl) any provisions of this Act for which a penalty is not in this Act provided, or of any rule or regulation made pursuant to this Act, shall upon summary conviction in addition to any other punishment prescribed by the law, be liable to a penalty of not less than fifty dollars nor more than one thousand dollars, and in default of payment, to imprisonment for not less than one month nor more than one year.
8. At each station where there is a railway agent, and where grain is shipped under such agent, an order book for cars shall be kept opeu to the public, in which applicants for cars shall make order. Applicants may make order according to their requirements for forty-eight hours in advance ; cars so ordered shall be awarded to applicants according to the order in time in which such orders appear on the order book, without any discrimination as between elevators, flat warehouse, loading platform or otherwise ; and any applicant who fails to make use of the car or cars ordered by him and which may be furnished by 'lie railway company within the aforesaid time limit, and in the case of a farmer or flat warehouse owner who fails tq All said ear or cars within forty-eight hours from the time such is or are furnished by the railway company shall lose his right so far as concerns the car or cars not so used or filled.
(1.) When the railway company shall be unable, from any reasonable cause, to furnish cars at any shipping point to fill all orders as aforesaid, such cars as are furnished shall be apportioned to the applicants in the order of application as appearing in said order book, until each shall have received one car, after which the surplus cars, if any, shall be apportioned rateably according to the requirements of each applicant
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 149) to amend the Land Titles Act, 1894.-The Minister of the Interior.
On section 1,
Thomas Simpson Sproule: What has been the custom in dealing with. lands belonging to a second party ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: The only change made in this section is to settle a question with regard to a power of attorney. Where a general power of attorney has been given there was a difference of opinion as to whether that prevented the owner from dealing with the land himseif while the power of attorney was in existence. The hon. gentleman is aware that in the province of Ontario you can give a general power of attorney to John Smith to deal with your land, and you can still sign or deal with it yourself. This docs not interfere with that power. Under the Torrens system, when a power of attorney was given, the land had to be specifically described in every case. Then we introduced in Manitoba, and subsequently into the territories, the idea of a general power of attorney, as under the old system. Then cases arose in which the judges expresssed the opinion that the giving of a general power of attorney excluded the right of the owner to deal with the property until the general, power of attorney was cancelled. This provision is to clear up any doubt.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



LOAN FOR 815,000,000.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 157) to authorize the raising, by way of loan, of certain sums of money for the public service (the Minister of Finance) read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I hope that the hon. Minister of Finance will be in a position to tell us how much he has authority to borrow outside of this power that he is now asking for, and what will be the amount of the loans maturing during the coming fiscal year ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: Perhaps it would be convenient if the hon. gentleman would permit me to refer to this year's budget speech, and also to the public accounts, in which this statement appears. The amount outstanding at this moment of available borrowing power is something over $2,000,000, so that we have altogether including the $15,000,000 that we are now taking, $17,000,000 of borrowing powers if this Bill passes. This is the lowest amount 1374
of borrrowing power that has been taken in a loan Bill for some years, and it is usual to have borrowing powers for several years ahead. We do not have a loan Bill every year.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. How much is maturing the coming fiscal year V


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will have to get the public accounts and show my hon. friend.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. It is hard for hon. gentlemen to remember all these details if the hon. Minister of Finance is obliged to consult his note book.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not profess to remember every item in the public accounts.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice that it is provided in this Bill that the interest shall not be more than 34 per cent. Is it believed that you will not be able to borrow as favourably as when the last loan was made ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No. We always fix the maximum rate of interest. We do not expect to pay 34 per cent, but we can never say what may occur on the money market.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: British consols have fallen 20 points since that loan was negotiated. It may be as well to remind my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) and the House, that when we borrowed the money at 24 per cent British consols stood at 113 to 114, and that now they are at 93 to 94.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought that with the additional advantage given to us by me admission of Canadian securities to the list of stocks available for the investment of trust funds in England, we would derive some benefit in the way of reduced interest.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: It has kept our credit well up.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: A comparison of the difference between British consols and Canadian securities shows that the difference is much less than at the time of our previous loan, so that we have got the benefit of it. Our securities are not selling at a higher price than before, but the drop has been much less than it would otherwise have been.
In answer to the question of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. LaRiviSre), I would say that in 1903 there will be maturing In London unguaranteed Intercolonial Railway 4 per cent loan to the amount of $7,300,000, and there will also be maturing the unguar anteed 5 per cent of loan of $2,433,000. These are the only government loans maturing in the coming year. These maturing later are fully set forth in the public accounts.


Mr. GEORGE TAYEOR (South Leeds).: I presume this Bill will have to go through, and permission will have to be given to the lion. Minister of Finance to borrow money to pay our debts, but if these hon. gentlemen had carried out the promises they made to the country there would have been no necessity at all for borrowing. I see that the main estimates for 1901-1902 amounted on revenue account to $48,826,878.16, and on capital account to $11,097,8G2.71. Then, we have supplementary estimates down, amounting to $1,358,683.70, and further supplementary estimates amounting to $4,189,245.07. These supplementary estimates provide for sums required to carry on the expenses of the country up to the 30th June this year. These sums make a grand total expenditure voted for this year to carry on the affairs of the country of $65,472,609.54. If the hon. gentlemen had kept their promises, they could have run the country as efficiently as the late Conservative government did on $38,000,000 or $39,000,000, and they should have saved this year $25,000,000 out of the revenues of the country, and had $10,000,000 to spare besides. If they had done that it would not have been necessary for the hon. Minister of Finance to borrow money. They have sunk the country in debt. I suppose that having such a buoyant revenue last year the hon. gentlemen felt justified in spending on consolidated fund and capital account nearly sixty-five and a half million dollars. They promised to carry on the affairs of the country for $3,000,000 or $4,000,000 less than the late government were carrying on the affairs of the country, when all they required to spend was from $38,000,000 to $41,000,000, including both consolidated fund and capital account. If hon. gentleman had kept their word, the revenue would have been coming in all the same, and they could have paid off our debt, and have had sufficient money to have carried on the affairs of the country, and saved $10,000, 000 or $12,000,000 a year to pay off our mortgage debt. They should have done that, but in place of that, all the money has been spent. Here is this sixty-five and a half million which has been spent this year, and hon. gentlemen opposite cannot point to any permanent improvement other than those which are usually made, notwithstanding this enormous expenditure. They are spending $65,000,000, paying two or three times what they should for taking the census, and allowing the money to be frittered away, while they cannot point to any Canadian Pacific Railway or large improvement such as was carried out by the Conservative government. Yet, in the face of all this, they are coming and asking power to borrow more money, with the object of increasing our expenditure, instead of decreasing it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have been all over this question half a dozen times during the session, and I am afraid
the audience is not large enough now to justify me in making a long speech upon it. I would only say to my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) that I think he is mistaken as to the aggregate of the estimates which he gave us. The aggregate estimates which have been brought down will be found to be something less than the aggregate brought down for the previous year. However, that is a matter which we can look into later. As to my hon. friend's figures, I think they are inaccurate. As to the question of the loan I would remind my hon. friend that we have had only one loan Bill in five years, and that we have only used a portion of it, although we have been carrying on very large operations. I think my hon. friend's surprise must be, not that we come for a loan Bill now, but that we did not require one much earlier. However, as we have been over this question several times, and as the audience is not large. I will resist the temptation to make a further reply to my hon. friend.


Mr. BELL.: In these estimates I see the total is given as $5,639,000, while it ought to be $5,739,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, the consolidated fund vote is $100,000 greater than is put down there.


Adam Carr Bell: That will swell the total ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, it will increase it by $100,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 1 remember making the statement that there was about $7,000,000 of floating borrowed capital that would be required to be provided for out of the money borrowed under this Bill. Am I correct in that ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think my hon. friend unintentionally managed to count that $6,000,000-it is not $7,000,000 -twice. But as to this temporary loan at present if we should issue bonds we would pay off the temporary loan, and while we increased our debt on the one hand we would decrease it on the other hand. Whether or not we shall issue bonds to pay off the temporary loan is a matter to be considered, as the condition of the money market affects the question. If we issue bonds to pay off the temporary loan we do not increase the debt, because while we increase it on the one hand, we decrease it on the other.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you raise the loan you must take it out of the money you borrow under the borrowing powers given here.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If we wished to pay off the temporary loan, or we could renew it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If that is done, it would practically take up the unexpired borrowing powers you have not availed yourselves of,


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: amounting to something like $2,000,000, and the $15,000,000 provided for here, because there are $9,750,000 of obligations coming due, and this added to the $6,000,000 would make over $15,000,000, and you will then have no money for the purposes for which you desire to use these borrowing powers.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend is overlooking the fact that the Bill before the House and the resolution upon which it is founded also provide that there shall be from time to time general powers for refunding the debt falling due.
Bill reported ; read the third time, and passed.



THE COASTING TRADE.

[Stage Direction]
Resolution respecting the coasting trade of Canada, and to exclude a foreign built British ship from that trade unless it has obtained a license, which the Minister of Customs may grant, upon the payment of a duty of twenty-five (25) per cent ad valorem on the fair market value of the ship (the Minister of Customs), read the second time, and agreed to.
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 165) respecting the coasting trade of Canada.
Motion agreed° to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
['The hour for private Bills has expired.']
Mr. A. F. MACLAREN (North Perth).: Mr. Speaker, before going into Supply, I wish to make a few remarks on what I consider a very important subject, and before I take my seat I shall close with a resolution. A few weeks ago, in the city of Woodstock, Oxford county, while attending a meeting of the Dairymen's Association of Western Canada, I made a few remoras on this most important subject, a subject which I consider of the greatest and most vital importance to the welfare of the people of Canada. It is not necessary for me to tell the hon. members of this House, or the people of this Dominion, what that subject is, as we all know that the transportation problem is the greatest question which the people of Canada have to grapple with, have to solve, and have staring them in the face at the present moment. It is not my desire to take up much of the time of the House in discussing this very important question, and I regret, Mr. Speaker, that I have been compelled, on account of my health being somewhat impaired during the
last few weeks, to delay bringing this matter before the House at an earlier date. But, better late than never. The subject which I intend to discuss is that of utilizing the natural waterways of this Dominion for transporting our products to the seaboard.
It is not my intention to condemn the government, neither is it my intention to abuse or condemn the great railways of the Dominion for not having given us better accommodation and better rates of freiguc for carrying our goods, but it is my intention to ask this House, and to ask the country, to throw politics aside and go to work to do something to place the producers and manufacturers of this country in a position whereby they can place the products of the farm, the sea, the mines and the forests on the markets of the world at as cheap a rate of freight as that of our neighbours to the south, or for that matter, of any other country in the world. Up to the present moment we have been paying very much higher rates on everything we produce than they are paying in the United States. Over there they are utilizing their waterways for all they are worth during the season of navigation. They are also utilizing immense elevators and warehouses for storing goods, holding them at their seaports or lake ports until navigation opens, knowing they can get a very much lower rate of freight, while we on this side are practically doing nothing at all along the line of utilizing our waterways from the head of lake Superior and lake Ontario, clean down to the gulf of St. Lawrence. It is my intention, in as few words as possible, to show what the possibilities of our great waterways are, and as hon. members all know, we are now and have been spending large sums of money for the purpose of educating our people how to produce the finest goods. We have our farmers' institutes, our cheese and butter associations, our fat stock shows, our fruit, honey, poultry, swine and breeders' associations, our shows and exhibitions of all kinds, our agricultural colleges, &e., all of which are receiving assistance from the government, doing everything in our power to increase the quantity and improve the quality of our goods. But not a thing but talk, talk, talk, and no action as far as improving our freight rates is concerned. What is the use in spending money in improving the quality of our products, when we are taking no action whatever in trying to solve the transportation problem, which if we could do and place our goods on the markets of the world as cheaply as those of our neighbours to the south of us, we would be receiving millions of dollars more for the producers and manufacturers of this country's goods than we are receiving to-day. We have been talking for years and years of appointing a railway commission. We have had a railway commissioner appointed, but what has been done, or what have we been told ? Not a single thing but what we have known


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I)o I understand the hon. gentleman to mean that there is cheese shipped via Portland during the time the port of Montreal is open ?


Alexander Ferguson MacLaren: Oh, yes. Shippers have been compelled* to send it via Portland to escape the high rates of insurance charge via Montreal. I may say that the insurance rates last year were almost prohibitive.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: During the summer season ?


Alexander Ferguson MacLaren: Yes, and in consequence many people shipped produce via Portland.
Another point I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, is that of hauling cheese from different parts of the country to be placed in cold storage at central points, such as Morris-burg, Brockville, Belleville, Ingersoll, Woodstock, London, Stratford, Listowel and other centres. The concentration rates for cheese in the district west of Toronto is based as follows :
From points west of London, and north of the main line of the Grand Trunk 2u| cents per hundred pounds have been charged, and east of London and south of the main line of the Grand Trunk, 18i cents per hundred pounds have been charged. Upon shipping these goods out of store the shipper's rate was based on the through rate via Montreal, receiving on this basis, a rebate of 16J cents per hundred pounds.
For comparison we will take the concentration rates on cheese at cold storage points in the United States, which are based on a much more lenient plan than is the case in Canada. There are many cold storage points in New York state where cheese is concen-

trated on a basis of five cents per hundred pounds, and when the buyer wants to ship his goods out, he has the option of asking the various railways for a rate of freight on his goods to the seaboard, thus getting competition where we have none, and we are obliged to pay the high rate.
I give these figures in the House in order to show to the people of Canada what immense possibilities we have if we will only throw partyism to the winds and work together, and spend a few million dollars in assisting nature to perfect the great waterways which the good Lord has provided us with. In discussing with me the waterways of Canada, a friend of mine from Chicago, who had 4<4 years' experience on American waterways, said that if a corporation were organized for the transportation of western products from Fort William, Fort Arthur, and other Canadian points, and also from Duluth and Chicago to the seaboard of Nova Scotia, it should be as follows :
A steamship line to start with, say comprised of seven or eight 5,000 or 6,000 ton steamers from the points above named to some point on Georgian Bay, thence by rail to Toronto, thence by steamship from Toronto to the Atlantic seaboard. On the eastern division there should be employed at the beginning, or shortly after, twenty-five to thirty steel steamers, full size of the canal locks, beginning at the western end, with the number of steamers above mentioned carrying from 175,000 to 200,000 bushels of grain, equipped with all the modern appliances for the quick handling of all kinds of freight. The eastern terminal of boats, I think, should be Collingwood, where there should be erected a modern elevator ; two elevating legs which would discharge the cargo in about five hours. These two legs should have a capacity of 20,000 bushels per hour, and be similar to those used in Chicago, Buffalo and such large centres. In addition to this, freight sheds for rolling freight and merchandise should be erected, and everything modern connected with the rapid and cheap handling of freight should be installed.
From Collingwood to Toronto the railroad should be an air-line practically, laid with 100-pound Tails, and equipped with 75-ton cars, and Collingwood being more than 300 feet higher than Toronto, the heavy products eastbouud would meet with the downgrade the greater part of the way, excepting one short distance of five or six miles, where the slightest up-grade exists. This speed would be reinforced with an auxiliary engine, thereby enabling one engine to draw immense trains.
Having reached Toronto, a similar elevator to that at Collingwood. with the exception of the elevating legs, which are not required, should be built, and in addition, an elevated trestle should be erected so that trains can be run up this elevation and the cars dumped in the hopper, which should ride the
board of the ship, without the grain passing through an elevator.
With this new system, vessels such as will go through the locks would be loaded in one and one and a half hours, loading about 70,000 bushels of wheat. They will then proceed to Montreal, where another elevator will be erected and kept full of grain. With from 30,000 to 40,000 bushels in the shipping bins, the additional lighterage should complete the cargo of the ship from Toronto, so that at any hour of the day or night when the ship arrives in Montreal, the watchmen could draw this quantity into the ship in from one to one and a half hour's time, the elevator not being required to use any machinery during the putting aboard of the lighterage, as the additional cargo would run by gravitation into the ship. Why this lighterage system would be used is that the ship can only load to 14 feet draught passing through the canal and locks from Toronto to Montreal, while they can be loaded- to their full capacity when they arrive at Montreal, which means about 110,000 bushels. They will then proceed to the eastern terminal down by the sea. An elevator should also be erected there similar to the Collingwood elevator, with two elevating legs, and which would discharge the full cargo in about five hours. This done the ship would immediately pass to the coal trestles or shutes, and with a cargo of coal awaiting her would be dumped into the boat in three or four hours' time. This, with any other local, package or import freight would be put on the twin deck of the ships and carried through" the Gulf, the River St. Lawrence and Lake Ontario, to Toronto or any other way port between the two points.
The Toronto terminal should be equipped with the most modern machinery for the rapid handling of coal cargoes, and with three or four of the modern fast hoists, costing about .$20,000 each. The cargo of 2,000 tons would be taken out in five or six hours' time.
The unloading machinery of this plant should unload three hoists per minute of four and four and a half tons of coal each bucket for each hoist, and three or four hoists unloading will readily determine the result. Fast hoist coal docks should also be established in Montreal.
The further aim of the company should be to have large elevator storage capacity, warehouse and cold storage at the seaboard, whereby shippers of all classes of merchandise may send their goods forward, at a season when they can have suitable markets for such merchandise in Europe. It could be stored at a nominal charge at the seaboard and held there until the dealer or producer thought fit to send it forward to England. In this case it would lie well to have shippers rush their goods forward to the seaboard before the close of navigation, and they could ship them across the ocean any time during the winter months. The

same rule could be applied to imported goods or articles, storing them there during the winter months and forwarding them to all parts in western Canada as soon as navigation opened. My idea would be to build ships suitable to pass through the present canals and locks and to build them with a view to the enlargement of the lock chambers between Kingston and Montreal, so that the ships can be lengthened and widened without impairing their seaworthiness or appearance in any way.
Heretofore the boat-hull and cargo insurance rates have been sadly against the St. Lawrence route, causing double, and at times, three times as great a rate of insurance as those of New York and Boston, increasing materially by grounding in the St. Lawrence river between Montreal and Quebec, where ships were drawing a greater depth of water than there was in the river, or if loaded to the regulation deptli the fluctuation of water frequently causing them to ground, entailing heavy average and often more than average charges; or in other words, we hare been trying to force a 10,000 ton ship through a 5,000 ton channel. With the great draught of water, the channel being but three or four times the width of the ship, no room for action is left for the free movement of the ship, and grounding is the result. Here is the direct cause of the increased insurance rates, and at least it will be borne in mind that these extra rates of insurance have not only affected the ship but the cargo as well, both export and import, and in consequence import cargo has been diverted from the Canadian channel, finding its way through Boston and New York and over the Suspension bridge into Canada. The volume of this cargo, so diverted, will average 20,000 cars yearly, crossing the Niagara river for distribution in Hamilton, Toronto, London, Stratford and all western points. All through western Canada this will be overcome ; the rates of insurance will be cut in two, at least, for instead of the narrow contracted channel for deep draught ships, we have a river half a mile or more wide, where a ship drawing 18 or 19 feet can run full speed with impunity day or night, avoiding the grounding, tug bills, extra labour, and damage to the hull that the ocean ship is subject to.
In consequence of the frequent groundings in the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Quebec, the underwriters charged last year as high as $1.20 for every $100 of insurance and they figure on a loss in one case out of five.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: During what period of time do they figure losing one vessel out of five ?


Alexander Ferguson MacLaren: In one season, and that would be seen to lie the fact, judging by the high rate of insurance charges on the St. Lawrence route as compared with the Boston and New York routes.
Mr. MacLAREN <N. Perth).


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is absurd. They may charge on that basis, but it is not the fact.
ill-. MACLAREN (Perth). That may be, but we do not want to have to pay these high rates of insurance. I am not making any statement which I do not believe to be correct, and I think that I can prove pretty well any statements I make. Certainly a very large proportion of goods from the old country, intended for Canada, come via New York and Boston. I suppose that from 15,000 to 20,000 car loads annually come that way, across the Niagara river ; while nearly all these goods could be brought through the St. Lawrence route if we had our waterways properly equipped. It is a sad state of affairs to contemplate, that all this traffic has to come through foreign routes, when, by spending a little money, we could get it through our own St. Lawrence route.
The foregoing will give an idea of what my views are as to the method and manner of handling this class of freight. Now, there is another class of freight of the perishable nature, such as dairy produce, bacon and hams, and fruit and poultry, requiring faster transportation and cold storage. Special provision should be made as follows :
Ships of greater speed, at least 20 miles per hour, fitted for passenger trade, and being equipped with cold storage, should stop at leading points of shipment, or natural assembling points, or what may be termed express freight, such as butter, cheese, eggs, fruit, poultry, &c. These points should have two or three sailings each way each week. Each point above referred to would be supplied by the company with permanent cold storage facilities for the better protection of perishable freight. Warehouse receipts could be given to the dealer or producer, on which he could draw 50 to 75 per cent value of goods from the bank, and he could hold the goods in store until ready to ship, when he would get the best rail or steamship rate which could be procured. I feel safe in saying that the cost of transportation upon Canadian exports and imports would be very materially reduced by the inauguration of such a system. I also feel safe in saying that wheat from the North-west would be laid down at the seaboard, from Fort William' or Port Arthur, at from 5 cents to 6 cents a bushel, and a good profit made, a distance of 1,700 miles.
By this route the distance from Chicago, Duluth. Port Arthur and Fort William to Liverpool, would be almost 800 miles shorter than between the same points via New York.
The great difficulty I see is in getting our Canadian people to see and to grasp the great opportunities we have in store for us. I do not blame our railways for mak-

ing tlie best bargains with the people that they can, as business is business, and they are out for the profit. But I do blame our Canadian government and our Canadian people for sitting idly by, for not rising up and insisting that we should place our goods cn the markets of the world at as cheap a rate as our neighbours to the south of us. I heard an American gentleman state a few days ago that nature had provided us with seventeen hundred miles of the grandest waterway in the world, from the head of Lake Superior to the seaboard. He also said that if we could only assist nature a little in perfecting and developing our waterways, that we would in a very short time be in a position to place our goods on the market at as cheap a rate as they are doing it in the United States.
I will now, for argument's sake and comparison, give you a few quotations from an address which I delivered before the Dairymen's Association in Woodstock, in January of this year. In the first case I spoke of the export wheat trade from Buffalo to Liverpool. The rate of freight from Buffalo to Liverpool was lli cents per hundred liounds, while the rate from points in western Ontario to Liverpool was 21 cents per hundred pounds. Cattle from Toronto to Portland, 28 cents, cattle from Chicago to Portland, a distance of over 500 miles greater, 28 cents, cattle from Chicago to Montreal, 25 cents, cattle from the counties of Perth, Bruce, Huron or Grey, to Montreal, 33 cents to Montreal, or 8 cents more than from Chicago to Montreal. A car load of cattle from Listowel, a town in the county which I have the honour to represent, will cost $1.25 per head higher rate of freight than from Chicago to Montreal, a distance of over 400 miles longer haul than from Listowel.
_ In 1901 the United States shipped over 500,000 head of cattle to England. If they had paid at the same rate of freight we pay in Canada it would have cost them over $500,000 more. If they had paid for freight so much per mile it would have cost them $1,000,000 more.
The American jieople have developed 1,000 miles of their great waterway, starting, we might say, from Duluth, Chicago, Milwaukee, &c., to Buffalo. Twenty-two years ago, in 1880, the rail rate from Chicago to New York was 194 cents per bushel. In i899 the rail rate from Chicago to New York was 11 cents a bushel. During the same period by water the rate was as follows, between above named points :
1880	13 cents per bushel.
1899	 53	"	"
This steady decline in rates has been the direct result of waterway improvements at the Sault and other channels.
Now, another interesting feature about these rates, Mr. Speaker, is the cost. According to undisputed authority, the great
[ volume of tonnage which now passes through the Sault canal, and which this year exceeded 28,000,000 tons, was moved at a cost of 80-100ths of a mill per ton per mile. Tiie average cost upon trunk lines of railway in the United States is shown to be 8 mills per ton per mile, so we have here an object lesson that the United States waterway from Duluth and Chicago to Buffalo, 1,000 miles, is carrying freight for one-tenth the rate of the railways running parallel thereto. In other words, the waterway is doing for $1.00 wliat the railway would get $10 for.
It has been estimated by those identified with the commerce of the great lakes, that the 40,000,000 tons moved upon the lakes last year, west of Buffalo, if carried upon the basis of our railway rates, would have cost the American nation about $200,000.000 more than it did. and it is further estimated that at least 10,000,000 tons of the commerce passing through the Sault canals, would not have moved except for the facilities of water transportation. The railway charges upon it would have more than equalled its value at the point of destination. I have pointed out to the House the activity that is to be found upon the American waterways, its marvellous development and what a tremendous force it has been in the development of that country's western resources. Now, then, Mr. Speaker, I want the country to look for a moment at our own waterways, and what is the conspicuous feature ? That although wo have from the head of Lake Ontario to the seaboard a waterway unsurpassed, and to which we as a province have contributed about $47,000,000 for the improvement of the canals, &c., we have not a single vessel to carry our products to the seaboard. This is my answer and my solution for the condition that exists to-day in the country and the excessive railway tax that has been levied upon the people of our province-a province in which our agricultural interest represents an investment of $1,200,000,000, with an annual output of $300,000,000 of wealth wrung from its soil by the industry and labour of one and a quarter millions of our inhabitants.
If this great problem of transportation is solved upon true commercial lines we will quadruple our exports, we will double our farm Lands values, and besides utilizing our waterways in the summer time, we will more than double the freight to be handled by the railways. During the past year the rates of freight and insurance via our Montreal port have been so excessive as to be practically prohibitory. As an illustration- the rates from west of Toronto in Ontario have ruled about as follows to, say, London, England
Cheese, via Montreal, 88-90 cents per 100 pounds.
Cheese, via Portland, 55-50 per 100 pounds. Now, then, the House will observe that the

insurance rate is very high, via Montreal, it being from 40 cents per $100 to $1.20 per $100, while via Portland if was only 35 cents per $100. Why should the rate out of Montreal be 08 90 as against Portland 55 50? why should there be such a difference in the insurance? If we could reduce our freight rates in this country by utilizing our waterways as they do in the United States, the amount saved would buy a good many farms, a good many head of cattle and a good many boxes of cheese. Now, I simply give the House these few facts and figures which speak for themselves, and they are facts and figures which no one can dispute.
If the American people can utilize their waterways so as to make great reductions in their freight rate, why can we not do the same thing in this country? I, for one, think It could be done, and I would like to see the people of this country go right to work and do it. There is nothing in the world that we can do that will assist us in increasing the population of this country so much as that of reducing our freight rates. It is all right to talk about making more cheese and more butter, raising more cattle and hogs, more poultry, apples, eggs and dozens of other things which I might mention, but why should we go on in this way, spending so much time and money and doing so much hard work, when we can go to work and save so much money to the manufacturers and producers of our goods by spending a few million dollars, which will all come back to us in a few years and which will give us better rates of freight for the balance of our natural lives.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


Alexander Ferguson MacLaren: When you left the Chair at one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was speaking of the necessity of reducing freight rates on the various products of the farm, the field, the forest and the mine; and I was pointing out that a reduction in the freight rates would enable us, not only to make a greater profit, but to raise more butter, more cheese, more cattle, more poultry, more hogs, and so on and so on. I pointed out that our interest lay in utilizing our waterways so as to make great reductions in our freight rates. I may here say that after I concluded making the above remarks, or similar remarks, at the Woodstock Cheese Convention, Mr. Robert Ball-antyne, the chairman of the meeting, who is connected with one of the largest firms of exporters of cheese and butter in Canada and England, stood up and made the following remarks:
The facts an! figures presented by Mr. Mac-Laren are no doubt startling, and I know the rates are true, and I know the people of this district, west of Ontario, are more interested than the men of the east. I know you pay a much greater rate out of this section than the


Alexander Ferguson MacLaren: men do out of the eastern section. I know the railway companies join together and agree among themselves to get a higher rate out of you by Montreal than they get out of you by Portland, and I know your cheeses are tremendously injured by shipping by Portland. I have had a lot of experience. I believe we were the biggest shippers out of Portland this last summer, and I believe we suffered enough to pay three rates out of Montreal. In quoting cheese to our customers -n England, if our quotation is sixpence higher, we cannot sell our cheese, and it is necessary to quote our cheese by the cheapest route in order to sell them. The facts of the matter are that the Canadian Pacific Railway use the St. Lawrence route and make that route by Quebec in order that they may make a competitive rate to get these goods by the Canadian Papins Railway and haul them to Quebec instead of Montreal. In future we will have steamers with cold storage out of Montreal, and you had better ship your cheese by these cool steamers, and we want a cheap rate out of Montreal. It should not be impossible for the Canadian Pacific Railway to say to you, ' We will take them from Quebec at a rate of 13 cents a hundred cheaper than wo will from Montreal,' and I feel that when it comes the time for resolutions, that there should he a resoultion on this subject.
I shall not dwell at any length upon the speech of Mr. Ballantyne, but have simply read it to the House for the purpose of showing that he is fully in accord with what I have to say on the transportation question.
I will now read to the House the resolution on transportation which was endorsed by the members of the Dairymen's Association at the close of that convention:
That the Dairymen's Association express the opinion of the importance of improvement being made to the Canadian canals and waterways and to the St. Lawrence river, in order that the Canadian producer may be placed in the very best position possible for competition with the producers of other countries for the British and foreign trade, and that this resolution be transmitted to the Minister of Railways and Canals. That the Minister of Agriculture at Ottawa be asked to take such steps as will ensure a sufficient supply of refrigerator cars for shipment of cheese during the coming season, and also provide icing stations at shipping centres.
The above resolution, Mr. Speaker, speaks for itself, and I trust it will have a good effect, and will be the means of bringing about more satisfactory transportation conditions.
I will now quote from a letter from a friend of mine in Chicago rates of freight during the month of March just past, on produce going from Chicago to Liverpool:
Via Portland and St. John, rate on butter was 63 cents per 100 pounds.	'
Via Portland and St. John, rate on cheese was 48 cents per 100 pounds.
Via Portland and St. John, rate on meat was 43 cents per 100 pounds.
Via Portland and St. John, rate on live stock, 28 cents per 100 pounds.
Via Boston and St. John, rate on butter was 65 cents per 100 pounds.
Via Boston and St. John, rate on cheese was 50 cents per 100 pounds.

Via Boston and St. John, rats on meat was 45 cents per 100 pounds.
Via Boston and St. John, rate on meat was 45 cents per 100 pounds.
The above figures are all on car load rates- and many times during .the year rates are cut, so that a cut on cheese of 5 and 10 cents per 100 pounds is at times obtained, and even as much as 15 and sometimes 20 cents per 100 pounds lower rate is obtained on butter.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I will ask hon. members on both sides of the House to sit down and look this matter up for themselves, and figure it out, and then 'stand up and do as I am doing. Tell this House and tell this country what they think of the manner in which we, the people of Canada, are slumbering and allowing our competitors to cut our business clean away from us. No wonder, Mr. Speaker, the great American railway and steamship syndicates have their eye on securing control of our railways as well as our ocean transportation. The Hill system from the west to the cities of New York and Boston is now further reaching out upon the Atlantic for the control of ocean steamers. The buying of the Canada Atlantic is but a part of that great policy, and is, in my opinion, the handwriting on the wall of a policy to pull and haul all that Canada produces into New York and Boston toy the great American railways and waterways, and then ship across the ocean our goods on American steamers, while we, with our undevloped waterways and undeveloped electric railways, sit idly by and look at the Americans doing us up. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I say undeveloped electric railways, which in my opinion should be developed and running all over this country, running into our back townships, carrying into the great centres our cattle, our hogs, our wheat, our eggs, our poultry, our fruit, our cheese and butter, in fact, everything we have to ship, and we should have large elevators, sheds and storehouses in such centres as Hamilton, Toronto, Port Hope, Belleville, Kingston, Brockville, Ottawa, Ogdensburg, on the United States side, Montreal, and.clean down to the sea. If goods were stored in this way a shipper could have his choice of rates by steamer, if our waterways were developed, or by the great railways which go through all these centres. We must do something of this kind in Canada, and we must do it at once.
I just wish, Mr. Speaker, to give to the House a few more quotations and a few more illustrations, and will then read my resolution and sit down. I have here a quotation from a speech delivered at a banquet a few weeks ago toy my hon. friend, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick). AVhen talking on the transportation problem, he used the following words :
Another fact that must be remembered is that the measure of distance is r.o lonser the
mile, but the hour. We must not only have cheap transportation but rapid transit.
I may say that I do not altogether agree with my hon. friend, as an my opinion the commercial distance is not reckoned by mileage or time, but toy the cost of transportation. For example, although the province of Ontario is 1,000 miles nearer 'to the British market than Dakota or Minnesota, the latter named places are Commercially 1,000 miles nearer to the British market by the effect of their cheaper transportation*. A barrel of Minneapolis flour is carried from Duluth to Buffalo, 1,000 miles for 10 cents. A barrel of flour for the same distance along through Ontario to the seaboard costs 45 cents.
Now, then, for a few moments we will go back to the great western lakes of Canada and the United States. The principal receiving centres for the produce of the northern and western states, and the provinces and wheat-producing territories of the great Canadian North-west, are the cities of Chicago, Milwaukee, Duluth and Fort William, situated on the head waters of Lake Michigan and Superior. The staple export trade from these points consists of wheat, corn, flour and provisions. Of the vast volumes which were assembled at these ports in the season 1900, there were for export : G,-000,000 barrels of flour, 200,000,000 bushels of wheat and corn. Of tlys export volume 5,850,000 'barrels of Hour, and 170,010,000 bushels of wheat and corn were carried through Buffalo to the Atlantic seaboard, while only 150,000 'barrels of flour and 30,-' 000,000 bushels of wheat and corn went out by Montreal and the St. Lawrence route.
The figures for the past season from the port of Montreal, I have not at hand, but the volume has been very considerable less than those above quoted.
Now, for a moment, Mr. Speaker, we will tell the House something aliout our present export channels. You will have observed that the volume of the above named goods passed through Buffalo was carried there over a 1,000-mile waterway, in vessels of the most modern and efficient type, while the small Montreal volume was carried to that port by the Canadian Pacific Railway and Grand Trunk Railway and Canada Atlantic Railway, over a very long rail haul. As I said before, a barrel of flour is hauled from Duluth to Buffalo-1,000 miles-for 16 cents, while a barrel of flour for the same distance in Canada, from Ontario, costs 45 cents and sometimes more, for the reason that notwithstanding our unrivalled waterways, Canada has no properly organized system of inland water transportation.
No more striking example can be given of the growth and future possibilities of the great west and the value of water transportation as an economic factor In that marvellous development than the growth of the Sault canal traffic.

Growth of Sault Traffic.
Year.	Number of Tons of
Vessels. Freight.
1S90	
10,557	9,041,2131S95	
17,956	15,062,5801901	
20,041	28,403,035
Stupendous as these figures are, they only reveal a portion of the great lake commerce -the greatest in the world. The volume last year passing through the Detroit river totalled nearly 42,000,000 tons. This volume is almost four times greater than the Suez canal, which is the great artery of commerce between Europe and Asia. It exceeds the combined entrances and clearances of Liverpool and London, two of the world's greatest seaports. It almost doubles that of the port of New York, which for the twelve months ending July, 1901, was 25,085,000 tons.
In order that the House may comprehend in another way the commercial activity of the great lakes, I may say that the total fleet engaged therein amounts to the enormous number of 3,500 vessels. Let the people think seriously of this for a moment, and can they ever imagine, we Canadians, on any Canadian route, employing 500 vessels, to say nothing about the 3,500 1 On these 3,500 vessels they carry regular crews to the number of 52,000 men, and directly afford employment to 150,000 men, as clerks, coal,, ore and grain shovellers, stevedores, deck hands and others. During the eight months or season of navigation for 1900 :
The total arrivils and departures from-
Chicago, 17,017 vessels, 13,834,000 tonnage.
Duluth, 11,526 vessels, -14,433,500 tonnage.
The arrival and clearances at the port of Chicago equal the cities of New York and New Orleans combined, and almost equal the combined total of the cities of Boston, Baltimore, Philadelphia and New Orleans, which are all-year open ports.
Another item of interest is that pertaining to the value of the commerce passing the Sault canal during the season of navigation, which for the past year was 28,403,065 ; an increase of two and three-quarter million tons over the previous year. The total valuation given to this enormous volume has been $288,529,500.
Without going into detail, 18,000,000 tons of the gross volume represented iron and copper ore, leaving a balance of 10,000,000 for food stuffs and general merchandise.
The commercial advantages of a waterway route through the centre of Canada cannot be estimated. First as an export grain route, second as an export route for Ontario products ; third, as an export and import general merchandise route ; fourth, as a coal line from Nova Scotia to Ontario cities.
The economy of this route is acknowledged by experts to be pre-eminent, in view of its unquestioned geographical advantages.


["men do out of the eastern section. I know the railway companies join together and agree among themselves to get a higher rate out of you by Montreal than they get out of you by Portland, and I know your cheeses are tremendously injured by shipping by Portland. I have had a lot of experience. I believe we were the biggest shippers out of Portland this last summer, and I believe we suffered enough to pay three rates out of Montreal. In quoting cheese to our customers -n England, if our quotation is sixpence higher, we cannot sell our cheese, and it is necessary to quote our cheese by the cheapest route in order to sell them. The facts of the matter are that the Canadian Pacific Railway use the St. Lawrence route and make that route by Quebec in order that they may make a competitive rate to get these goods by the Canadian Papins Railway and haul them to Quebec instead of Montreal. In future we will have steamers with cold storage out of Montreal, and you had better ship your cheese by these cool steamers, and we want a cheap rate out of Montreal. It should not be impossible for the Canadian Pacific Railway to say to you, ' We will take them from Quebec at a rate of 13 cents a hundred cheaper than wo will from Montreal,' and I feel that when it comes the time for resolutions, that there should he a resoultion on this subject.\nI shall not dwell at any length upon the speech of Mr. Ballantyne, but have simply read it to the House for the purpose of showing that he is fully in accord with what I have to say on the transportation question.\nI will now read to the House the resolution on transportation which was endorsed by the members of the Dairymen's Association at the close of that convention:\nThat the Dairymen's Association express the opinion of the importance of improvement being made to the Canadian canals and waterways and to the St. Lawrence river, in order that the Canadian producer may be placed in the very best position possible for competition with the producers of other countries for the British and foreign trade, and that this resolution be transmitted to the Minister of Railways and Canals. That the Minister of Agriculture at Ottawa be asked to take such steps as will ensure a sufficient supply of refrigerator cars for shipment of cheese during the coming season, and also provide icing stations at shipping centres.\nThe above resolution, Mr. Speaker, speaks for itself, and I trust it will have a good effect, and will be the means of bringing about more satisfactory transportation conditions.\nI will now quote from a letter from a friend of mine in Chicago rates of freight during the month of March just past, on produce going from Chicago to Liverpool:\nVia Portland and St. John, rate on butter was 63 cents per 100 pounds.\t'\nVia Portland and St. John, rate on cheese was 48 cents per 100 pounds.\nVia Portland and St. John, rate on meat was 43 cents per 100 pounds.\nVia Portland and St. John, rate on live stock, 28 cents per 100 pounds.\nVia Boston and St. John, rate on butter was 65 cents per 100 pounds.\nVia Boston and St. John, rate on cheese was 50 cents per 100 pounds.\n\nVia Boston and St. John, rats on meat was 45 cents per 100 pounds.\nVia Boston and St. John, rate on meat was 45 cents per 100 pounds.\nThe above figures are all on car load rates- and many times during .the year rates are cut, so that a cut on cheese of 5 and 10 cents per 100 pounds is at times obtained, and even as much as 15 and sometimes 20 cents per 100 pounds lower rate is obtained on butter.\nNow, Mr. Speaker, I will ask hon. members on both sides of the House to sit down and look this matter up for themselves, and figure it out, and then 'stand up and do as I am doing. Tell this House and tell this country what they think of the manner in which we, the people of Canada, are slumbering and allowing our competitors to cut our business clean away from us. No wonder, Mr. Speaker, the great American railway and steamship syndicates have their eye on securing control of our railways as well as our ocean transportation. The Hill system from the west to the cities of New York and Boston is now further reaching out upon the Atlantic for the control of ocean steamers. The buying of the Canada Atlantic is but a part of that great policy, and is, in my opinion, the handwriting on the wall of a policy to pull and haul all that Canada produces into New York and Boston toy the great American railways and waterways, and then ship across the ocean our goods on American steamers, while we, with our undevloped waterways and undeveloped electric railways, sit idly by and look at the Americans doing us up. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I say undeveloped electric railways, which in my opinion should be developed and running all over this country, running into our back townships, carrying into the great centres our cattle, our hogs, our wheat, our eggs, our poultry, our fruit, our cheese and butter, in fact, everything we have to ship, and we should have large elevators, sheds and storehouses in such centres as Hamilton, Toronto, Port Hope, Belleville, Kingston, Brockville, Ottawa, Ogdensburg, on the United States side, Montreal, and.clean down to the sea. If goods were stored in this way a shipper could have his choice of rates by steamer, if our waterways were developed, or by the great railways which go through all these centres. We must do something of this kind in Canada, and we must do it at once.\nI just wish, Mr. Speaker, to give to the House a few more quotations and a few more illustrations, and will then read my resolution and sit down. I have here a quotation from a speech delivered at a banquet a few weeks ago toy my lion, friend, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick). AVhen talking on the transportation problem, he used the following words :\nAnother fact that must be remembered is that the measure of distance is r.o lonser the\nmile, but the hour. We must not only have cheap transportation but rapid transit.\nI may say that I do not altogether agree with my hon. friend, as an my opinion the commercial distance is not reckoned by mileage or time, but toy the cost of transportation. For example, although the province of Ontario is 1,000 miles nearer 'to the British market than Dakota or Minnesota, the latter named places are Commercially 1,000 miles nearer to the British market by the effect of their cheaper transportation*. A barrel of Minneapolis flour is carried from Duluth to Buffalo, 1,000 miles for 10 cents. A barrel of flour for the same distance along through Ontario to the seaboard costs 45 cents.\nNow, then, for a few moments we will go back to the great western lakes of Canada and the United States. The principal receiving centres for the produce of the northern and western states, and the provinces and wheat-producing territories of the great Canadian North-west, are the cities of Chicago, Milwaukee, Duluth and Fort William, situated on the head waters of Lake Michigan and Superior. The staple export trade from these points consists of wheat, corn, flour and provisions. Of the vast volumes which were assembled at these ports in the season 1900, there were for export : G,-000,000 barrels of flour, 200,000,000 bushels of wheat and corn. Of tlys export volume 5,850,000 'barrels of Hour, and 170,010,000 bushels of wheat and corn were carried through Buffalo to the Atlantic seaboard, while only 150,000 'barrels of flour and 30,-' 000,000 bushels of wheat and corn went out by Montreal and the St. Lawrence route.\nThe figures for the past season from the port of Montreal, I have not at hand, but the volume has been very considerable less than those above quoted.\nNow, for a moment, Mr. Speaker, we will tell the House something aliout our present export channels. You will have observed that the volume of the above named goods passed through Buffalo was carried there over a 1,000-mile waterway, in vessels of the most modern and efficient type, while the small Montreal volume was carried to that port by the Canadian Pacific Railway and Grand Trunk Railway and Canada Atlantic Railway, over a very long rail haul. As I said before, a barrel of flour is hauled from Duluth to Buffalo-1,000 miles-for 16 cents, while a barrel of flour for the same distance in Canada, from Ontario, costs 45 cents and sometimes more, for the reason that notwithstanding our unrivalled waterways, Canada has no properly organized system of inland water transportation.\nNo more striking example can be given of the growth and future possibilities of the great west and the value of water transportation as an economic factor In that marvellous development than the growth of the Sault canal traffic.", "Growth of Sault Traffic.\nYear.\tNumber of Tons of\nVessels. Freight.\n1S90\t\n10,557\t9,041,2131S95\t\n17,956\t15,062,5801901\t\n20,041\t28,403,035\nStupendous as these figures are, they only reveal a portion of the great lake commerce -the greatest in the world. The volume last year passing through the Detroit river totalled nearly 42,000,000 tons. This volume is almost four times greater than the Suez canal, which is the great artery of commerce between Europe and Asia. It exceeds the combined entrances and clearances of Liverpool and London, two of the world's greatest seaports. It almost doubles that of the port of New York, which for the twelve months ending July, 1901, was 25,085,000 tons.\nIn order that the House may comprehend in another way the commercial activity of the great lakes, I may say that the total fleet engaged therein amounts to the enormous number of 3,500 vessels. Let the people think seriously of this for a moment, and can they ever imagine, we Canadians, on any Canadian route, employing 500 vessels, to say nothing about the 3,500 1 On these 3,500 vessels they carry regular crews to the number of 52,000 men, and directly afford employment to 150,000 men, as clerks, coal,, ore and grain shovellers, stevedores, deck hands and others. During the eight months or season of navigation for 1900 :\nThe total arrivils and departures from-\nChicago, 17,017 vessels, 13,834,000 tonnage.\nDuluth, 11,526 vessels, -14,433,500 tonnage.\nThe arrival and clearances at the port of Chicago equal the cities of New York and New Orleans combined, and almost equal the combined total of the cities of Boston, Baltimore, Philadelphia and New Orleans, which are all-year open ports.\nAnother item of interest is that pertaining to the value of the commerce passing the Sault canal during the season of navigation, which for the past year was 28,403,065 ; an increase of two and three-quarter million tons over the previous year. The total valuation given to this enormous volume has been $288,529,500.\nWithout going into detail, 18,000,000 tons of the gross volume represented iron and copper ore, leaving a balance of 10,000,000 for food stuffs and general merchandise.\nThe commercial advantages of a waterway route through the centre of Canada cannot be estimated. First as an export grain route, second as an export route for Ontario products ; third, as an export and import general merchandise route ; fourth, as a coal line from Nova Scotia to Ontario cities.\nThe economy of this route is acknowledged by experts to be pre-eminent, in view of its unquestioned geographical advantages."]
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much indeed that neither the govern-

ment nor the House had an opportunity of knowing about this amendment that has just been proposed by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. MacLaren). Hearing it read, as I have now for the first time, there does not seem to be anything very objectionable in the terms of the amendment, but under the circumstances I do not see how it is possible for the government to accept an amendment of this kind on a motion to go into Committee of Supply ; an amendment that we have not had an opportunity of reading or of considering before hand. I fear, therefore, that I will have to ask the House to vote against this amendment. As regards the speech which the hon. gentleman (Mr. MacLaren) lias delivered, I must say that I am very glad indeed to have the very valuable figures which he has placed before the House recorded in ' Hansard,' so that they may be thoroughly understood and known by hon. gentlemen and by the people of Canada. Many of these figures have already appeared in the public press, but not in such a form that they could be thoroughly understood and digested, and 1 must congratulate the hon. member upon the form in which he has put them before the House. The hon. gentleman, I am well aware, is deeply interested in all problems affecting agriculture, and especially the dairy trade of Canada, and I am quite sure that the results of his long study of these problems, as developed in the speech which has just been delivered, will be read by the members of the House and by the people of the country with a great deal of interest. My only regret is that the attendance of members was so scanty this morning, and that all who were here were not able to follow very closely my hon. friend's remarks. There are, however, one or two points which stand out particularly as the burden of his speech, to which I shall refer for a few moments.
One is that our waterways in Canada are defective and must be improved. Now, I venture to take issue with my hon. friend at once. The waterways of Canada are far superior to those of the United States. We have in the western lakes the same waterway opened to us as is opened to the United States. Whether the shipment starts from Duluth or from Fort William, that shipment can go down to the eastern end of Lake Brie just as well as to Port Colborne at the mouth of the Welland canal as it can to Buffalo, although the facilities at Port Colborne for handling the traffic are not as great as those at Buffalo. But that the government have already taken steps to remedy, and to-day there are large contracts being carried out for the improvement of Port Colborne, at the completion of which I venture to think that port will seriously rival the port of Buffalo in the facilities and advantages which it will afford for the transhipment of grain and other products
from the ships plying on the great lakes to those which ply on the canals.
My hon. friend has made a comparison between Buffalo and Montreal in regard to rates ; but I venture to think it is an unfair comparison, inasmuch as Montreal is a seaport, while Buffalo is separated by several hundred miles of either railway transport or very poor canar transport from tne American seaboard. Therefore the comparison between Buffalo and Montreal is an entirely unfair and unwarranted comparison.
My hon. friend has spoken about the American waterways having reduced the rates on American railroads. I have not studied this suuject in its entirety so as to be able to follow out that argument ; but from what I do know of railroad rates in the United States, I do not think the Erie canal from Buffalo to New York has materially affected them. If these rates are lower than the rates in Canada, it is due to two things : In the first place, the enormous traffic which has enabled them to grade their roaus better and to provide better accommodation ; and, secondly, the keen competition which exists between the large number of railroad corporations engaged in the carrying of goods from Chicago and other points in the west to the Atlantic seaboard.
It is true, there is a very serious discrimination against our agricultural products in Ontario, when we compare the cost of laying them down in England, the great market for our agricultural products, with the cost of laying down there American agricultural products, which come from points further west. This is one of the most grave difficulties which we have to overcome in connection with the export of our agricultural products to England ; and any proposition looking towards a solution of that difficulty is well worthy of the utmost consideration of parliament and the country. I venture to think that Canada has done in tne immeuiate past and is doing to-day a good deal to overcome that discrimination. In the first'place, within the last few years our canal system has been enlarged to a depin of 14 feet, so that now vessels carrying something uae 60,000 bushels of grain can leave the western end of the great lakes and carry their cargoes to Montreal without breaking bulk. This fact of itself makes our waterways far superior to the waterways of the United States, where no such cargo can be carried from the interior of the continent to the seaboard without breaking bulk at Buffalo and transhipping into smaller vessels to pass through the Erie canal. Notwithstanding this fact, the rates in Canada to the seaboard are a great deal higher tnan the rates in the United States for the same distance.
This difference in rates, is not. however, so much a difference in railroad rates on

this continent, as a difference in the rates on the Atlantic steamships.
This question is a serious one, with which this country lias been face to face for many years. It is one which the government nave been trying to deal with in what way they could. The fact which the hon. gentleman himself has brought forward, as to the insurance rates being so much higher on the St. Lawrence route than the insurance rates from Boston, New York and other American ports, is a very serious factor in this comparison of rates. That is a matter which has been before the government and the country for two or three years past ; and so important has it been felt to be by the government that if the hon. gentleman will look at the supplementary estimates which have been laid on the Table this morning for the year 1902-3, he will nud an item of $280,0(10 which is asked for by my hou. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for the purpose of improving the lights and buoys auu ~*e otner aius to navigation on the river and gulf of St. Lawrence. These works, we believe, will have a material affect in reducing the rates of insurance on vessels using the St. Lawrence route. In fact, the insurance companies and the shipping companies have informed the government, that if the improvements involved in the scheme of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries are carried out, the result will be a reduction of the rates on the St. Lawrence route. My hon. friend will therefore see that not only are the government not unmindful of this question, but they have investigated it, and are prepared, if parliament grants this money, to go to work during the coming season and carry out me improvements which those familiar with the business have recommended to the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
My hon. friend spoke about the discrimination in railroad rates. I do not know what can be done to remedy this discrimination except to appoint a railway commission. A Bill to create such a commission was introduced in the House this session and thoroughly discussed, and I hope that before the session closes it will be still further ventilated, so that the whole country will be fully seized with the subject. Next session I have no doubt that this measure will be re-introduced early enough to be carried into law, and it seems to me that a railway commission, such as is provided by this Bill, will be the simplest and most effective means of providing a remedy for the evils which now undoubtedly exist with regard to railway1 rates and transportation. At the moment I am not prepared to say to what extent the evils complained of interfere with our traffic. That is a question which will have to be settled by the railway commission. Individual instances will have to be submitted to that commission and evidence concerning them given under oath. And I am sure that no better


Hon. Mr. FISHER.: tribunal than a commission of this kind, specially created for that work, could be devised to thoroughly sift the evils and disadvantages complained of and apply a remedy.
My hon. friend has also spoken about the necessity for encouraging a line of vessels to carry freight from the western end of our waterway down to Montreal. I regret extremely that such a line was not established long since, but the reason it has not been is no doubt the want of enterprise on the part of Canadians and their unwillingness to take every advantage of the waterways placed at their disposal by the country. We have a splendid chance of communication from Fort William to Montreal. Our coasting laws furnish every facility and encouragement for the establishment of lines of steamers on our great lakes, and if these facilities have not been taken advantage of, it seems to me that it is because the capitalists of this country have not seen their way clear to make the investment. I do not understand my hon. friend to suggest that the government should do any more than provide these facilities. It lias indeed been a matter of surprise to me that in days gone by a line of boats was not established to carry the enormous export trade of the Niagara peninsula, especially in fruit, from Hamilton and the adjoining ports down to Montreal. Instead of that, the railways have been allowed to monopolise that immense traffic. In view of the well established fact that water carriage is cheaper, especially in bulky freight, than rail carriage, I cannot understand why so small an amount of this western business has been carried in boats from the wrest to Montreal. That is one of the things that ought to be investigated. It is certainly astonishing that with the splendid facilities offered toy our canals and lakes there has not been any improvement in the direction of supplying vessels to carry this western trade.
I venture to say that in. addition there is abundant opportunity for me of enterprise to establish cold storage boats, which would run through Lake Erie and Ontario and down through the canals in summer to Montreal, where their freight would toe transhipped into ocean vessels, which are all equipped with cold storage facilities. I need not dwell on the facilities provided for cold storage freight from Montreal to Europe. My hon. friend himself read an extract which stoowed clearly that these are far superior to the advantages provided in American ports. His own cheese trade lias shown clearly that while the rates arc cheaper via Portland, the cheese becomes damaged on that route, whereas, although the rates may toe a little higher via Montreal, the cheese suffers no damage, hut arrives in good condition, and I think he will agree that it is better to pay a little higher freight at Montreal and have the cheese arrive in good order in our cold stor-

age vessels than ship It at a lower rate from American ports and have it arrive in a *damaged condition. I shall not say anything further on this point, except to remark that when my hon. friend asks us to help him in securing better accommodation at) Portland, he must not forget that Portland is a foreign port and that we have no control of the vessels leaving it.


Alexander Ferguson MacLaren: My hon. friend is mistaken. I am not advocating any assistance to an American port, but simply that we should improve our Canadian waterways.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I understood my toon, friend to read and endorse the views expressed by a gentleman at the Dairymen's Association, who advised that we should provide better accommodation at Portland. I am not going into the figures which my hon. friend has given. They need to be studied very carefully before attempting to deal with them, but before sitting down, I would like to say to my hon. friend-and in so doing, I wish to set aside all politics, which he seemed to think ought to be introduced into the matter, since he brought his motion as an amendment to the resolution to go into supply. Such a motion, unless previously submitted to the government, is necessarily a motion of want of confidence.


Alexander Ferguson MacLaren: I did give the Minister of Public Works a copy of the resolution yesterday.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My hon. colleague the Minister of Public Works was not here, and I did not know anything about it, nor did the other members of the government. But putting politics aside entirely, let me say that Canada as a whole, both this government and its predecessors, has devoted enormous sums of money to the solving of the transportation problem and has never shrunk from doing what the country thought necessary in order to provide transportation facilities. Our canal system is probably the greatest *on the face of the earth. Our government railway, the Intercolonial Railway, and the -Grand Trunk Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway, both of which have been largely assisted by this country, are probably, in proportion to our wealth and population, the greatest railroad system on the globe. [DOT]Canada has borne, and is to-day bearing the burden, by paying the interest on the debt incurred for the purpose of perfecting our transportation facilities. These facilities are not at all utilized to their full extent. Our canal system is not utilized to the one-hundredth part of its capacity. If the enterprising capitalists of this country would undertake to supply the necessary vessels, there is nothing to prevent our canals being utilized in a way hitherto undreamed of, and i have no doubt that the investment
would prove profitable, both for the promoters and the country.
Under these circumstances, I venture to think that neither the government nor the people of Canada can be looked upon as recreant to this part of their duty or lacking in enterprise and determination to advance along the lines of material progress. If these facilities have not been utilized to the utmost possible extent, it is because the people of Canada have been devoting themselves to other things-the farmers to the production of goods, the merchants to selling those goods to advantage. And now they are beginning to see and understand that greater facilities in the way of transport are necessary, not in the shape of canals, not in the shape of railway tracks, but in the shape of improved rolling stock for the railways, and of ships for the utilization of the canals which now exist. The people of Canada will take that up and carry it out in a way commensurate with the facilities already at their disposal and commensurate with the enterprise they have shown in providing these facilities and in the development of the country's resources thus far. I am satisfied that hon. members on both sides and the people of Canada at large are expecting that this will be done, and I venture to think that, in the near future, such work will be done to greater advantage than heretofore. As I have said, I regret that it is impossible under the circumstances to accept the motion, especially in tiie form in which it has been given. But I sympathize with a great deal of wlfat has been said by the hon. member for North Perth, and I am satisfied that Canadians will take advantage of the facilities they have and will soon have a fleet upon our lakes that will rival that of the United States, and that will cause our trade to pass through our canals and ports instead of so much of it going to the south.


Mr. .TABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin).: The motion now before the House is, perhaps, the most interesting for the farmers of this country that has yet been discussed. As the Minister of Railway's promises that next session he will introduce a Bill to regulate the traffic^ on the railways by establishing a railway commission, perhaps it will be well to wait and see what the government will do. The farmers are all deeply Interested in getting their products to the market at as cheap a rate as possible. It has been clearly established that Canadian farmers are discriminated against by the railways. Whether the commission will have power to relieve them of that discrimination remains to be seen. We find that to-day cattle are carried from Chicago to Boston at a cheaper rate than that which is charged on cattle from a point fifty miles north of Toronto to Boston over the same lines. I hold in my hands a shipping bill from Chicago for cattle shipped from there

for 28 cents per 100 pounds to Boston. X have another shipping bill from a point 80 miles north of Toronto for 33 cents per 100 pounds to Boston. And there is a rebate on the shipment from Chicago of $7.50, reducing the Chicago rate by about 3 cents further. Now, if this is a fact-and it is a fact, for I have the shipping bills here- it is a grievance whicli should be remedied.
1 have another shipping bill for cattle from Toronto to Boston for 25 cents per 100 pounds with no rebate. Now, this makes a difference of $1.14 on every beef weighing 1,400 pounds to get it on ship-board, the difference being against the Canadian farmers. I am credibly informed that, on the average, the American farmer has an advantage of $2 on every beef shipped to the ^ old country over the farmers of Canada. What does this mean ? It means that our farmers who are looking to better their condition will go and live in a land where they can get the best advantages. Is it any wonder that farm lands in Ontario and in Canada generally are depreciating in value when our railways discriminate against us in this way ? The Minister of Railways cannot establish his railway commission too soon. I am not prepared to condemn the government because they have not done it yet, for these discriminations have been going on for many years. But if the government will undertake to remedy this evil, the farmers will be satisfied. In the meantime, I am not prepared to condemn the government until we see what they are going to do in the matter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was a little surprised at the statement of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher), that this motion, being in amendment to a motion for Committee of Supply, must be regarded as a motion of want of confidence in the government. It is only a few days since the hon. gentleman's own friends accepted a motion in amendment to a motion for Committee of Supply from one of their own supporters, not regarding it as a motion of want of confidence. I refer to the motion of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) regarding the embargo on Canadian cattle. And the government could, with equal propriety, accept the motion now before the House, for there is nothing in it that goes any further or is any stronger than the motion offered by one of their own friends. The excuse that the Minister of Agriculture has given why this motion should not be allowed to pass, or his excuse for calling upon his friends to vote it down, is simply an excuse, and not a very good one either. The hon. minister said that the cold storage provided from Canadian ports is far superior to that provided from American ports. No doubt it is. Why, then, is it that the freight rates are so much higher from Canadian ports ? It must be due to one of two causes-either
Mr. ROBINSON West Elgin).
to want of competition in the vessels carrying on that trade or to the high insurance that is charged on the Canadian route. I have reason to believe that a good deal is due to the fact that the insurance on the St. Lawrence route is so very much higher than from American ports. And yet, strange to say, we have been told over and over again in this House, within the last few years by supporters of the government, that everything has been done that could be done to make the route as nearly perfect as possible-the lighting, deepening and enlarging of the channel and the affording of 14-foot navigation throughout the whole route. If everything has been done that should be done, why does the Minister of Agriculture tell us to-day that there is a large item in the supplementary estimates which have just been laid on the Table, for better lighting the St. Lawrence route ? I admit quite readily that the work is necessary. But the statement of the minister is strangely contradictory of what was said by Sir Louis Davies, the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries, over and over again in this House, that everything had been done that could be done to make the route perfect and to reduce the cost of insurance.
The Minister of Agriculture wonders that freight from the western part of Ontario is not carried in boats rather than in railways. Now the minister has been informing the Canadian farmer for several years past that he has introduced a system of cold storage on the railways, capable of carrying the perishable products of the farm to the seaboard, and laying them down in perfect condition; and he wonders because the farmers have taken him at his word and are availing themselves of this cold storage system. It is true that they have not found it as valuable as he declared it would be, but they have taken him at his word, and they are using it. Now I admit that if the Canadian farmer in the southwestern part of Ontario availed himself of steamers for the carriage of his fruit it might be to his advantage. But to do it successfully there would require to be better provision made for the carriage of that fruit on those steamers than exists at the present time. Why ? Because transportation is much slower, and there is a possibility of the fruit spoiling in the steamers as well as in the cars. But the Minister of Agriculture has made no provision for the better carriage of these perishable products of the farm by way of these steamers between, say, Hamilton or Grimsby and Montreal. Therefore it should not be a matter of surprise to the minister that they do not take advantage of the waterways; they cannot do so on account of the inferior transportation facilities that are afforded them by these steamers. The Minister of Agriculture says that the Canadians should take advantage of the splendid waterways provided by the country. Now, does it not occur to him that there

must be some defect, or otherwise they would take advantage of them? It may be in freight rates, it may be in the want of more rapid transportation, it may be in facilities for handling-there must be some reason why the people do not take advantage of it. The very fact that they do not take advantage of it ought to suggest to the hon. gentleman the necessity of inquiring into the cause and providing a remedy as early as possible. It is not enough to say that it is provided. These splendid waterways are not all they have been represented to be; the shippers of the country declare they are not what they have been represented to be. We often find Canadians shipping by way of American ports, availing themselves of the transportation facilities through American ports while leaving the waterways and railways of our own country. Then I say we cannot move one moment too soon in remedying these defects so that our shippers will take advantage of our waterways as they ought to be able to do.
The hon. minister told us a short time before that they had improved the St. Lawrence by lighting it better. Well, that is right, but they have contended for years that they have done all that was required; and the hon. gentleman's own friends have most positively assured us that everything was done that could be done. Only last session the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries stated that navigators found no fault with the St. Lawrence, that he had asked captains what more was necessary to be done, and they told him nothing, they could suggest nothing more to be done. But to-day the Minister of Agriculture tells us that there is an item of over $280,000 in the supplementary estimates presented to this House to-day for the purpose of better lighting the St. Lawrence route. There must have been something wrong, then. My impression is now, as it always has been, that the St. Lawrence was not as well lighted as it should be, otherwise the insurance rates would not be so high. It is evident there has been some defect in that route, and the minister now acknowledges it by making better provision for lighting it. The minister says the waterways of Canada are far superior to those of the United States. He said that in justification of the contention that we could ship cheaper to foreign markets through Canada than we could through the United States. The hon. member for North Perth (Mr. MacLaren) said that this justifies us in adopting his resolution, namely:
That in the opinion of this House it is both expedient and indispensable that the government should at once inaugurate such a policy in connection with our waterways and the shipbuilding industry of the country, as will speedily lead to the completion of the Canadian system by both inland and ocean transportation.
Now, the hon. minister says the waterways of Canada are far superior to the water-138
ways of the United States, and he gives that as an answer to the allegation that shipping is carried on more cheaply through the waterways of the United States than through those of Canada. Well, I know there is a good deal ini the fact that the larger country has a larger quantity to ship, that there is greater competition in vessels, and that perhaps the insurance is much fighter. Those facts may partly account for the larger quantity of shipping carried through the United States waterways. But I think there is another reason that accounts for it, and that is that we have not paid sufficient attention to our own waterways. There is no doubt of that whatever, in my judgment. I do not see any reason in the world why our railways cannot carry the produce of Canada, say from Windsor, if you like, to Montreal, as cheap as they can from Milwaukee, or St. Paul, or Minneapolis to Montreal. Why can they not do it ? Does it cost less or more to carry a hundred weight of freight fifteen hundred miles than it does to carry it a thousand miles ? It cost more to carry it a longer distance, and yet they are carrying it a longer distance for a cheaper price. What does that suggest ? Does it not suggest that there must be an overcharge on the freight carried through Canada? Does it not suggest the necessity of a railway commission, or some other power, to control the railways in fixing their freight rates ? It is not so much competiton that does that, because some railways carry freight through Canada and are taxed to their utmost capacity at times to handle it. Therefore they ought to be able to carry freight for Canadians at least as cheap, if not cheaper, than the Americans do, because sometimes they carry it a much longer distance.
Then there must be some other cause, and what is it ? The Canadians do not avail themselves of our splendid waterways. Why do they not ? There must be some shortage of vessels, and if there is a shortage of vessels, is not this resolution an appropriate one which suggests that the government should direct their attention to the matter :	' Inaugurate such a policy in connection with our waterways and the shipbuilding industry of the country as will speedily lead to the completion of the Canadian system toy both inland and ocean transportation.' Is that an improper suggestion to make to the government ? Is it improper for this House to ask the government to direct their attention to those things ?
We had a deputation here a few days ago waiting on the government asking them to give a bounty on ship-building. Suppose the government acceded to that request what would be the result ? It would certainly lead to the building of more ships in Canada and if we had more ships built in Canada there would be a better system of transportation. There would be a greater

43S7

competition and the result would be that we would have an ample supply of vessels for our carrying trade, whereas, we have not now an ample supply. We are many times short of what the country needs. This resolution could not be out of place if the government accepted it and there is no good reason in the world why the government should not accept it and say that we desire to do what is there proposed. We are directing our attention to the subject, but if we can get a spur, or any valuable suggestion from the opposition that will help us, we are willing and desirous to avail ourselves of such assistance and at the earliest possible moment to do everything we can to improve the shipping facilities of the country. We have been told that we have a 14 foot system of waterways from Lake Superior right down to Montreal. Some shippers say we have not. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) has told us over and over again that we have. But, whether we have or have not, we do And that vessel-owners are reluctant to avail themselves of our waterways to the extent that we would desire to see them do. There seems to be some reason for this and I say that it is the duty of the government to seek out that reason and remedy any defect that may be found to exist at the earliest possible moment. The hon. member who moved this resolution gave us some statistics to show the amount of trade that is passing through the Sault canal, the improvement in that trade and the value of it. The number of vessels that passed through the Sault canal last year was 2,041. Well, it suggested one thing to my mind and it was that there is ample competition in these waterways so far as our American friends are concerned and that if we had the same competition there is no doubt whatever but that it would result in the lowering of freight rates to the Canadian people. We find that a great deal of the grain that passes through the Sault canal is taken to Buffalo. We are told that it goes there because that is a cheaper route and some people say it is a cheaper route because they have better facilities for shipping to the seaboard. Their route does not compare with ours. The Brie canal is by no means equal to the St. Lawrence route. That does not affect the question, but the real reason is that they have better competition in railways from Buffalo to New York. I believe that fact accounts for the shipment of such a large amount of grain by this route rather than that the route from Buffalo to New York is superior to ours. It is by virtue of that competition that the freight rates are lower and that is the reason why a large portion of the grain is going that way rather than by way of Montreal. It is sometimes said that if we had the Georgian Bay canal this condition of affairs would be remedied. Well, it may be to some extent. I believe so far as the carriage


Thomas Simpson Sproule: of the grain of the North-west Territories is concerned it would be of material advantage if we had it. The next question is whether the cost of that canal is not beyond the reach of the Canadian people at the present time, and whether we would be justified in incurring the very large expenditure which would be necessary to build that canal by the expected return from the shipping brought to the country on account of it. We do not think we would be at the present time, but we do think that the improvement of the other waterways should be proceeded with as rapidly as possible. We have heard it said over and over again in this House that since the present government came into power they have finished the St. Lawrence route, that our canal system is finished. We need only look at the estimates to satisfy ourselves that the canal system is not finished by any means, because we are spending money right along the same as we have done in years past. I do not complain of it, because I think that expenditure is absolutely necessary, but I think that the work might be hurried up a great deal faster than it has been carried on during the last four or five years. We have not made the progress we should have made. I think the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte)- with that constant discussion going on between three or four ministers of the Crown it is difficult to proceed. I desire to get their attention, because, if I can hope to make any impression upon them it will be through them hearing what I have to say. If they will only extend to me the courtesy of listening to ine I will be very much obliged. I have noticed this practice so often that I am obliged to speak of it. The hon. Minister of Public Works, in my judgment, has displayed more enterprise and energy in his efforts to carry this out than any other minister of the Crown, but I do say that during the last four or five years, although they said much about the expenditure and the work done by their predecessors, the work is going on more rapidly to-day than for many years past. This fact suggests to us the necessity of hurrying up, because as time goes on and new routes are being constructed it would be much more difficult to divert the trade of the country from these new routes when we get our own completed than to secure this trade if we had our routes ready for the carriage of the trade when the trade is offered to be carried. In going over the returns that were given to us a short time ago showing the quantity of grain going from ports on the Georgian Bay they show that a large share of that trade is being carried by railway notwithstanding all the money that we are spending on the waterways of this country. We have the Canada Atlantic Railway carrying millions and millions of bushels of grain from Parry Sound to Montreal, we have the Grand Trunk Railway carrying 11,000,-

000 or 12,000,000 bushels of grain from Midland every year to Montreal, and we have the Grand Trunk Railway carrying a large amount of wheat from Meaford, Colling-wood, Goderich and Sarnia to Montreal. All these railways are carrying the graiu and if facilities are given for the handling of the graiu at these ports through elevators and through improved facilities for transhipment it will materially assist in carrying the grain from these ports by these routes. The more grain that is carried in this way the less will be taken to Buffalo. If we continue to improve our waterways as we are doing by providing better lighting and reducing the cost of insurance and otherwise improving them we will induce the Canadian people to avail themselves of these routes, to ship their grain by Canadian routes rather than by American ro_utes as the hon. Minister of Agriculture told us they are doing. Our attention cannot be directed a moment too soon to the importance of this resolution and the hon. member for Perth is entitled to the thanks of this House as well as to the thanks of the shippers of the country and especially the agriculturists of the country for introducing this subject and giving the House the benefit of the large amount of information which he has collected in regard to it. The details which he has given to this House I rake to be approximately correct, as correct as it was possible for him to obtain them. It is valuable information, as I have said, and the introduction of the subject draws our attention to the subject in a way that should make the government desirous at the earliest possible date of directing their attention to it more energetically than they have done in the past. That being the case why should they not accept the resolution ? If the government have nothing to fear, if they have been doing all they could this would be a justification for what they have done. Then I say that the government should accept this resolution and let us pass it unanimously as they did in reference to the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) the other night in regard to the cattle trade of the country.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte).: I have addressed the House so often on the transportation question, that I hesitate to speak once more; but the subject is off such vast importance that I may be pardoned; for saying a few words. My hon. friend (Mr. MacLaren) has rightly stated that it is perhaps the most important question that we have to deal with at the present time. The amalgamation of many lines of steamers on the Atlantic ocean has created a new interest in that question. No one can tell what the result of that may be, because it is too early yet to make any prophecy about it. There are those who believe that Mr. Morgan's plans are not only to amalgamate 138*
as many steamer lines as he can, but to work these lines in conjunction with the American railway system, and I am one of those who take that view. I believe that before we are very much older, we will find that Mr. Morgan and his syndicate who are stock holders in American railways will amalgamate both railways and steamship lines, not only on the ocean but on the lakes as well. In other words, they will be able to make a through rate from west to east There is no doubt that we are not in a position to-day to face such a strong combination, but I do not despair of the future of the country. We live in a century of progress and activity, and ships can be built in a very short time indeed. We are not so poor that we cannot provide for our needs in that direction. We have made a great deal of progress during the last year. I do not say that boastfully because I feel in my bones and sinews that this question is far above party politics. Our predecessors have worked in that direction more especially on the land, and the Canadian Pacific Railway was built and part of the canals completed. The completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway engaged our attention for several years, and not only our attention but our money and credit. Now we have to grapple with the problem of transportation as it is presented to us to-day. My hon. friend (Mr. MacLaren) should not lose sight of the progress we have made, and it is just as well that I should make it as clear as I can. We are improving our harbours on the lakes. The hon. gentleman has asked why our Canadian canal system has not developed more trade. The reason Is obvious. He has been to Buffalo and he has) seen the immense organization they have there, and that they have five miles of a breakwater in Buffalo harbour. On our side at Port Colborne, we had not a shadow of a harbour. How could a big ship loaded with grain or other produce come to Port Colborne when she iiad no accommodation there ? Well, we are equipping Port Colborne to-day and it will be so much done. Our system of canals is about completed, and the minister will have them lighted by electricity in order to make them more available. We are making improvements at Midland, Coliingwood, Owen Sound and Parry Sound, which are all reservoirs of trade. Let me call the attention of the House to the new policy of the Grand Trunk Railway. That company has been for a few years past an American road both in summer and winter, but I am glad to be able to say that Mr. Hays lias fully made up his mind to take advantage of the St. Lawrence route, and the Grand Trunk Railway is going to erect a large elevator and a large warehouse in the port of Montreal to accommodate their trade. This fact alone proves that we have made a great deal of progress, because if the St. Lawrence had not been improved the Grand Trunk Railway would not have come back

to Montreal. The route between Montreal and the sea is being improved as rapidly as money can improve it, and if my hou. friend (Mr. MacLaren, Perth) were in my position he could more readily appreciate the difficulty of carrying out such vast works. When I took office, for one reason or another, my department had no fleet of dredges. Dredges are not built in a day;
I had to organize the whole thing, and I regret that we are going to prorogue before the dredges are at work, because I had the intention of inviting the leaders of both sides of the House to make an inspection of the works on the St. Lawrence, but that will come another season. The port of Montreal is being equipped, and the port of Quebec will be equipped also. In spite of all the money we have spent in days past in Quebec, there is scarcely any space available for large vessels. The ships that carry freight from New York, Boston and Philadelphia take a whole world of merchandise on each voyage, and with the relatively inferior ships -which we had on our route in the past we could not compete with them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it not a strange fact that the same ships sailing from Montreal and from Portland will carry freight from Portland at several shillings per hundred weight less than they will carry the same freight from Montreal.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There may be reasons for that, and one of the reasons is that most of the ships that sail from the American ports are larger than the average of those that in the past have been navigating our waters. W7e say in French : ' Paris n'a pas ete bati dans un jour '-Paris has not been built in a day-and energetic as we be, still a young nation like us cannot do everything in a day. I hope that before our hair is much grayer, we will have a fast line coupled with a line of freight carriers of the first magnitude, and then perhaps we will not be far from the solution of this difficult and expensive problem. We had to equip the St. Lawrence route in many ways. Our telegraph system to Belle Isle is completed; dredging is going on; the Minister of Marine is asking the House now for a sufficient sum of money to give a better service in lighting and buoying the river. Perhaps that should have been done sooner. At the same time, so far as the river between Quebec and Montreal is concerned, it might have been just as well to have waited a little, so that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries could have taken advantage of the new dredging work that has been going on in the channel. I do not believe that it is necessary to say more. My hon. friend from North Perth has, in a very particular way, called the attention of the House to that important question. The manner in which he has made his motion prevents our accepting it, because it ap-Hon. Mr. TARTE.
pears to be a motion of want of confidence.
I would not take it in that way, and I know he does not intend it as such; but I suppose the procedure of the House makes it necessai'y to so regard it. I think my hon. friend, after having given us the benefit of his experience and his ability in trade matters, can very well afford to withdraw his motion. It has been accepted in a friendly spirit. He has called the attention not only of the House, but of the commercial community to the necessity of going on as speedily as possible. Speaking for myself, I am very thankful to him for haying given us the great advantage of his knowledge and commercial ability in such matters.


Mr. N. BOYD (Macdonald).: Mr. Speaker, the importance of this subject to the western portion of this country is my only excuse for taking a few moments of the time of the House in discussing it. There is no issue before parliament of such great importance as the carrying trade, so far as the western portion of Canada is concerned. People are to-day going in there in thousands, and, as I had occasion to point out when the House first opened, the trade of that country was practically blocked during a great portion of the winter for the reason that we were not able to get the products of the country taken to the markets. The people are going in there in vast numbers, far in excess, I fear, of the enterprise of the government or any private enterprise to meet their future requirements. I may mention to the House a conversation which I had with the superintendent of the Canadian Pacific Railwmy when I waited upon him with regard to the shortage of cars. The burning question all over that country is how to get this great disability removed; and every person who has any influence at all is expected to exert it in that direction. I said to Mr. Leonard: ' Provided there are no more railroads opened up and we take nTorely the natural increase of acreage that will be broken up, and the natural increase of the produce that will come from the people now in the country, to say nothing of the people who are coming in, what are you going to do with the produce of that country six years from to-day ? ' His remark was : ' Mr. Boyd, ten railroads will not take the produce of this country out in double the time you at present seem to think it should.'
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a question which this House might well consider, and it is this : The millers of Minneapolis, recognizing the importance of this great wheat field, have made an arrangement with the authorities at Washington, whereby they are permitted to grind wheat in Minneapolis in bond; and if our government and people do not rise to the emergency of the occasion, you may be prepared to see a great volume of the trade of that country pass-

ing to Minneapolis and other American cities. The point which my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works frequently refers to is the port of Buffalo. He speaks feelingly, and I believe sincerely, when he complains of the trade of this country passing from Buffalo to New York. But shippers have told me that the cheapness of the ocean carriage from New York to the European markets is the great cause of that. The immense shipping that goes into New York enables vessels to carry grain out at a much lower rate than it can be carried at from Montreal. A man told me that he lias actually had his grain carried free from Buffalo to New York, in order that it might be carried as ballast in vessels which were in a hurry to leave, when there was a great deal of shipping going on between New York and Liverpool. I fear that our Canadian ports will not be in a position to meet this competition until you are prepared to bonus vessels to come to .Montreal or to whatever winter port in Canada you may decide upon. This is a very important question, and the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. MacLaren) has done a good thing in again bringing it before the people; because I fear that a great many in eastern Canada do not recognize its urgent importance. I say it will require four railroads between Fort William and Winnipeg, and two or possibly three more cast of there to serve the trade that is looming up and is coming very soon in that country. It is only a short time since I went there, when we imported everything into the country-potatoes, meat, bread, everything ; whereas to-day the country is supplying all the demands of the people, feeding every person there, and at the same time has 100,000,000 bushels of grain for export, produced by a very small number of people. If you take out the towns and the cities, the number of people employed on the land in Manitoba and the North-west Territories is estimated, I think, by Sir William Van Horne, to be less than 40 per * cent of the population. Well, if 40 per cent of the present small population is able to produce such an enormous crop, what can we expect when that country has, as it must have in the near future, possibly 1,000,000 people ? What are you going to do to meet that emergency V It is only the importance of this question to the western country that induces me to occupy the time of the House at this moment. It is so important that the government should not lose sight of it, and the country will hold them responsible for whatever the results may be.


Mr. T. MURRAY (Pontiac).: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) made some reference to the Georgian Bay canal, in connection with the necessity of providing greater transportation facilities in the country. He said it was premature to c usider the question just now, because the
country was not prepared for it. But after j the House has listened to the sjjeech of the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd), who has given us his personal knowledge of the magnitude of the products of the country at the present time, and has referred to its still greater prospective products, I think every one will see the great necessity that exists for providing better facilities for carrying the products of the west to the seaboard.
The question of the Georgian Bay canal is one in which the people of the Ottawa valley are very much interested, and in which the people of the Dominion should likewise take a great interest, as it will no doubt be a great national waterway. There is no question but that the work is one of great necessity, and I am surprised and disappointed that the hon. Minister of Public Works has not a sum in the estimates for the construction of the French river route. I believed that he would have provided an amount for that purpose. I am disappointed also that he has not provided in the estimates for going on with the total survey, so that the country might have an idea of the probable cost. At all events, it is well understood that the cost will be in the neighbourhood of some $80,000,000, but that is a small item compared with the great advantages to be derived from the construction of this great undertaking. It is admitted to be the shortest route, and one on which freights may be transported with greater speed than on any existing route. I know that there is a sectional feeling in the west adverse to that enterprise, but it seems to me that we all ought to look at it in a national spirit. I know that some people are in favour of a company building that great work and others want the government to build it. For my part, I am in favour of the country doing the work, because I think that it will turn out a good asset. I believe that it will yield a good interest on the money expended. It would also be a great aid to colonization. Instead of the government employing immigrant agients in foreign countries to bring out immigrants, some of whom may be objectionable, their services could be dispensed with, as the construction of that work will attract a vast amount of labour, a considerable portion of which would settle, as they did when the Canadian Pacific Railway was built, on places that are now regarded as unfit for settlement. It would not only help colonization, but develop the great water powers which we now have along the Ottawa river.
I am sorry that this subject was not taken up earlier in the session, and do not feel warranted in inflicting any lengthy remarks on the House at this period, but I do trust that the hon. Minister of Public Works, who is an active man, and who has given a part of this route at least his personal inspection, will go on vigorously with the

439$
work next session, and obtain the consent of his colleagues to providing the necessary amount to start the French river route and then proceed with the whole undertaking.


Mr. E. F. CLARKE (West Toronto).: I agree with the hon. gentleman who lias just taken his seat that it is very much to be regretted the discussion of this most important question did not take place at an earlier period, but in view of its vital importance to the Canadian consumer, I think that my hon. friend from North Perth was justified, even at this late hour, in drawing our attention to it. And in view of the very elaborate statement he has made and the amount of information he has given us regarding the discrimination in rates which prevail at present, he has, I consider, placed us under a great obligation to him.
I was glad to notice in the speech of the lion. Minister of Agriculture that he admitted there was nothing objectionable in the resolution as presented, and I regret that, under the circumstances, the government did not consent to its being accepted and passed unanimously. It is recognized on all hands that the question of transportation is the great national question in Canada to-day-one that ought not to be discussed from a party standpoint. The figures presented by my hon. friend are of such a character as to warrant our giving tile matter immediate attention, and the first place in our deliberations; and as my hon. friend gave notice yesterday to the lion. Minister of Public Works of his intention to propose this resolution, I do not think he has been treated with the courtesy which he was entitled to expect under the circumstances. It is hardly possible to take up a newspaper, no matter in wliat part of Canada it is published, and not find in its columns some reference to this transportation question. It is hardly possible not to find in any newspaper facts and figures showing the discrimination practised against the Canadian farmer and the advantages given the farmers of the United States to induce them to sliii) their products over Canadian routes to the sea. I cannot add anything to the facts and figures which have been presented by the hon. member for North Perth, but I have great pleasure in seconding the resolution, because I think the matter he has brought before the House is of vital interest to every consumer and' producer in this country.


Albert Edward Kemp: As it is now so late in the session, and so much business has to be done before the adjournment, I do not propose to take up much of the time of the House in discussing this transportation question. It is a question whicli cannot be discussed in one day. I regret, in common with the hon. members who have spoken, that it was not brought up earlier in the session, but at the same time. I think Mr. MURRAY.
that my hon. friend from North Perth deserves to be commended for having drawn the attention of the House and the country, as he has done, to so many matters of interest. The facts and figures he has stated, we will now have on record, and will be of great advantage to us in future debates, in arriving at a solution of this problem. The transportation problem has many features, but there are three which seem to me of paramount importance. These are the equipping of the lower St. Lawrence in a suitable manner, the providing of suitable Canadian inland marine, and the adjusting of our inland freight charges. With regard to the St. Lawrence route, no doubt every lion, member is of the opinion that we must spare no pains or money to develop that waterway, and that in it are centred the' hopes of the country. We may differ as to the routes our products should take in the winter season, but during the open season of navigation it is in the interests of every province of the 1 )o-minion that the St. Lawrence route should be properly developed and equipped, so that vessels may use it under as favourable conditions as they do the competing American routes.
I would like to say a word about this question of marine insurance. If it were in the power of the government to tax vessels using the St. Lawrence route, say $5,000 each vessel oil each trip, I venture to think that the shipping people in Great Britain would carefully avoid it. Yet the same thing is done, if not by the government, by the insurance companies. The discrimination against that route by the insurance companies, as compared with American ports, amounts, on an ordinary freight carrier, to $25,000. It amounts to $5,000 per trip, and a fair estimate of the excess of insurance on a cargo of such a vessel would be, in a season, about $7,500. Therefore, there is a discrimination against every vessel trading in the St. Lawrence of from $30.000 to $35,000, as compared with vessels going to Boston, New York and Philadelphia.
We have heard that it is the intention of the government to spend $280,000 on further equipping the St. Lawrence route with whistles, buoys, lighthouses, signals and all that sort of thing. I would like to know if the government have ever consulted people who are thoroughly competent to judge of what it will cost to equip the St. Lawrence route so that vessels will be able to come in and trade on as good terms as are offered them in American ports. And, if the government have learned the facts, I would like very much to know what the cost will be.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WOmKS. My hon. friend the Minister of -Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Sutherland) before placin in the estimates the amount that is tuer

now, consulted parties wlio are most interested in Montreal and in the shipping trade ; and I feel confident that the amount In the estimates will be enough to light the St. Lawrence route in a very perfect way.


Albert Edward Kemp: I am very glad to hear it. But, the point I want to make is this-that we, as members of this House of Commons should be convinced that we can make the St. Lawrence route so perfect that the rate of Insurance by that route can be made as low as that of any of the American ports. For my part, I am convinced that that can be accomplished. But I am not so sure, from the discussions I have heard in this House, that the members of the government have a policy before them by which they can actually accomplish that end. It seems to me that that cannot be accomplished by this expenditure of $280,000. But what 1 * wish is that we were convinced that we can make the St. Lawrence route as attractive to tramp vessels, In insurance rates and otherwise, as other routes. We have a number of British Canadian lines trading in the St. Lawrence, and we have captains who are accustomed to navigate that route. But I understand it is very difficult to get captains and officers who are accustomed to trade to other ports to come into the St. Lawrence. Therefore, this is a very much larger question, I think, than a great many have considered it to be. Until we can remove this discrimination on insurance rates in the St. Lawrence route, we cannot progress as we hope to do.
We have another handicap in this, that we have pilotage waters of three hundred miles. That handicap we cannot overcome but we can make the best arrangements possible.
It is not enough to talk of freight from Montreal or Quebec. It seems to me we are sending to those places as much as can be carried away with the facilities afforded. The next step, therefore, is .to see about the lower St. Lawrence and how we can induce ships to come in. I doubt that we will have to bonus the vessels to come into the route; it seems to me we can so improve the route that they will come in without that.
The question of the lack of a Canadian marine on the lakes has been discussed. I do not profess to offer a solution of that problem. Many views on that question have been expressed. It may be necessary, in the future, to protect these vessels in a way that . has never been done before; it may be necessary to bonus them. If the Americans have ships on the inland waters, we should have them too. Until we have Canadian bottoms on the lakes we cannot take advantage of the facilities afforded by our waterways. We do not need any new canals from Georgian bay to Montreal; we need to use those that we have. I would like very much to see made up by competent authority an estimate of the capacity of the St. Lawrence
canals-how many bushels of grain could be carried over them in a season ? I believe that if we had that information, we should see that we now have facilities for carrying all the grain that can be produced in Ontario and the North-west for many years to come.
Let me refer briefly to the question of freight charges. The hon. member for North Perth has placed this subject before the House in such a way that it will 'be very easy for us to get at the facts in the future. Some of these facts have come before the attention of hon. members from different sources in the past. In this case it is very difficult to know just what should be done. So far as the producers in this part of Canada are concerned, they are paying 20, 25 or 30 per cent more freight charges on their produce than their neighbours to the south are paying. Perhaps the difference is even greater in many cases. This will always be a grievance. So long as the people of Ontario permit to cross the line and see much more favourable conditions existing there, they will not be satisfied. It is for us to compare the conditions in the country to the south of us and in this country, and see whether we cannot place our finger upon the difficulty and furnish the remedy.
I shall not take up further time, I merely say, as I said in opening, that the hou. member for North Perth has done well, even at this late date of the session, in bringing the matter to the attention of the House, and I shall have much pleasure in supporting his resolution.


Adam Carr Bell: I regret very much that the hon. member for North Pertu did not reach this motion, which lie has had in contemplation for a long time, until so late a date that, it is impossible to deal with it in a satisfactory manner. However, I cannot let the opportunity pass without making a few remarks. The hon. gentleman dealt with a problem upon the wise solution of which depends the question whether Canada shall or shall not receive something like an adequate return for the money expended on the St. Lawrence canals. Two or three years ago, on looking into the question, I was surprised to find that, though Canada had gone on building and perfecting the St. Lawrence canals, so far as the returns of freight from Montreal showed, the amount of grain carried by that route was a diminishing quantity. Apparently, our whole outlay had been made upon a mistaken policy.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, the reason, if my hon. friend will permit me to speak for a moment, is that, while we left Port Colborne unequipped, while we did not provide ourselves with proper railway facilities, our American friends were equipping Buffalo and equipping their railways in a way to make successful competi-

tion on our part difficult. That is the whole reason.


Adam Carr Bell: On looking into the matter further, I found the reason to be what has been pointed out in the brief remarks just made by the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte). In the first place the port of Montreal was not adequately equipped ; and in the second place the front door, as we may say, of the whole system, Port Colborne, was in such condition that no considerable volume of traffic could make its entrance to that route. Now, if we can, by any reasonable national expenditure, enable the people of Canada to receive from the St. Lawrence system of canals that return which I believe they can receive, the country will sustain the administration in making that expenditure. When the deepening of the canals to fourteen feet was spoken of and that result was looked forward to, and many persons interested in traffic in the lower provinces felt that the day was coming when a large inter-provincial trade would follow, when our heavy products, particularly coal and iron, would be carried in large quantities to the upper provinces, and we would receive in return, by cheap water carriage, an enormous quantity of food stuffs, manufactured goods and the imported articles of commerce from Quebec and Ontario. It has been stated to me by a person well qualified to judge that, if the St. Lawrence system were equipped with necessary facilities to use the extreme depth of fourteen feet, heavy freight, such as coal or iron ore, could be carried from the port of Pictou, or some other convenient port in Nova Scotia, to Port Arthur at the head of the lake system of navigation, at a cost not exceeding one dollar a ton. If that could be realized, it would mean an enormous market opening up for the coal mines of the lower provinces, a market which at present, those coal mines do not occupy ; for it is quite evident that, at present practically the whole coal supply of the province of Ontario and of the province of Quebec almost equally, comes from the United States.
We have in the lower provinces, particularly in the province of Nova Scotia, enormous supplies of coal which we are only too anxious to supply to our fellow citizens in the upper provinces from whom we buy so largely. The improvement of the business conducted over these canals would also have a great meaning for every prospective manufacturer of the lower provinces. One of those with which I have been connected was so handicapped, so hampered and embarrassed by the high cost of freight incurred in order to send the products of that business to the upper provinces where they found almost their entire market, that in the end they had to abandon the business as unprofitable. I am sure that nothing has been brought, before the House
this session, of so much importance as this great question of interprovineial traffic which has been opened up by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. MacLaren), and I am sorry that we have not the time to discuss it more fully. But I am glad to express my entire good-will towards any effort that may be made to improve that traffic; and I hope at a very early day to see realized a [DOT]system by which some of the ports in the lower provinces will ,be made shipping depots from which ocean steamers will go with great cargoes abroad, while these depots will be kept filled by a large fleet of river and lake carriers coming from the ports of the upper provinces, bringing grain and other products, and will then return to the west laden with our coal and other articles for which (we can find a market up above. There are so many considerations belonging to this matter that it is idle to attempt to touch them at this time, and I have only spoken in order to express the deep interest of my constituents in this question, and at the same time to express my warm approbation of the able and exhaustive manner in which this subject has been dealt with bv the hon. member for Perth.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: At this late hour of tlie session, I do not intend to make any lengthy remarks. Still, I wish to mention one or two matters to the minister. In the first place, we all realize the great growth of the North-west, and are gratified at the enormous quantity of graiu that is being forwarded from that country. That is a reason for deepening the canals. But we want large vessels, large Canadian vessels, on the upper lakes ; and so long as it not definitely understood that the Minister of Public Works will not give to the Americans annually the right to use American vessels in bringing grain from one Canadian port to another Canadian port, I feel that the ship-building industry of Canada will not progress as it should.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That assurance has been given, and it has been carried out.


John Dowsley Reid: Now, wiill the country understand from this time forward that there never will be another privilege of that kind given by the government to carry grain from Port Arthur to Midland V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Prime Minister has stated from his place in the House what our policy was. Now that policy in; the past lias been violated on one occasion, at the request of Mr. Booth, in order to allow him to carry grain from one Canadian port to another Canadian port.


John Dowsley Reid: If that policy can be relied on, I believe the ship-building industry will increase, and we will have Canadian vessels to carry our own grain.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: 



The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There are ten new beats under construction now on the lakes.


John Dowsley Reid: If such is the case, I have no fear of Mr. Morgan and his syndicate ever absorbing Canadian vessels. There is in my opinion another cause that seriously interferes with grain going down the St. Lawrence. When grain reaches Port Colborne, it is there met with a tax of 15 cents a ton as a canal toll for passing through the Welland canal. Grain going to Buffalo goes through the Erie canal free. That 15 cents a ton is equal to about half a cent a bushel, or nearly so. In addition, as I mentioned in a previous session, the vessels have to lighten their cargo, if full loaded, and allow the railroad that lies along the Welland canal to' parry the, lighterage. If the government absorb that, so that a vessel could go from Duluth to Port Colborne with 100,000 bushels of grain, which she could take right through to Montreal, it would have a tendency to bring the grain through the St. Lawrence route, as the rates are often so high it does not pay to lighten. I have heard a great many vessel captains complain about the Welland canal tolls. They claim that the tolls on the grain are much larger than they are on iron ore or products of that kind. I' have been asked to draw the attention of the government to that fact. If they would remove those taxes, I believe it would have a great tendency to bring more grain through the canal. Then again at the port of Montreal 1 understand there are government taxes, while grain entering New York has to pay no charges of any kind.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The charges in New York are very much greater than they are in Montreal-charges of all kinds.


John Dowsley Reid: Well, when the grain arrives there, is there any government charge of any kind ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The charges are higher than they are in Montreal.


John Dowsley Reid: I understood there were no government charges whatever in New York.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There are no government charges in Montreal, but there are harbour dues.


John Dowsley Reid: There are harbour dues in Montreal, but there are none In New York. That, they claim, interferes with the grain going through the St. Lawrence route. But the 15 cents a ton on grain passing through the Welland canal is a very serious affair. And when we take into consideration the insurance on the grain after it reaches Montreal, you will see that everything is against us. I have simply risen on this occasion to put before the government the request which I have
received from a number of vessel men to see if something cannot be done to remove these tolls, and thus place them on an equal footing with those who use the Erie canal. I am glad to support this resolution of the hon. member for Perth (Mr. MacLaren). I think it is well that he has brought it before the House, for I desire to see more grain carried through the St. Lawrence route than is now carried.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon friend from Perth will withdraw the motion, I hope.


Alexander Ferguson MacLaren: I have no intention whatever of withdrawing the motion.
House divided Laren) :	on amendment (Mr. Mac-
 YEAS : Messieurs
Avery,	Kemp,
Bell,	Kidd,
Bennett,	Lancaster,
Birkett,	LaRiviSre,
Blain,	Lennox,
Borden (Halifax).	Lccnard,
Boyd,	MacLaren (Perth),
Bruce,	McGowan,
Calvin,	McIntosh,
Carscallen,	Morin,
Clare,	Osier,
Clarke,	Pcrter,
Cochrane,	Reid (Grenville),
Culbert,	Richardson,
Earle,	Robinson (Elgin),
Gilmour,	Roche (Marquette),
Hackett,	Sproule,
Haggart,	Taylor,
Henderson,	Tolton.
Ingram,	Wilmot,
Johnston (Cardwell), Wilson.-43. Kaulbach,
 NAYS : Messieurs	
Angers,	Legris,
Bazinet,	Lemieux,
Beith,	Lewis,
Belcourt,	Loy,
Bernier,	Macdonald,
Blair,	Mackie,
Borden (King's, N.S.) McCarthy,	
Bourassa,	McCreary,
Bourbonnals,	McGugan,
Brown,	McLennan,
Bruneau,	Madore,
Bureau,	Malouin,
Calvert,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Campbell,	Martineau,
Carbonneau,	Matheson,
Carroll,	Meigs,
Champagne,	Morrison,
Christie,	Mulock,
Copp,	Murray,
Cosligan,	Paterson.
Cowan,	Prefontaine,
Davis,	Proulx,
Demers (Ldvis),	Puttee,
Dcuglas, [DOT] .	Re'd (Restigouche),
Dugas,	Riley,

Erb,	Roche (Halifax),
Ethier,	Ross (Ontario),
Farquharson,	Ross (Rimouski),
Fielding,	Ross (Victoria, N.S.),
Fisher,	Russell,
Fitzpatrick,	Schell,
Flint,	Scott,
Fortier,	Sifton,
Fraser,	Smith (Vancouver),
Galliher,	Stephens,
Gauvreau,	Stewart,
German,	Sutherland (Oxford),
Gibson,	Talbot,
Gould,	Tarte,
Harty,	Thompson,
Hughes (King's P.E.I.)	Tobin,
Hyman,	Tolmie,
Johnston (Cape Breton.	Tucker,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Turgeon,
Laurier (L'Assomption)	Wade,
Lavergne,	Wright,-93.
LeBlanc,	
PAIRS :	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Logan,	Lefurgey,
Cartwright (Sir Ric'n'd)	Tupper (Sir Charles Hibbert),
Johnston (Lambton),	Simmons,
McColl,	Ward,
Horsey,	Pringle,
Dyment,	McCormick,
Emmerson,	Fowler, Sherritt,
McEwen,	
Charlton,	Tisdale,
Bickerdike.	Cargill,
Parmelee,	Pope,
Sutherland (Essex),	Northrup,
Guthrie,	Hughes (Victoria),
Bdland,	Monk,
Heyd,	Maclean,
Gallery,	Casgrain,
Delisle,	Roddick,
Archambauit,	Ball,
Lang,	1 rooman.
Holmes,	Clancy,
McCool,	Rosamond,
Demers (St. John),	Brock,
Edwards,	Barker, Smith (Wentworth).
MacLaren (Huntingdon;	
Power,	Kendrey,
Kendall,	Robinson (Northumber land),
Mclsaac,	Hale,
MacKinnon,	Ganong.
Maxwell,	Seagram,
Turcot,	Alcorn,
Geoffrion,	Lavell,
Harwood,	Broder,
Lovell,	Halliday,
Marcil (Bagot),	McLeod,
Girard,	Gourley,
Motion negatived.	
INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Mr	Speaker, before you
leave the Chair, I would like to inquire of	
the right hon. Prime	Minister (Sir Wilfrid
Laurier) if it would	ie possible to get the
return brought down	that was moved for
n month or more ago respecting the number	
of passes issued on the Intercolonial Rail-	
way during the past twelve months.	
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND	
CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair). I have been	
trying since I was reminded of this matter to complete the return, and I will have it at the earliest possible moment.


Albert Edward Kemp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Lawler) in regard to the resolutions of the various boards of trade which the right hon. gentleman promised would be laid on the Table of the House.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have not forgotten it.


RAILWAY COMMISSION.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention to the House that I propose to ask that Friday afternoon and evening, as far as may be necessary, be devoted to the discussion of the Bill to create a railway commission.


NORTH-WEST TOWN SITES.
Mr. WALTER SCOTT (West Assiniboia).: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, 1 wish to bring to the attention of the government and of the House u matter, which, though not so important as most of the subjects that hon. members from the west discuss, is still of very vital importance to the inhabitants of no less than four considerable towns in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories. In the year 1882 an arrangement was made between the govern-l ment, represented by the Department of the Interior, and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, for speculation in four western towns. These were the towns of Yirden, Manitoba, Qu'Appelle, in Eastern Assiniboia, represented by my hon. friend (Mr. Douglas), Regina and Moosejaw in the district which I have the honour to represent. That arrangement was in the nature of a pool, the first part of the agreement being that each party, namely the government and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company should contribute an equal portion of the lands necessary for these town sites. The arrangement is still in force. These four town sites were put into the hands of trustees to administer their affairs in the interests alike of the Canadian Pacific Railway and of the government. The government and the Canadian Pacific Railway were to participate equally in the net Proceeds. I may say that of all the policies which were adopted by the late Conservative *administration for the opening up of the Canadian North-west no single item or no part of the policy which that government adopted can be cited more appropriately than this as an illustration of the insanity- I think that the term is quite justifiable- which prevailed in the ideas of the hon. gentlemen who now occupy the opposition seats in this House in connection with what would be for the well being and progress
, Mr. MacLAREN (N Perth).

of that country. It seemed to be taken for granted at the inception of the opening up of the North-west Territories that that vast country was a vast preserve which might be made profitable to the private pockets of friends of the Conservative party. I think this particular matter of which I speak, illustrates as well as any other item of policy that notorious fact. I may mention, promising not to speak for any great length of time, some of the peculiar transactions of the trustees in whose hands the affairs of these town sites were placed. First, perhaps I had better state who the trustees were. These gentlemen were Mr. E. B. Angus, Sir Donald A. Smith, Mr. E. B. Osier, and Mr. W. B. Scarth. The affairs of these town sites are still in the hands of these gentlemen. They conducted business of various sorts. On some occasions they had transactions with the government, on other occasions they had transactions with the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I may mention just a couple of instances which I may say were brought to light through the investigations made by a commission which was appointed two years ago by the government to inquire into the affairs of these town sites. I mention these instances to show the character of the transactions which the trustees thought proper to enter into. In one case they sold part of a town site to the Canadian Pacific Railway. Some time subsequent to the year 1897 the trustees sold part of the town site of Moosejaw to the Canadian Pacific Railway, 33 acres in extent, at the price of $3 per acre. When the commissioners who were appointed two years ago to make an investigation into the affairs of these town sites, took evidence at Moosejaw they received the evidence of the trustees' own agent in the town to the effect that this land which had been sold to the Canadian Pacific Railway for $3 per acre, was in reality worth 850 per acre. This was evidence tendered by the agent of the trustees. There was also a transaction in Regina in connection with a building. In the early days the trustees erected a brick veneered building in Regina at a cost of $15,000. They rented that building for a number of years to the government, and in all the government paid them a rental of $17,435. Later still the trustees sold the building to the government and the government paid them $16,000, so that in all the trustees received from the government $33,435 for the building whose first cost in the early days, at a time when building was very expensive in that country, was only SlsjoOO. The House will at once recognize that there was a material difference in the nature of the business transacted with the Canadian Pacific Railway and the business transacted with the government. Another most peculiar item of their business which was brought to light by the investigation of the commissioners was in connection with the town site of Virden. The arrangement [DOT] made between the government and the company was that an equal portion of land for each town site should be contributed by each. When the town site of Virden was located, there was a gentleman named Mr. T. M. Daly who entered for half a section of the land. Mr. Daly, as probably the House is well aware, was a very prominent member of the Conservative party, and he was later on Minister of the Interior in the Conservative government. Another quarter section of the land which afterwards formed that town site had been entered for by a lady named Mrs. Willis. The government cancelled the entry of Mrs. Willis, and thereby came into possession of her quarter section. The government also was the possessor of the fourth quarter section, and the other two quarter sections had been entered for by Mr. Daly. Mr. Daly had not commenced his homestead duties, and the records of the department show that he voluntarily abandoned his entry, but when the commissioners, two years ago made their investigation, they found that an amount of $6,400 had been paid to Mr. Daly on account of this half section of land entered for by him, but which he had subsequently abandoned as far as the records in the Interior Department disclose. A further fact disclosed was, that, notwithstanding that the government had contributed the other half of the town site, the quarter section that had been entered for by Mrs. Willis, which had been cancelled, and the quarter section which the government always owned, they were charged in the books of the town site trustees with half of this $6,400 which had been paid to Mr. Daly.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: In what year was the entry made by Mr. Daly ?


Thomas Walter Scott: I will give that information later. I do not bring up this matter for the purpose of entering into any personal or political recriminations, but to urge that the people of these four towns have laboured under a very serious handicap for years on account of this town site arrangement, by reason of an exemption from taxation enjoyed by the .trustees. The government hold one-half interest and the Canadian Pacific Railway. Company held only in reality a quarter interest. It will be necessary for me to explain that before the arrangement was actually made between the government and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had made a prior arrangement with a company called the North-west Land Company, and this latter company was brought in and made a party in this town site arrangement. Since 1882, when these town sites were constituted, the position has been that the government owned one-half interest in the net proceeds of these town sites, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company having one-quarter interest, and the North-west Land Company the other quarter interest. The interest of the govern' ment was exempt from taxation, and

under tlie terms of the Canadian Pacific Railway contract of 1881, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company contended that their quarter interest was also exempt from taxation. I do not think the matter went so far as a law suit, but after considerable negotiations, an arrangement was made- and the municipalities were led to believe that they were compelled to agree to the arrangement-by which only one-quarter of the taxes should be collected by the municipalities from the trustees. For nearly twenty years, on a considerable portion of each of these four town sites, the municipalities have been able to collect only oue-quarter of the amount of taxes which should properly have beeu paid. This is the phase of the question which I have risen chiefly to bring to the attention of the government and of the House. In the year 1891 the right hou. leader of the government visited the North-west, and this town site matter was brought to his attention, and speaking at Moosejaw upon his responsibility as the leader of a great party in this country, he said :
In his opinion it was an improper thing for the government to be holding property in this way for speculative purposes to the detriment of municipalities.
The right hon. gentleman has now been leader of the government of Canada since 1890, and the people of these towns are thinking that it is time that the pledge which in effect he gave in the town of Moosejaw in 1894, should be implemented by action. I may state that for a considerable length of time past efforts have been made by the Minister of the Interior in the direction, as we have understood it, of relieving these municipalities from the handicap which they labour under, and I believe it was the efforts which the minister was making which led to the appointment of this commission two years ago to inquire into the affairs of the town sites trust, because certain difficulties had been encountered in the way of giving the relief which is necessary. I am given to understand that within recent weeks an arrangement has been practically entered into by the government and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for the division of the property of these town sites, by which an equal division shall be made in each town, the Canadian Pacific Railway accepting one-half and the government assuming control and possession of the other half. I am very glad to know that the arrangement is likely to he very shortly completed, but wbat I want to do this afternoon is to urge upon the government to, at the earliest possible moment, dispossess themselves of this property so that the property may become liable to the ordinary taxation. I go further, and I urge that it would be only fair and reasonable, in place of putting the property up at auction and thereby tending to some extent to depreciate, for the time being at Mr. SCOTT.
least, the value of this property itself and of all the other property in these towns; it would be only fair and reasonable for the government to hand over to these municipalities the half portion which comes to the government in. the division. As a reason for this request, I would point out that the total receipts of the trustees from these town sites up to the present time have been: in the case of Regina, $254,485.92, and in the case of Moosejaw, $114,006.63. These amounts were the net proceeds to the trustees from two of the four towns. The government have received from these four town sites no less sum a than $141,200. There is still due to the government from the trustees-or at least there was when the commissioners made their report, and so far as I know this amount has not been, paid since, although it may have been paid without my knowledge-there was still due to the government when the commissioners made their report a sum of $46,855.99. This was some $30,000 more than was to the credit of the government on the trustees books, but the commissioners found that some of the bookkeeping of the trustees was very peculiar, and they stated in their report that there should be paid to the government by the trustees about $30,000 more than was credited to tbe government on the books. In view of the fact that these municipalities have been handicapped and have been losing very considerable amounts through the peculiar position iu which a great part of the property within them was placed.
I think it is only fair that their request be granted now, and that the government's portion of these town sites should be handed over to the municipalities. In the case of Regina, the amount of taxes which should have been paid by the trustees in these years is $56,054.60. The amount of taxes which was actually paid is only $14,013.65, leaving a loss to the town of $42,040.95. It is therefore only reasonable and fair tliat tbe government should put these municipalities in the possession of this property, rather than to throw the whole property on the market by auction sale. But, however, the property may be disposed of, I would urge most strongly on the government and on the House the rightfulness of the government becoming dispossessed of their property in these towns at the earliest possible moment, so that the handicap against the towns which for nearly twenty years has prevailed, shall be removed at last.


Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto).: Mr. Speaker, personally I have no thought one way or the other whether it would be better for the government to transfer these town sites to the municipalities or to keep them; but I must deal very shortly with some of the remarks made by the hon. member. When this question was brought up in the House two or three years ago, I thought I answered the accusation which was made *

against the trustees as fairly and squarely as any man could expect who asked for an explanation. I stated at that time, and I state again, that the report which the commissioners brought in was a partisan report, got up for a particular purpose, a report which the trustees absolutely contradicted; and I am rather surprised that any one should get up in this House and by implication say that Lord Strathcona, Mr. Angus, Mr. Scarth and myself had rendered false returns to the government, had cooked accounts and had been guilty of doubtful book-keeping. I do not think that statement requires a contradiction from me in this House or anywhere. With regard to these town sites or the administration of them, I make the statement that there has never been a fund in Canada administered as well, as faithfully, as honestly, in the interest of the trust and for the benefit of the country. Charges were made as to the proper distribution of certain accounts, as to the power of the trustees to expend money for building purposes, and to allot a part of the land for railway purposes or for government purposes. In that connection- I am speaking from memory, not having the figures before me-the government received in the proportion of two to one in round figures as against the railway company. The trustees acted entirely within the rights of the trust, and no action was done by the trustees except under the conditions imposed by the trust. They were empowered to expend money for the development and for the benefit of the towns. For many years past the trustees have endeavoured to get themselves freed from further participation in the matter; but the government put every check and obstacle in their way to prevent a division of these town sites. When the report of the commission, which I say was an absolutely partisan report, was brought in, making the claim that the trustees were debtors to the government to the amount of $30,COO or $40,000, because of certain expenditures they had made under the trust, the trustees at once demanded that the government should take action against them in court to recover that money. The trustees from that day to this have endeavoured to have that matter brought to an issue, but have not been able to do so, and an hon. member from the North-west now accuses these gentlemen of having mal-administered the trust, although the government have refused to bring an action, and there is no possible means by which the trustees can shake themselves free of the matter, so as to be in a position to show that the report of this commission was false and partisan, and was got up for a special purpose. That commission expected to find maladministration, but they were unable to find any; and the government have failed to bring the question to an issue. The trustees of that fund handled property to the extent, if my recollection serves me rightly, of between one million and one
million and a half dollars; and during the time of the sales no member of that trust, so far as I recollect, had anything to do with the government. I was not at that time a member of parliament; I was simply a private individual acting as a trustee. From the inception of the trust to this day no trustee has been paid a single dollar of commission, nor one dollar for travelling expenses or as fees for attending meetings or for any other purpose, with the exception, as I think I explained to the House two years ago, that I drew $250 or $500 for the purpose of giving bonuses to some of the clerks in the office of the trustees when they were dismissed or when the office was removed from Toronto to Winnipeg. I do not mind having these things ventilated in court if a charge is laid or a claim is made; but I do certainly object to a member getting up in this House and making statements which leave the impression on the House, whether intentionally or not, that there was wrong-doing on the part of the trustees. I say that the government, either wilfully or through absolute neglect, have refused to bring the matter to an issue in court. Each of the four trustees has done his best, both by himself and through his solicitors, to get the matter brought to an issue. I do not wish to speak any further on the subject, but I do object to statements of this sort being made in the House when the conditions should be thoroughly known, and I think it is entirely improper that any member of this House should make accusations reflecting upon the character of Lord Strathcona and Mr. It. B. Angus, when they are not here to answer for themselves. For myself, I am ready to answer anything.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: The question as to whether the trustees did or did not improperly charge any money to the government is a question that cannot be settled by statements on the floor of this House, but has to be settled in the ordinary way through the courts; and the department have taken steps to have it settled in that way. The department found some time ago that it was necessary to have an investigation of the accounts of this trust, aid a comiu ssion was issued 'or that purpose. Tno commission consisted of E. F. Steplr n-son, inspector of Dominion lands agents, and Mr. Smart, the Deputy Minister of the Interior. They made a report, as has been stated by my hon. friend from West Assi-niboia (Mr. Scott). The report showed that, in the opinion of the commissioners, a considerable sum. I think about $30,000, had been improperly charged to the government. The trustees disputed this finding of the commission. The action taken by the department has been this : Pending the settlement of the dispute, as to this alleged improper charge, we have entered into an agreement with the Canadian Pacific Rail-

way Company and the Canada North-west Land Company, by which the town lots which are still unsold have been divided. Within the past few weeks the Land Commissioner of the government and an officer of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, acting for the other party, have made a division of the lots, and there only remains to be settled the question as to the final closing of the accounts between the trustees and the government. The Department of Justice has been instructed to take action for the purpose of having this matter settled in court. 1 presume that the action is now pending. As to the difficulties under which the corporations have laboured, 1 sympathize with the view of my hon. friend at least to this extent, that I do not think the towns should be left with such a considerable portion of their area not liable to taxation; and I have intimated to him that steps will be taken to bring the government's interest in the town sites to an end. Whether that will be done by disposing of the lots by auction or otherwise 1 am not in a position to say; but I think the government should not hold simply for speculative purposes a considerable area of a town, as it imposes an undue and unfair burden on the town population. My hon. friend has urged very strongly that this amount ought to be contributed by the government to the town corporation as a free gift in return for the exemption from taxes during the past year. I have not been able to give an affirmative answer to that proposition, and I cannot say what decision the government will arrive at, but the question will be taken up and disposed of iu a very short time. The division of the town lots between the commissioner of the company and the commissioner of the government, has only taken place within the last few weeks, and at this period of the session we are unable to deal with it; but as soon as the'session is over, and I have sufficient time to look into the matter, the whole transaction will be closed up.


Thomas Walter Scott: In answer to the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart), I may say that the payment was made Mr. Daly on February 12th, 18S4. I wish just to give a word of personal explanation with regard to what the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) has said concerning my action in bringing this matter to the attention of the House in the way I have done. Every statement I made was made upon the basis of the report of the commissioners, and so far as I have been able to judge, from what my hon. friend has said this afternoon, he has not attempted to deny a single thing I said. He made a statement at considerable length also last year, in which he complained that the report by the commissioners had been spread broadcast through the papers, but he did not attempt to deny a single fact stated by the commission.


Clifford Sifton: 


Edmund Boyd Osler: I denied the findings absolutely. I deny them all again to-day. They are findings that would not be affirmed by any court, but we canuot get that matter brought into court. I say that the findings are wrong. So far from the trust being indebted to the government, it will be found by any court in the land or any arbitration- and the trustees are willing to leave it to any court or arbitration-that the government is indebted to the trust for a much larger sum than they claim the trust is indebted to them. I deny every statement made in the report.


Thomas Walter Scott: That is certainly a broad, wide and specific denial.


Edmund Boyd Osler: If I could make it any broader or wider or more specific in words,
I would do it.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Order being called for :
Third reading. Bill (No. 107), respecting the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company.-Mr. Belcourt.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I
beg to move :
That the order for third reading of Bill No. 107 be discharged and that the Bill be referred back to the Committee of the Whole for further consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee thereon.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: What is the object of this 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I might say that if we were not renewing a charter I would not vote for the Bill. I feel that in granting charters we should be very careful indeed, especially when we have to deal with our rivers and waterways. The French river and Lake Nipissing can no more be called a canal than I may bo called the Pope or the King of England. The French river is essentially a navigable river, a deep waterway. Again, if parliament had not granted a charter to people

who have advertised that great waterway,
I would not feel inclined to-day to grant this charter, but as parliament many years ago has granted the charter and as there are, t'o a certain extent, vested rights, I think it is only fair that the charter should be renewed. On the other hand, the promoters themselves recognize and admit that the French river is not in the same position at all as the other parts covered by the charter. The Mattawa and Ottawa rivers must be canalized in certain parts if we want to have a waterway twenty feet deep to the St. Lawrence. I would not undertake to say that that depth of water can be easily got from Lake Nipissing down to the city of Montreal. I have not the necessary inforihation to form a correct opinion; my department has no survey of the Mattawa and of the Ottawa rivers. I have, however, a complete and careful survey of the French river. I have plans prepared, and if parliament made up its mind to grant a contract there would be very little to be done before having tenders called for. I repeat that the French river is essentially a navigable river, and that is the reason why I have asked the promoters of the Bill to consent to the amendment or addition which I have just suggested. I feel that this country must keep the control of that waterway. Of course, nothing can be done by any department of state without the consent of parliament. This clause that I am suggesting does not pledge us to anything; it gives us only more freedom. If the Governor General in Council later on believes that the company which is seeking for the renewal of their charter offers sufficient guarantees to go on with the whole work, an Order in Council will decide. If not, well, we might later on come to the House and ask for the amount necessary to improve the French river so as to make it a waterway twenty feet deep. I will not discuss the features of that work to-night, because we have discussed it already on many occasions, and I believe this would not be the time to offer any lengthy discussion of it. Before I take my seat, let me thank those who have done the very useful work of calling puSlic attention to that magnificent waterway. I confess that I did not know anything about it before I read all the prospectuses, all the articles and pamphlets published by the Georgian Bay Canal Company. They deserve consideration at our hands, great consideration at our hands, and that is the main reason why I made up my mind-speaking for myself-to consent to the renewal of their charter. It is said that the company can find the money necessary to carry out the work they have in hand, namely, to canalize and improve the Mattawa and the Ottawa rivers, without asking any grant of public money. I hope it is the case. I am not sure about it though, but I hope it is the case. If it is the case, and if we are not called upon I
to give them any guarantee or any subsidy, well, I suppose, we can afford to let them go on with the work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If this waterway is ever improved, so as to make it one of the great highways of commerce and to become a competing line with the other highways both in our own and the neighbouring country, it can only be successfully accomplished by having no toll gates on the route. The fact that tolls are contemplated is, to my mind, one of the very strongest objections to allowing any private company to take over that waterway and build the canal. There is no doubt that if it ever becomes half as useful as the promoters of this Bill tell the public it will become, it is desirable that the government should build it. The probability of a company building it without any guarantee or bonus or assistance from the government seems to me to be extremely problematical. So far as it goes, I think this amendment is in the right direction, namely, to hold under the control of the government at least a portion of the route, and it would be much more agreeable to my views if they held the whole of it. I confess that there is a great deal in what the Minister of Public Works has said. This company has, in a measure, some'"fesfed rights, because they have been working at it for a long time, and they have spent a good deal of money on it. However, I do not think that even that should be a justification for a private company holding any one of the great waterways of commerce.'


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Let my hon. friend remember that if these gentlemen go on with the work, it will be always our right to take possession of the work by only paying the amount that will have been actually spent; so there is no great danger after all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But we know how these accounts are usually made up when the government comes to take them over.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no immediate danger, I think.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: As being in charge of the Bill I wish to say that the gentlemen who asked me to place the Bill before the House have instructed me to consent to the amendment proposed by the Minister of Public Works. In doing so, I wish to say that I have heard with considerable satisfaction the opinions expressed by the Minister of Public Works. I cannot help indulging in a little self-congratulation in the matter. I look back four years to the time when our good friend, Mr. Poupore, who so ably represented the county of Pontiac and myself brought this subject to the attention of the House. But it is not so much for the purpose of congratulating Mr. Poupore and myself that I rise, as to express the great satisfaction and pleasure that I feel in seeing the progress which this project

has made since 1898. I am delighted to see that those who have charge of the affairs of this country have realized the tremendous, I. might almost say the vital importance and necessity of this great highway. The tremendous development which has taken place in the North-west and Canada generally has made that route an absolute necessity and one which in importance, I think, does not take second place even to the Can adian Pacific Railway-


Edward Frederick Clarke: Oh, oh.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I know that my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) does not agree with me, but I think the time is not far distant when that hon. gentleman himself will aceept that view. I hope the government will take the matter into very serious contemplation ; and, if they are not prepared to allow this company to go on and build the canal, they will themselves, at an early day, enter upon the construction of it.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I am sorry that I came in too late to hear the first part of this discussion. X understand that the object of this Bill is to give a private corporation power to make a waterway from the French river to Montreal. While I am in favour of developing our canal system and of spending public money in carrying out public works, I am opposed to granting to a private company the right of control over waterways. We have before us great problems, but none I think greater than the problem of providing means of transport for the increasing produce of the west to the seaboard. We are spending enormous sums of money-from my point of view we are throwing away enormous sums on useless works-but, while I do not approve of some of the expenditures that are being made, I do believe that the government ought to develop to the fullest extent our transportation system. If the Georgian Bay canal can be made part of our waterway system, if with any reasonable expenditure of money it can be made iso successful that by it the grain of the North-west can be carried to the seaboard more cheaply than by rail or by the present waterways, I am in favour of it being made a national work. So far as I know, there is not before the country to-day information showing what that undertaking will cost.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If my hon. friend (Mr. Osier) will allow me, I would like to say that I am in a position to state that the improvement of the French river so as to make it a twenty-foot ship waterway from Georgian Bay to Lake Ni-pissing would not cost more than $5,000,000, and I would expect to carry it out for less. I have accurate plans of the whole work.


Edmund Boyd Osler: And how about the other end of the work ?	.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know about that.


Adam Carr Bell: Would that $5,000,000 complete the route to North Bay ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: North Bay is on Lake Nipissing. Yes, that would build it to North Bay or to some other point on Lake Nipissing.


Edmund Boyd Osler: As I say, I was not here at the opening of this discussion. But I understood that this was a Bill covering the whole system from Georgian Bay to the St. Lawrence at or near Montreal, and that it is proposed to hand over the control of that waterway to a company. I am against any private company controlling that waterway or any part of it. If it is to be a waterway developed in the interest of Canada the government should control it. Possibly it is an undertaking that the country should assume, but I believe we have not before us official records of the cost. '


John Graham Haggart: Yes we have.


Edmund Boyd Osler: We have records of long ago.


John Graham Haggart: No, last year.


Edmund Boyd Osler: But what I wish to say and I say it without reserve, is that the waterways of the country should not be allowed to pass into private hands. Let the railways be privately owned if you like. Railways can be built by anybody. But it js not so with waterways, they are nature's courses through the country. You can duplicate a railway but-


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: We will bring this canal around by Toronto and then it will be all right.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I think it is a great compliment to my hon. friends from Toronto and myself that whenever we propose anything in the public interest we are taunted with being moved by consideration for the interests of Toronto. I deny that I represent the interests of Toronto alone or that my views are influenced by any consideration but that of the public interest.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER.: Canadian Pacific Railway.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I deny that I have ever voted or spoken in the interest of the Canadian Pacific Railway in this House. I am astonished that members of this House, and even ministers of the Crown, lacking any other answer to what I have said at different times, should so often reply with the taunt :	Oh, you speak as you do because
you belong to the Canadian Pacific Railway company. It shows but a poor conception of their position and duties as members of this House that they cannot conceive of a


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: man taking an independent position on tliis floor, that they cannot conceive of a member of this House sinking his individual interest in the interest of the country. 1 deny for my part, that I am not able to sink my own interests if they conflict with the ih-terests of the country. And I defy any member of this House to point to a speech or vote, or canvass of mine-I have never canvassed a member of this House for any vote-that was in the interests of any corporation or any section. It is my right to object to this Bill or any other that comes up in this House. If I make arguments that are not convincing that is my fault or it is due to the weakness of my case. But I have the right to my opinion and the right to state it without being taunted with speaking in the interests of any corporation. The members of this House, I think unanimously recognize that the transportation question is the one question before us in Canada to-day. My colleagues from Toronto and I are taunted with selfishness and with consideration only for Toronto's interests. Has there been a voice raised from any member from Toronto against the expenditure of money in Montreal harbour or the Quebec harbour, or for the purpose of deepening the St. Lawrence channel ? Every member from the west has held up both hands for the development of a seaport. X agree that the most important question before the House and the people to-day is the transportation question. So far as the west and local conditions in the west are concerned that problem will take care of itself. But, as we near the seaboard, the government must take that harbour in hand. When we reach Montreal or Quebec, or whatever port it may be, the government must take charge of this problem.
No proposition to increase the transportation facilities on the St. Lawrence will be voted down by any member from the west. But what I say in connection with this Bill and 1 feel it sincerely, is that no public waterway in this country should be allowed to fall into the hands of a private corporation. This waterway that is now under discussion is more than a mere waterway, it means control of perhaps the greatest electric power that we have on this continent. The private corporation who obtains control of the canal, controls by virtue of that charter the water power all along that route. Now, in view of the development of electrical power and the possibilities that are before us, who can say what that power will be worth in ten years ? The cheapness of production is dependent altogether upon the cheapness of our water power. If that water power gets into the hands of private individuals they will control the cost of production in this country, and they will control the transportation problem.
I do not think that any member of the government, any member on that side of the House, will say that our waterway trans- 1 139
portation is satisfactory to-day. It is very unsatisfactory. We complain of want of shipping ; we complain of want of proper transportation facilities. I can tell this House that there is capital in abundance and to spare to build every vessel 'that Is wanted to take control of Canadian shipping. Men are ready and willing to put their money into this business, and all that is wanted is a proper channel to transport our grain, the production of which is sure to increase enormously from year to year. Our grain production will shortly be such as we have at present no conception of. Let me give an illustration. I have a letter from a gentleman from Scotland who was in the capital a few weeks ago. He went to the North-west and travelled over the Calgary and Edmonton Railway. He writes a letter to his board of directors in Great Britain, of which he sent me a copy, and in which he says that from Calgary north to Edmonton, for thirty miles on each side of that road, there is more good agricultural land than there is in all Scotland. Now when you have a small stretch of country of which that can be said, what is going to be the production of that country in ten years ? What strikes me in this House is that when important Bills like this are before us, as a rule we regard them from the point of view of to-day, we are not looking forward five years, much less ten years. We are granting charters giving control of our public waterways, in this case canal privileges the importance of which not one member of the House realizes, handing over to this company this enormous privilege, equivalent to a tax of perhaps many cents a bushel on all the grain that is grown in the North-west for twenty years. Twenty years is a very short time in the life of a nation, a nation as we are just beginning to develop our resources. I for one, Mr. Chairman, will oppose to the best of my ability the granting of charters such as tliis, giving into private hands the control of what must be eventually an enormously valuable public franchise.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I share to a large extent the views just expressed by my hon. friend. I have stated those views on several occasions, here and elsewhere. I have said we should not hand over our waterways and our rivers to any private corporation. This vast Dominion is wide, and there is plenty of land for railways. But there are not many Ottawa rivers, there are not many French rivers. The facts of this case have to be taken into consideration. In 1894 parliament granted a charter to the Georgian Bay Canal Company, which charter was renewed in 1898. One of the clauses of the charter granted in 1894 reads as follows :
Her Majesty, her heirs and sale lessors, may at any time assume the possession and property of the said canals and works, and ot all the



rights and privileges and advantages of the Company, all of which shall after such assumption be vested in Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, on giving to the company one week's notice thereof and on paying lo the company the value of the same, to be fixed by three arbitrators, or the majority of them, "re to be chosen by the government, another by the company and a third arbitrator by the two arbitrators.
Now, if I had not found this clause In that charter 1 would not for a moment have consented to any renewal of the charter. But this clause being here, the charter having been renewed twice, the company having made great efforts to advertise the project and consented to give up their rights as to the French river section, I think that, as my hon. friend as said, we are moving in the right direction.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How are they .going to get out from the Georgian Bay ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC \\ GRKS. By the clause that has been added the company has no right whatever on the French river except upon Order in Council. The French river does not form part of the Bill to-day. Now the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Osier) says we must have control of the rates, that if the Ottawa and Mattawa part of the scheme fall into the hands of a private corporation we will not have control of the rates. Let me tell him that we have control of the rates by this Bill to a certain extent, and let me remind him that the government have in their hands the French river part of the scheme. We are altogether masters of the situation. My hon. friend knows better than any one else in tlie House perhaps that we must not rely on waterways only. I for one have the greatest confidence in railways and waterways combined. For instance, Buffalo is tlie gateway of the great system of American railways leading to the American ports. Midland, North Bay, Collingwood, Owen Sound and other ports will be reservoirs of trade. I have no doubt whatever, speaking after giving the question the most careful consideration, that the very moment the government announce that the French river will be improved so as to have a depth of 20 feet, there will he at least twenty-five or thirty large lake boats built immediately. There is no doubt as to that. I may add more. The Grand Trunk Railway have fully made up their minds to settle in Midland and in Montreal. This means aD immediate and large addition to their carrying capacity on the lakes. The Grand Trunk Railway will settle in Midland to a very large extent. That does not mean that they will not carry trade elsewhere. But it has been suggested that the Canadian Pacific Railway and tlie Grand Trunk Railway might perhaps use part of the road from Midland to Peterborough so that the two great railways toight combine their efforts to take
down to the St. Lawrence as much freight as they possibly can.
Now my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Osier), who has just taken his seat, is right when lie says that we have not perhaps a right conception of the immense development in store for us. Last year our crop in the North-west Territories amounted to 100,000,000 bushels of grain. The French river and the ports of the Georgian Bay will in future not only handle the Canadian trade, but the American trade. We have the shortest route ; we have only to make it the best to get the immense quantity of trade flowing down the great St. Lawrence route. My hon. friend is annoyed, and perhaps rightly so, because he is taunted, not in a malicious manner, with being a Canadian Pacific Railway man. Let me tell him that it happens often to me to be taunted in tbe same way. Every time I have to stand by a waterway or a railway that is connected with the Canadian Pacific Railway I am called a Canadian pacific Railway man. I am not ashamed of the appellation, not by any means. I was a newspaper man in the Conservative parry ranks, and I may say that when that great scheme was first initiated-
Some lion. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not more ashamed of that than 1 am of being called a Canadian Pacific Railway man. 1 am perfectly prepared to stand by my past here, and my past in the Conservative party, as I am prepared to stand by what I am doing now. I am often taunted with being a Canadian Pacific Railway man. I believe no greater project has ever been carried out than the construction of tlie Canadian Pacific Railway, and I believe that to-day we must stand by our Canadian railways and we must stand by them to the last, in the face of the organization of these great American interests. I have stated on several occasions, and I say It again, that if the hon. Minister of Finance were in a position to invest in Canadian Tacific Railwav bonds at 4 per cent interest $20,000,000 or $25,000,000 of Canadian money, if we could get it for less than 3 per cent, it would be a first class investment, because it would make this country secure tlie control of that great national highway. I have said more than I intended. I did not expect to say so much. However, I feel that we should move in the right direction.


Mr. CLARKE  TI@: s lion. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) has not dealt with the crucial point.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What is it V


Edward Frederick Clarke: As to the advisability of allowing any encouragement to be given by parliament to a private company to I engage in what will be a great national


Joseph Israël Tarte: enterprise in connection with one of our public waterways passing right through the heart of the country. I think it would be a very great mistake.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 thought I had dealt with that.


Edward Frederick Clarke: No.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I believe I have. A charter was granted in 1894 by a former parliament and it was renewed in 1898 by a former parliament. Now, we except from the charter part of that scheme which is more at hand, if I may speak in that way, because, please not to forget that with an expenditure of less than $5,000,000 we will be in the position to make a deep waterway from the Georgian Bay to Lake Nipissing. As to the other part, if the company go on with their work, and if parliament should make up its mind that it is the duty of the country to take possession of the work, clause 43 of the Act gives it power to do so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. Minister of Public Works say how he could control the rates by having control of the French river, because this canal would only go to Lake Nipissing on the one hand and to Montreal on the other, and it would have no connection directly with the Georgian Bay.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There will be nothing easier than to have control of the rates. Suppose that we improve the French river from Georgian bay to Lake Nipissing. Then, we will make connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway, or any other railway that may be constructed there. There are only 317 nautical miles from Montreal to Lake Nipissing. People who say that the rates will be in the hands of the Canadian Pacific Railway will be mistaken. If the Canadian Pacific Railway take advantage of their position, nothing would be easier than to build another railway. I might add that the Grand Trunk Railway has also a branch line from Callander to the city of Toronto, and in my opinion no other city, except Montreal, perhaps, would benefit more by the improvement of the French river than the city of Toronto.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the hon. minister misunderstood me. What I referred to was the control of rates on the canal, not the ordinary freight rates-the tolls that may be imposed upon tonnage passing through the canal.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. minister has not dealt with a most important feature to which reference was made by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier). Enormous power privileges would be developed by the construction of that waterway, and if they become possessed by the company, it may be necessary in a few years that they shall be acquired by the government.
139 i


Mr. FRASER.: I think that when a company are ready to put $70,000,000 or $80,000,000 into the country without the government being called upon to do the work, even if it does include the water power, we ought not to say anything against it. If this country is not ready now to go into that project, and I think myself it is rather problematical, we should not discourage capitalists from undertaking the work. Even hon. members opposite, who are in favour of the development of these great waterways, as we all are, I think, would be rather staggered if it were proposed that the country should put $80,000,000 into this project. For myself, I am rather inclined to come to the conclusion that after all the rail way problem in this country will discount every other question. I would not stop capitalists from coming in and making use of our waterways and water powers, and investing $70,000,000 or $80,000,000 in developing them. Is the country or is the government any the poorer because our undeveloped water powers are utilized ? Is Canada any poorer because the power at Niagara Falls is being developed ? I trust the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) will not oppose a proposition which will result in the introduction of capital into the country.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There is no desire j>n my part to prevent the introduction of capital to develop the public works of this country, but this is a most important artery of communication, one of the great natural highways from Montreal to the Georgian Bay, and the question has been raised whether it is advisable in the public interest to allow a private company to get possession of privileges that it may cost an enormous sum to purchase in a few years from now. If that power can be developed with advantage to the people at large why should it not be developed in a year or two and owned by the government for the benefit of the people of Canada instead of allowing it to be developed by a private company ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Does not my hon. friend know that all the water powers that he speaks of are under the control of the provincial parliament ? These water powers are not under our jurisdiction at all.
Mr. CLARKE If you incorporate this canal company the project becomes a work under the control and authority of the parliament of Canada.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: You cannot take rights away from a local legislature.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There are no representatives in this House from any part of the Dominion of Canada who will more cordially co-operate with the government in any scheme of national transportation than the representatives from Toronto. None whatever.


An hon. MEMBER.: Glad to hear it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the hon. gentleman had listened attentively to the sentiments expressed by the members for Toronto during the past five or six years, he would have been convinced of that fact long ago.


An hon. MEMBER.: Let the Bill pass.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Before it passes, I wish to express my opinion, and it is this, that this country is big enough and wealthy enough to undertake that work and complete it as soon as necessary, if it be a national work, and no charter should be given to private capitalists for the purpose of constructing a work absolutely essential to the future prosperity 'of this country. It may be said that by some provision of the Bill the government may take over the work in ten or fifteen years from now. But to do so will eventually necessitate a much larger expenditure than if the work were undertaken by the government now, and carried to completion at the earliest possible moment.
Bill, as amended, reported, read the third time and passed.


MONTREAL SUBWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 98) to incorporate the Montreal Subway Company. -Mr. McCarthy.
On section 8,
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Before this clause is adopted, I would like to say a word or two. We have a charter for the construction of a bridge, which has been several years on our statute-book, but the bridge never materialized. A few months ago several notices were published in the newspapers for charters for three bridges. Two of those charters ore gone, and we all remember the manner in which the last charter was doomed. I have no doubt that the population of the city of Montreal and of the south shore would rather have a bridge than a subway. I was a little diffident regarding that subway, but as there is no probability of any bridge being constructed, I did not feel justified in opposing the granting of a charter for this subway. Of course, it is a new departure. Will it be feasible to carry vehicles and so on in such a subway ? The promoters of the Bill say that it will. In the committee yesterday I asked for a short delay so as to be able to consult some of the eminent financiers whose names appear on the Bill. I met one or two of them to-day, and they told me-especially Senator Mackay-that they fully expected that the scheme could be financed without the help of the government of Canada. I read today an interview in the Montreal papers to the same effect with Mr. Hogg, in which he says that the scheme is sure of being financed without any trouble whatever. That will be a new departure, because in the past Mr. CLARKE.	[DOT]
we have been in the habit of giving pretty large subsidies to undertakings of this kind, but the moment we find capitalists prepared to take such a strong stand, who have such confidence in the development of the country, especially of the city of Montreal, as to be able to tell us that they are prepared to go on with such a work without asking anything of the government, I have not a word to say against it, but wish them success, prosperity and happiness in their undertaking.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Am I correct in the understanding, from the explanation of the hon. Minister of Public Works, that this is intended to be a traffic subway as well as for railways ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There will be two subways-one for the railroads and another one for vehicles. The vehicles will be carried, I understand, on electric cars.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If my memory is correct, I do not recollect any provision in the Bill for control by the government of traffic rates.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We will see that when the other clauses are read.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The lion. Minister of Public Works has often objected to our accepting newspaper reports as authority. If the report to which he refers to is true, it is very important. What grounds have we for supposing that that newspaper report is more correct than others.
On section 20, subsection (b) :
If the company fails to bona fide expend upon its undertaking within nine months after the approval of said plans and specifications a sum not less than $100,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The sum of $100,000 to be expended within nine months is a very small sum for such a large undertaking.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It was understood in the committee that that was to be expended cm actual work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I move that it be changed to $200,000 in six months.
Mr. McCarthy. There is considerable objection to passing an amendment in this way after the Bill has been thorouglily considered in the Railway Committee. At first $50,000 was thought to be sufficient, then it was proposed that $100,000 should be expended in twelve months, and after considerable discussion a compromise was arrived at by making it $100,000 in nine months. The Minister of Public Works had left the committee before that. The government have adopted the principle that when a matter has been thoroughly dis-

cussed before tbe committee the committee's recommendation shall be adopted. Why should a different course be pursued in this instance ? The minister says that he is satisfied with the financial ability of the company, and when these men are willing to deposit $50,000 and to spend $100,000 in nine months putting their own money in the enterprise without asking any subsidy from the government I submit that they should not be asked for more than is asked from any other company. It seems to me that to ask the committee at this stage to amend what the committee has reported is not in accordance with precedent or with the policy of the government.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I haVe no intention to be unfair, far from it. No doubt an enterprise of this kind should only be put in the hands of strong men, and I saw Senator Mackay this afternoon, before making up my mind as to whether I would agree to this Bill or not. He told me that lie expected the whole thing would be financed without any help from the government. Under the circumstances, 1 diu' not want to be too exacting. We have been used to so much charter trafficking in Montreal, that I feel the necessity of being careful. In the committee yesterday I inquired whether some of those gentlemen, whose names were on the Bill had not lent their names, for we have found that men jfi|t as great have lent their names elsewhere. Every day during the last week or so we have been reading what has happened in New York, and we must provide against a recurrence of anything of the kind, but I do not want to compare the men whose names are on this Bill with those who have been mentioned in New York.	[DOT]


Mr. BALL.: It is provided that $100,000 must be spent on the construction within a certain time ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: It was stated in the Railway Committee, and agreed to, that $100,000 would be spent bona fide on the construction.


Mr. MCCARTHY.: That is agreed to, and any words which may be inserted to that effect would be satisfactory.


Edmund Boyd Osler: As that clause is worded, the money may be spent on fees or commissions or charges of that kind, and not on construction work at all, and you will be locking this enterprise up in the hands of these men for five years without compelling them to do a day's work on it during that time.


Mr. HENDERSON.: The amendment ought to lie read to the committee so that the committee may know that the words ordered to lie inserted by the Railway Committee are actually inserted in the Bill. I do not know how it is, but this is not the
first instance we have had of Bills reported by the It a ijjyay Committee coming before this House, and not containing all the amendments that were ordered by the committee. This is rather an important matter. The committee decided emphatically that the $100,000 should be spent on construction work and not on plans and specifications or other such work. We should see that the clause is so worded as to leave no doubt that the money is to be spent on actual construction, and I therefore ask that it be read before it passes through the committee.


Mr. WADE.: As some reflections have been cast on some of the officials of the Railway Committee, I beg to say that 1 drafted all the amendments myself and read them twice to that committee, and they are in the Bill in exactly the same words as I used in my drafts. Before the hon. gentleman makes any charge of that sort against the Railway Committee or its officials, lie should know what he is speaking about or take it back. Those amendments whether satisfactory or not, are exactly as they were drawn and read twice to the Railway Committee. The words 'actual construction ' were put in the first amendment and appear there now. The hon. member for Ottawa suggested those words, and I put them in at his suggestion and they are there now.


David Henderson: I understood that the amendment was read without those words. If they are in the amendment, then it was a mistake of the Chairman not to have read them.
Mr. BALLV As there is a doubt about the wording of this clause, I will draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that the time for private Bills has expired.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The hour for private Bills has expired.



SUPPLY-COLONIAL CONFERENCE.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed consideration of the motion of the Minister of Finance that the House go again into Committee of Supply.
["Fraser,\nGalliher,\nGibson,\nGilmour,\nGourley,\nHenderson,\nHughes (King's, P.E.I.); Hyman,\nIngram,\nJohnston (Cape Breton) Kaulbach,\nLancaster,\nLang,\nLaurier (Sir Wilfrid), Logan,\nScott,\nSiftcn,\nSprcule,\nStewart,\nSutherland (Essex), Sutherland (Oxford), Talbot,\nTarte,\nTaylor,\nThompson,\nToimie,\nTolton,\nTurgeon,\nWade,\nWilson.-76.\nAmendment negatived.\nMain motion agreed to, Bill read the third time, and passed."]
Robert Laird Borden: I would ask the right Iron, the First Minister if he has received any further despatch or document respecting the colonial conference from the imperial government or the right hon. the Secretary of the Colonies. I would like also to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister of the Interior-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to call the attention of the right hon. the leader of the House to the fact that there has been very bad order in this House for the past six or seven days, particularly when lion, gentlemen on this side are speaking. I am as anxious to co-operate with

my right lion, friend as any one can be to prevent this House from degenerating into a bear garden, and the next tHie these interruptions occur, I shall move that the committee rise, as a protest against them. Or if they occur when the House is in session, I shall move the adjournment, as a like protest ; and I call on you. Mr. Speaker, to see that a little better order is kept in this House in the future than has been the case during the past week. I was about to direct the attention of the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) to a telegram which I have received which possibly pertains to his department. I do not understand it myself, and I am asking the question for information. It is dated at Forty Mile, is addressed to myself, and is as follows :
Miners anxious to kuow decision regarding Miller Creek concession. Wire.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The only matter to which this telegram can refer, I think, is a dispute as to a number of entries for claims upon a place called Miller Creek. I know it was before me some months ago, and has been pending in the department from time to time since then. I think a decision was given some time ago and communicated to the gold commissioner. I can tell my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) more definitely to-morrow, and I can have a despatch sent to the gold commissioner to-morrow, if necessary, which will clear the matter up.


Robert Laird Borden: And if the hon. minister will mention also that the matter was brought up in the House, it will make it unnecessary for me to communicate with the gentlemen who sent me the telegram.



The PRIME MINISTER.: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) to repeat the question he asked of me.


Robert Laird Borden: I wished to know whether or not the government have received from the imperial government or from the Colonial Secretary any further despatch or communication with respect to the conference to be held in London during the coming summer. The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will remember that one of the communications laid before the House referred to a further despatch from the Colonial Secretary, but when the matter was last mentioned in the House the right hon. gentleman stated that no further despatch had been received.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have not made any inquiries, but I think I am safe in saying that there has been no further communication. I received a communication from Lord Strathcona a few days ago, not dealing directly with conference^ but on the subject of the wheat and flour duties.


Robert Laird Borden: 


DOMINION SECURITIES COMPANY.
Robert Laird Borden: There is one other matter to which I desire to ask attention-a statement by a reporter in the New York ' Evening Post ' of yesterday, relating to communications between the Minister of Railways and Canals and the Dominion Securities Company. It begins :
An officer of the Dominion Securities Company, which controls the Cape Breton Railroad, expressed astonishment to-day that Mr. Blair, the Minister of Railways and Canals, made a partial denial that the Cape Breton Railroad had been awarded a subsidy.
'We have a document,* said this officer, 'with Mr. Blair's own signature attached, vouching tor the subsidy, and it is open to inspection to anybody desiring to look at it, including Mr. Blair himself. You will notice that he did not deny the thing flatly. It is a well-known fact that under the general statutes of Canada any railroad company is entitled to a subsidy of 53,200 per mile by complying with certain conditions. The Cape Breton Railroad complied with them, and it has received proper acknowledgment of the same from Mr. Blair, with the official seal of his department attached. I may also say that the railroad company was awarded a like subsidy of 53,200 a mile from the provincial government, and1 a part of this subsidy has already been paid to the company.
Then follow some further comments upon the position of the law on the subject of subsidies In Canada, with which I need not trouble the House at present. I would like to know whether the right h<jn. leader of the government is in a position to say whether or not this statement respecting the assurance given by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) as to the subsidy, is correct or not. The Minister of Railways and Canals is not present, but perhaps the Prime Minister may be able to give information at present, and I would like to have a statement if the right lion, gentleman is in a position to make one.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not exactly understand the question.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I think the statement as read represented the Minister of Railways and Canals as stating that there was no arrangement or contract between this government and the Capo Breton Extension Railway. But the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals never said that. On the contrary, be said-and I said also, as having know-edge of the fact-that we had granted a subsidy for thirty-five miles of that road from the Strait of Canso to the village of St. Peters,


The PRIME MINISTER.: By statute.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, and I presume that a contract was signed, because it was authorized. What the Minister of Railways and Canals said was in denial of the statement that the parties had

subsidies for much larger schemes. He did not say that there was no contract. I have not seen the contract covering the subsidy for thirty-five miles, but I think X am safe in saying that such a contract was signed with the Oape Breton Extension Railway Company, and, I suppose, passed to the Dominion Securities Company. There is no contradiction between what has just been read and the statement of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not making any assertion with regard to the matter. but merely sought information. There is this statement on the part of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals :
I do not hesitate to say that the statements in it it re absolutely false in the main, and I base my statements ou this ground, that the Dominion government has given them a certain subsidy and promised them other subsidies.
That is the statement of his which seemed not quite consistent with what has been stated by this officer of the Dominion Securities Company to the reporter.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There can be no document but the statute.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The document referred to, I suppose, would be the contract for the thirty-five miles which is not disputed.


Robert Laird Borden: Was that mentioned in the debate by the Minister of Railways ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I know that I mentioned it. I was aware that the subsidy had been authorized for this thirty-five miles and the scheme approved to that extent; and I assume that the contract was signed, though I have never seen it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Census, $450,000.
George Taylor: Can the MinisAr of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) state how much has been expended on the census to date ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have not the figures up to date. I made a statement of the expenditure up to a certain date


George Taylor: Up to the 1st March.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We are spending about if30,000 a month in the Bureau, so, I suppose there will be a little more than $10,000 additional since that date.


George Taylor: There were large accounts for unpaid claims at that time. Have they been settled ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have been paying some accounts for the
enumeration also, as well as what has been paid to the clerks here, but I have not a statement under my hand of what has been spent in that way lately. I am informed that we have spent about $15,000 since that date, including the amount paid for enumerators' bills that have come in since I gave the figures to the House the other day. Our monthly pay list amounts to over $10,000, and about $15,000 in all has been paid since that date, leaving about $5,000 paid for enumerators' accounts in the outlying districts.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the minister give us the information as to the amounts yet claimed by enumerators, and the number of accounts that are unadjusted. 1


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The fishery enumeration has not been sent in yet-a few have been, but not many. I cannot tell exactly what that will amount to. I am informed there are accounts in that branch amounting to about $9,000. Those, however, will have to be gone over and checked, and according to our past experience, the total claims will not be paid. There are still some outstanding accounts for enumeration not settled. Claims have been put in and we have shown the enumerators how these claims cannot all be allowed. They have been arguing the case with us, and trying to show that their claims should be allowed. We do not call those accounts as absolutely settled, although in most cases I do not think there is much chance of the enumerators getting any more than has "been allowed.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Has the minister made any inquiry from Mr. George Johnson, since these matters were being discussed here, as to the allegations made about the inaccuracy of the census returns of 1891 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No. I have not.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it the intention of the hon. gentleman to ask him if he can make any satisfactory explanation of those allegations ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I may do that when I get a little time.


George Taylor: Has the minister the statements that were on the Table the other night giving the monthly pay list and all the names on the staff V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Everything that was laid upon the Table is still upon the Table, even the check books and stubs the hon. gentleman asked for the other night.


George Taylor: I inquired about a gentleman named Drouin, from Montreal, who was working in the department at $2.25 a day. I said I was informed that lie had

been in Montreal for thirteen days during the election campaign, and was paid full time while he was away. The minister told me that he thought he was away for only one day. I think if the hon. gentleman will look up his registration books he will find that he was absent for thirteen days in succession during the election in Montreal, and was paid for that whole time. If the minister finds that to be the case will he deduct that amount 1


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: All the employees are entitled to a certain number of holidays during the year, and they take them at different times. I cannot tell whether Mr. Drouin has had his holidays or not. He is entitled to be absent a certain amount of time, and if he is absent more than that, his pay will be docked.


George Taylor: Then why did the minister say he was only absent for one day ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I was so informed, that he was only absent for one day at that particular time.


George Taylor: Then if the minister finds he was absent for thirteen days he will admit that he misled the House to mat extent ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will admit that I was misinformed.


George Taylor: Perhaps the minister can get the information at once from the assistant commissioner.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am informed that Mr. Drouin was away at Christmas time taking his holidays ; I am informed that at the time of the Dominion election he was away only one day. I cannot give the date.


George Taylor: Can the hon. minister now say whether since December these balances claimed in Lisgar have been paid or not ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The cheque book is on the Table of the House and no cheques have been issued since this discussion took place the other day.


George Taylor: No person can take this cheque book and tell anything about it, because there is no date given from January to the present time. If any business man had an accountant keeping his stub cheque books as these books are kept he would not keep him in his employment very long, because the stubs should bear a date corresponding with that on the cheque. There is not a stub that is dated that I can find. Nor does it give the particulars as to what the cheque was issued for, or anything of that kind. Here is a cheque book which starts on February 28th, and I think that from February 28th there is not a stub in the book of a cheque that has been issued since with a date on it.


George Taylor: 


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I must confess that I have not examined the cheque books myself. I have no doubt that the hon. gentleman's statement is perfectly correct. I supplied the hon. gentleman with a list of the dates of payments in Lisgar, and that is a correct list.


George Taylor: I cannot find it now.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Well, it was laid on the Table of the House and given to the hon. gentleman. I think lie was the last man who had it. Here is a cheque book dated February 28th; I do not know whether there is any other date. I am informed that the dates at the beginning of the month are put down and then the cheques are paid out during that month. The day book of the department show's the dates of these payments, but they are not entered upon the stubs of the cheque book, as the hon. gentleman says. The list I gave him the other night, w'hich contained a statement of the payments to the enumerators in Lisgar is a correct list with the correct dates, ns made out in the department from the cheques, and it is a true and accurate list. The hon. gentleman insisted upon my bringing the cheque books with the stubs, and I brought them for him. I think I warned him at the time that the other list was much more convenient and told a great deal more than the books would. He would not take my word for it, and insisted on my bringing the cheque books.


George Taylor: It was because my hon. friend from Macdonald says he is credibly informed that the cheques had gone out there during the time of the election to pay up tlie balances that were due to the enumerators. The statement which the hon. minister laid on the Table showred a large number of persons who claimed balances. Now, what I want to find out from the hon. minister is whether any of these balances have been paid.
The'MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE. I am informed that not one of these balances which appeared on that list has been paid. As far as that statement is concerned, I have no data to tell me at the present time whether the payments as made have been accepted by the enumerators as payments in full or whether they are still protesting. I am informed that some of the enumerators are still claiming parts of these balances, but none have been paid.


George Taylor: The information I have received is that all the enumerators that are on that list showing the balances claimed by them were raising considerable of a row at the time the Lisgar election came on. It was decided that they must be settled with and they were settled w-itli and my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) says that a gentleman told him that he saw tlie cheques.


MAT 7. 1902
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He could not have seen any cheques, because no cheques have been issued by the department since the date that is given there, I think it was in December. I cannot help what a gentleman may have told the hon. gentleman. I simply say that no cheques have since been issued by the department since the date given there. I have that from my accountant, and I believe it. I do not sign these cheques myself, and consequently I do not know of my own personal knowledge. But I take the full responsibility of saying that no cheques have been issued since the date on the list I put on the Table.


Andrew B. Ingram: When the census were up for discussion before, I asked the hon. gentleman what additional duties were performed by the census commissioner of East Elgin. He said he would bring down that information again.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: What additional duties V


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes, after he had handed in his report.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am informed that there were no additional duties except the proper completion and fulfilment of his work. If the schedules come in and are not in proper form they have to be sent back to be looked over, revised and checked by him. Nothing except that, if it has been done, has been done by the commissioner for East Elgin.


Andrew B. Ingram: I may say that I had a conversation with the commissioner myself, and he was rather surprised to receive this extra duty, which he thought he was not entitled to perform, and he expected extra pay for doing that duty which was imposed upon him. I would like to know whether any additional salary has been given to the commissioner ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Quite a number of the commissioners have supposed that when they were required to complete this work they were going to get extra pay, but we have not paid any of them.


Andrew B. Ingram: And do not intend to ?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, And do not intend to. The Census Act provides that the commissioners shall finish their work and it is the intention that they shall finish their work without extra remuneration.


George Taylor: Will the hon. minister give the cost of the census in South Lee'ds in 1901 and 1891 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 
George Taylor: What was the population in 1891 and 1901 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If the hon. gentleman will wait a moment I will look at the bulletin.


Mr. WILSON.: What was the population of Lennox in 1891 and in 1901, and the cost of taking the census in each year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 
Mr. ROSAMOND.: What are the figures for North Lanark ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 
George Taylor: And in South Leeds ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Population in 1901, 24,185 and in 1891, 22,449.


Mr. BLAIN.: What are the figures with regard to the county of Peel ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Population of Peel in 1901, 13,687, and 1891, 15,460.


Richard Blain: What is the cost ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I gave that the other day.


Richard Blain: Yes, but I want to have it on record in ' Hansard.'


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 
John Dowsley Reid: What was the cost of taking the census in South Grenville ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 
Mr. EARLE.: What was the cost of taking the population in the different districts of British Columbia ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 
Thomas Earle: What was the cost in 1891 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The districts were not the same in the two periods.


Thomas Earle: Give us the figures as they are; they include the *whole of British Columbia anyway.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The cost in 1891 was: Cariboo, $5,557.94; New Westminster, $12,804 ; Vancouver, $4,153 ; Victoria, $1,621 ; Yale, $6,667. There was a good deal of territory included in 1901 that was not in 1891.


Mr. MORIN.: What is the population of
Dorchester county, and the cost of taking the census in 1891 and 1901 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Population of Dorchester in 1891, 19,017, and in 1901, 21,007. Cost, 1891, $1,502.95. and in 1901, $3,200.46.


William Humphrey Bennett: In view of the large decreases in the population of the bulk of the counties of Ontario, has any officer of the Department of Agriculture made a computation as to what will be the probable exodus for the next ten years ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No. We have not gone into that.


William Humphrey Bennett: Does not the hon. minister think that is a vital subject which claims his attention? The decreases have been very abnormal in the past ten years.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In some parts they are.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the minister promise that will be done ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 1 cannot promise that exactly to-uight.


Uriah Wilson: Do the figures given for Lennox include the accounts in full? There was a great deal of dissatisfaction among the enumerators there. They thought they had done a good deal more work than they were getting pay for. They understood that they were to get so much per day, and afterwards they were paid so much per name. I would like to know if the hon. minister has had to pay anything for extras to the enumerators for Lennox ?
- The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE. I understand that we have no further claims from Lennox. The accounts have all been settled.


Uriah Wilson: Were there no claims after the first accounts were put in ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think very likely there were after the first accounts were put in, but they were put in a long time ago.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to ask the minister if he is through with all these private investigations with regard to the census of 1891 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have not made any arrangements for any further investigations.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman has not said whether he has concluded them.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: So far as the records laid on the Table go, they are concluded.


Andrew B. Ingram: Still, that is not an answer to my question. Has he concluded all the investigations that he has started ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Bennett Rosamond: I notice that the population of North Lanark, according to the figures the hon. minister has given, has decreased 1,187, and the cost of taking the census is over twice as much as it was in 1891. I would like to know what is the reason for that enormous increase of over 100 per cent.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Tlie reason is just the general reason which I stated the other night when this question came up. In 1901 the cost of everything has been greater than it was in 1891. Then, we threw a great deal more labour on 1 lie enumerators, asking in the aggregate nearly three times as many questions as were asked in 1891. The consequence was that they' took more time and had to do more work, and we had to make our schedule of rates considerably higher.


Bennett Rosamond: I am afraid that is hardly warranted by the fact so far as my knowledge goes. My experience is that the enumerators spent very little time in taking the, census, much less time than was spent in 1891.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is no doubt of that, because we had a great many more enumerators.


Bennett Rosamond: Well, they must have had very little to do as there was less population. I know that it did not take them two minutes to do the work at my house. I really do not think the explanation of the minister accounts for the increased cost.


George Taylor: I want to draw the minister's attention to the fact that the census of South Leeds in 1891 cost $1,652, while that of 1901 cost $3,393, and that the population in 1891 was 24,185 and in 1901 22,449, or a decrease in the population, according to the census returns, of 1,736. I am satisfied that the census returns for South Leeds are not correct, and that the population has not decreased. "We had an enumeration of the town of Gananoque taken at the same time by the municipal assessors, and it showed 170 more than the number given by the census enumerators taken at practically the same time. According to the municipal census of the whole county the population, instead of having decreased, has increased. Therefore, I think this is a case in which the minister should

send a special officer to make an enumeration of tlie county as a test for the whole province. I know that our county has not gone back in the last ten years, but has gone ahead. The cost of taking the census of the county in 1901 was more than double what it was in 1891, the increase being $1,741 with an apparently decreased population. The minister says the increase of the cost is due to an increased schedule of rates. The old rate to the enumerators was three cents per name, and the hon. gentleman allowed five cents, a difference of two cents. On the population of 22,449 this would give $448. Deduct that from the $1,741, the increase in the cost over 1891, and there is still an increase of $1,300. How does the hon. minister account for that V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman has stated in the first place that the municipal census of South |I.eeds was greater in 1901 than it was in 1891, but if the hon. gentleman will look at the correct figures he will find that that is not the case. By the municipal census the population of the district of South Leeds in 1891 was 20,191, while in 1901 it was 19,193, a decrease of about 1,000. According to the Dominion census the population in 1891 was 22,449 and in 1901, 21,185, or a decrease of about 1,300, showing that the municipal census was not so very far different from the Dominion census. It is not correct, as the hon. gentleman states, that there was a decrease according to the one and an increase according to the other. With regard to the increase in the cost, the hon. gentleman has forgotten that the schedule of rates included not only five cents per name, but deaths, all farms recorded, thirty cents per industrial establishment instead of twenty, besides $1.50 per day which was allowed to the enumerators in 1901 for team hire and not allowed in 1891.


George Taylor: Where does the minister get the figures of the municipal statistics which he has given ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: From the Bureau of Statistics.


George Taylor: Those I gave were got by writing to each municipal assessor. I got his figures of the assessment for 1901.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to know why it is that in taking the population of West Elgin the minister makes out that in 1901 it had 730 fewer souls than in 1891, while it cost $2,137.08 more than in 1891 to take the census.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The same explanation applies to that county which I have given for the others.


Andrew B. Ingram: I did not catch the explanation. What was it ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I can repeat it, I suppose; but I do not think it is necessary for me to go over the same tiling for every county in the Dominion. The explanation is simply that the schedule rates were higher in 1901 than they were in 1891, and the enumerators were paid by the schedule rates.
Some resolutions reported.


MEDICAL COUNCIL IN CANADA.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 11) to provide for the establishment of a medical council in Canada.-Mr. Roddick.
Mr. RODDICK.: I beg to suggest the following amendment to subsection 3, of
section 6 :
No province shall be represented on the council either by appointed or elected members until the legislature of the province has enacted in effect that registration by the council shall be accepted as equivalent to registration fOT a like purpose under the laws of the province provided that when all the provinces of the Dominion shall have legislated in effect as aforesaid, it shall be lawful to appoint and elect Jn the manner aforesaid members of the council representing the provinces which have so legislated, and the universities and- incorporated schools aforesaid constituted within such provinces and such members shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, constitute the council.


Sir. LEMIEUX.: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roddick) please explain his amendment ?


Thomas George Roddick: The original clause provided that when any five or more prov'nces had legislated, this would come into effect; the amendment provides that all the provinces .shall legislate before the council can be formed.


Sir. MARCIL (Bonaveuture).: We are anxious to know if this medical council will come into existence if one of the provinces refuses to join ?


Thomas George Roddick: No, they must all join before it can come into operation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Therefore, the hon. gentleman admits by this amendment that this parliament has not authority to pass such legislation, but he must have the authority of a provincial legislature. Why, then, should we pass this Bill ? SVhy not leave the matter to the provincial legislatures 1 This is the first time I have seen such a Bill passed by this House. It is an invasion of provincial rights, and the promoter practically admits it by this amendment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think that is a fair interpretation of the matter. The mere leaving of the right in the hands of the provinces to come in or not is not an acknowledgment that this parliament has not the power to legislate on the subject. It is acting in an agreeable way towards

the provinces, when they are neither forced nor asked to come in, but allowed to come in of their own free will.


Thomas George Roddick: This arranges a piece of machinery which the provinces can make use of in order to establish a council. The provinces cannot do it themselves. This parliament simply arranges a scheme by which they can get together and establish a council which will issue licenses and allow any licentiate to practice in any part of the Dominion. Then we shall be able to have reciprocal legislation with foreign countries which is very important.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In my judgment this legislation should originate with the imperial parliament and not here. You are practically amending the British North America Act. We can understand this better toy referring to a point which was explained here by my hon. friend from Hants (Mr. Russell). It is provided in the British North America Act that the different provinces of the Dominion can have legislative union, with the exception of the province of Quebec, but, before this legislative union* fakes place, the consent of the different legislatures must toe had. This was passed toy the imperial parliament in 1867. But there is nothing of that kind as to the medical profession. On the contrary, that is a civil right which belongs to the different provinces. I would toe very happy to support this legislation, because I think that the motives of my hon, friend are good motives indeed, but that it is an invasion of provincial rights. By the revised statutes of the province of Quebec, clause 3975, the medical profession comes under our provincial law. There is nothing in our constitutional Act providing that this parliament can legislate in matters of that kind. I most humbly protest against this legislation. I say it is not within the purview of this parliament, and I say that if we pass such legislation, we open the door t* many other Acts of the same kind.


Robert Laird Borden: If I thought that this Bill infringed on any provincial rights, I would be as. strenuously opposed to it as any hon. member of this House. As a matter of fact, I have, on various occasions during the present session raised the point with regard to measures before this House, and pointed out that these Bills should be dealt with by the provincial legislature, and I have not received any support in these matters from the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux). This docs not seeim to me to infringe in any way upon provincial rights. There is no provincial legislature in Canada that could enact a Bill of this kind-my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) would not pretend that there
is.	The object of the Bill, as I understand
it.	is. with the consent of the legislatures of the provinces, insofar as they have exclusive jurisdiction, to provide a scheme


Thomas Simpson Sproule: by which medical practitioners in Canada shall have, in Canada as well as in foreign countries, a Dominion status and not a merely provincial status.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) allow me to ask him a question V Is it not a fact that by this amendment the promoter of the Bill admits that the provinces alone are entitled to legislate in this matter ?


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon. friend will define what he means by ' in this matter ' I can answer him with greater precision. But, so far as the scheme of this Bill is concerned, my answer to his question is an emphatic negative. The rights of the provinces in ithe matter of property, and civil rights are conserved by the amendment that my hon. friend (Mr. Roddick) has introduced. The creation of a council which, with the approval of the provincial legislatures shall have the right to deal with the medical profession of the various provinces is attempted by this Bill and can only be dealt with by this parliament. That is a scheme which can only be dealt with by some such Bill as this, and can only be carried out with the consent of the provincial 'legislatures, and in every way this Bill safeguards provincial rights toy providing, as this amendment provides, that the medical profession in the provinces cannot be affected except with the consent of the legislatures of all the provinces. Further than that, this council shall not be created at all unless every province of Canada comes into the scheme. That is the idea of the amendment, as I gathered from hearing it read. Now it does not seem to me that under these circumstances there can be any objection to this Bill from the standpoint of provincial rights. If I thought there was such an objection, I would be the til-sit to stand -up and support my hon. friend, because I for one am as anxious that provincial rights and the federal constitution should be preserved intact in every respect as any hon. member on either side of the House can possibly be.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: With reference to the amendment that the committee has just adopted, would it not be advisable to provide in the Bill some way of determining whether the various legislatures have given the consent that the Bill requires before this Act can go into effect ? There is no tribunal to determine whether the provincial legislation contemplated has or has not been enacted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is implied in the word * legislation.'


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The words of the legislation are not set fortn here. Whilst it says that the legislation shall be to a certain effect, yet it will be a question whether it was to that effect.

You might proceed to establish your schools and purport to grant licenses, and after all, oil the matter being tested, it might be held that one or other of the supposed provincial Acts did not comply with the conditions of this measure.


Thomas George Roddick: The Governor in Council will determine whether the necessary legislation has taken place.


Mr. DEMERS (St. John).: Where is it stated that this legislation shall not go into affect until it is assented to toy all the provinces ?


Thomas George Roddick: That is provided for by the amendment which has just been adopted.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Then are we to understand that all the provinces must consent V


Thomas George Roddick: Yes. I have amended the Bill so as to make it impossible for five provinces to begin this work, they must ail consent before the council is formed. If one does not consent, it cannot go on.
Bill reported.
Mr. RODDICK moved the second reading of the Bill.


Mr. BOURASSA.: Before the Bill is carried, I must say that I was absent when the second reading was taken, and I have only this opportunity of making some observations against the principle of the Bill. However, I do not regret to have been absent at the time, because the amendment that has just been adopted by the committee gives a special feature to the Bill which I think is an argument against the Bill itself. In taking exception to the principle of the Bill I do not do so from a professional point of view. I am not a medical man, and those medical men in my county whom I represent here are practically all in favour of the Bill, because they live on the border of the province of Ontario and they would certainly benefit by the adoption of this Bill. My objection is entirely based upon the principle of the Bill which was pointed out by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux), a few moments ago. Now I am not a lawyer any more than I am a physician ; but I think we must admit that common sense tells us that what belongs to the provinces does not belong to the federal authority, and what comes under the federal authority does not come under the provincial authority.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That may be common sense but it is not law.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: And gentlemen who do not belong to the noble profession of the law will admit that sometimes lawyers attempt to justify things that are not common sense.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That depends on the common sense.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: But it is the habit of those gentlemen to play with common sense when it suits their purpose. It is a principle admitted in law, a principle that 1 think the very high authority of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice will not contradict, that whatever power belongs to the provinces belongs to them toy the authority of the imperial government. This parliament cannot give them one iota of authority, this parliament cannot authorize the provinces to legislate on any subject. Whatever authority the provinces have to legislate is given to them by the imperial parliament, and whatever power is given to us is given toy the imperial parliament. We are imperialists in this sense, that we respect what is given to us by the imperial power. So far as that is concerned I am a sound imperialist But if we want to have peace in this country we must leave the line of demarcation between the provinces and the Dominion authority perfectly well defined. Now I have had occasion in this House to speak against some measures of the government where I thought they were not exercising the full power given to the federal authority, and were giving to the provinces power that did not belong to them.


Mr. COCHRANE.: You voted all right.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No, I voted against them, but the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cochrane) voted with the government at that time because his leader told him to vote with the government-I mean on the Manitoba railway legislation.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) pardon me ? Is he referring to me 1


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am not quite sure when the authority of the hon. gentleman began.


Robert Laird Borden: I was merely suggesting that if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) referred to me as having directed any one to vote for the Manitoba Bill, or as having said a word about it, he is stating what he cannot know to be true and which is absolutely and wholly untrue and incorrect.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I did not mean to insinuate that tlie hon. gentleman had given the word to the hon. member (Mr. Cochrane). I am sure that the docility of the hon. gentleman is such that he votes before the order comes from his leader. The ground that I am standing upon is that this very amendment which has been proposed by the promoter of the Bill and adopted by the committee is an acknowledgment that the provinces have the right to legislate in this matter. Now. the hon. leader of the opposition says that we do not encroach upon the authority of the provinces in this Bill. What do I read in section 4 of this Bill ?


Thomas George Roddick: I may say to my hon. friend that outside of the empire arrangements may be made with other countries. Reciprocity with France is quite possible.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: As far as this part of tlie project of the hon. gentleman is concerned, I am opposed to it also. Whether the reciprocity is with England or with France, or with any other country, I say that we should not open the door to an exchange of that kind. We should not in the interests of the Canadian people encourage our medical men to go and live in other countries and lie replaced by foreigners. We know that in England, as well as in France, they are overcrowded more than we are with young practitioners who would he very glad to come here and invade this country, not with tlie greatest benefit to this country. After all, the very argument that will be used by these gentlemen will be that we are not satisfied with the courses that are given by our universities, that we are not satisfied with the studies pursued in our universities, and that we want to have reciprocity so as to invite foreigners to come and take the places of our practitioners. I may say that this view was expressed to me by a couple of physicians from the city of Toronto. Unfortunately, I did not think that I was going to take part in this discussion, and I did not obtain permission to give their names; but they are practitioners who have lived in England as well as here and they told me they were opposed to this Bill on tlie very ground that is taken by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roddick), i.e., that it will bring a taint reciprocity ; because they believe that reciprocity will certainly turn against the medical profession of Canada much more than it will turn in their favour.
But apart from this objection, I say that we cannot accept the principle of this Bill without either encroaching upon provincial rights or stultifying ourselves. Without the amendment which lias been proposed by tlie hon. member, we are encroaching on provincial rights in legislating upon a matter which lias been acknowledged as being the sole right of the provinces to deal with.

Under the amendment proposed by the hou. gentleman, we are simply stultifying ourselves. Either this legislation is good or it is not; either it is within our right to pass it or it is not.	If this legislation is
good, let us have the courage to pass ft. If it is our right to pass it, let us take the responsibility of it, and not say that we are passing legislation but that it is sham legislation, which will not come into force until all the provinces have adopted it. In respect to the argument used by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), that it is simply a matter of politeness, I would ask if we are here to pass laws for politeness ? Let parliament take the responsibility of saying for the first time that we have the right to legislate upon the medical profession ; and next year we will be called upon to legislate upon the legal profession, and the next year after we will be called upon to legislate upon other professions, and we will be encroaching upon provincial rights.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) if there is not a provision in the British North America Act under which we might legislate in re-' gard to the provinces and their laws, and whether this legislation might not come in under that section V


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am very glad that the hon. gentleman has raised that argument. Section 94 of the British North America Act says :
Notwithstanding anything in this Act, tho parliament of Canada may make provision for the uniformity of all or any of the laws relative to property and civil rights in Ontario. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and of the procedure of all or any of the courts in those three provinces, and from and after the passing of any Act in that behalf, the power of the parliament of Canada to make laws in relation to any matter comprised in any such Act shall, notwithstanding anything in this Act, be unrestricted ; but any Act of the parliament of Canada making provision for such uniformity shall not have effect in any province unless and until it. is adopted and enacted as law by the legislature thereof.
By this clause the right was given to this parliament to legislate as far as the three English speaking provinces are concerned, provided it was ratified afterwards by the parliaments of these provinces. Now. in the amendment which has been accepted by the hon. member (Mr. Roddick), the spirit of this clause, which does not touch the province of Quebec, is made applicable to legislation which invades practically the rights of Quebec out of the fundamental provinces in the Dominion. Therefore this is an abuse of this clause of the British North America Act, which was introduced for the protection of the province of Quebec, and it is used against the will of the majority of the medical men of that province. It may be said that the province of Quebec 1
lias the right to resist this legislation through its provincial parliament, but I say that we should not put any provincial parliament in that position. I presume that this amendment has been suggested by the government in order to smooth differences of opinion: in order to prevent anv province from resenting this legislation. Well, either the people of the province of Quebec are in favour of this, or they are not. If they are in favour of it, why not adopt the legislation as it was ? and if they are not iii favour of it, and if this amendment has been proposed in order to smooth their feelings, what will be the result ? Most probably the other provinces will ratify this legislation and you will put the legislature of the province of Quebec in the unfortunate position of forcing it to resist legislation that has been adopted, first by tile federal parliament and then by the other provinces. The resentment which may be entertained in the other provinces will certainly he greater than it would be if this government had the courage to say that, we cannot adopt this legislation because it is against the spirit of the constitution. That is the view I take of this matter, and that is why I oppose the third reading of this Bill. I repeat that we should be careful to keep our legislation on the right track, so far as the autonomy of the provinces is concerned. If any of the provincial parliaments proposed to encroach on the powers of this federal parliament, I would say :	Let us stand by the federal power
and resist the province In spite of whatever unpopularity we may be subject to in a particular province. But, let us also stand by the provinces when they are within the constitution, and not invade their power. If we pass any such legislation as this we are" opening the door to friction between the provincial and federal authorities, and we are not discharging our duty to the people of this country. Whatever may he the practical advantage of any such legislation, we must learn to make sacrifices so as to maintain the spirit of our constitution. This Bill is against the spirit of our constitution, and it is for that reason that I shall vote against it.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) has told this House on former occasions, that he did not believe much in logic, and lie has given us an example to-night which indicates in the str ngest possible manner the truth of that assertion. The hon. gentleman says that the provincial parliaments should not be called upon to confer any rights upon a body constituted by this parliament, and that the line of division between the federal parliament and the provincial parliaments must be kept absolutely separate and distinct. I supp:se that if what my hon. friend has argued is correct, exactly the converse must be true ; and yet the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) supported by his vote a Bill introduced by the govern-

ment which appointed provincial officers as the persons who should regulate the electoral lists under which members are returned to this parliament. Does not my hon. friend see that if he supports legislation of that kind, it is just as competent for a provincial legislature to confer upon a body constituted by this parliament power to make regulations with respect to matters under provincial control. Does my hon. friend admit that or does he not ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Does the hon. gentleman refer to the Franchise Act ?


Robert Laird Borden: I do.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The great difference is that by the Franchise Act we did not give the provinces the right to legislate as to our franchise. We chose out of our own free will to use the provincial lists, and if to-morrow we want to adopt a federal franchise we can do so. If a provincial government had enacted-and it would be absurd for them to do so-that certain lists should be used for federal purposes, then I would be opposed to it.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not understand the distinction that the hon. gentleman has made. This parliament with the assent of the hon. gentleman conferred upon provincial officers, appointed under provincial laws, the power to select the persons who are to elect members to this parliament; a right which is absolutely possessed by this parliament in the first instance. This parliament delegated that duty to provincial officers, and it enacted it in such a way that provincial legislation regulating the electorate from time to time shall absolutely apply to the electorate who are to return members to the House of Commons. The hon. gentleman was not shocked by the delegation in that case, nor is he shocked every day in this House when we delegate power to the Governor in Council; nor is he shocked when provincial legislatures delegate their powers to municipal councils. But he conjures up a nightmare in this case because the effect of this Bill is to enable provincial legislatures to confer upon a council constituted by this parliament, power to make regulations respecting the medical profession in the different provinces. That is my hon. friend's logic. Does he or does he not think, that this parliament has the power to delegate certain powers to the Governor in Council ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: In (this case you advise the legislature.


Robert Laird Borden: In what way do we advise the legislature ? Even if it were so, is there anything in the British North America Act that says we should not advise the legislature ? How do we advise any more in this case than when we delegate most important powers to the Governor in Council ? Does not the hon.


Robert Laird Borden: gentleman know that provincial legislatures confer every day upon the Lieutenant Governor in Council and upon municipal councils, power to make certain regulations which when once made have the force of law. All that this Bill amounts to is, that with the consent of the provincial legislatures, and toy their enactment, a council shall be constituted which when it is once constituted shall have the power to make certain regulations with regard to the practice of the medical profession in the provinces. How can it be said that there is the slightest interference with provincial rights in this ? If you want an illustration of the carrying out of this very principle, look at the Canada Temperance Act, which is an example of the delegation of power of the most extraordinary character. We pass a law here and we say that it shall not go into effect until voted upon by the people of a particular locality. Examples of legislation of this character are so frequent that if my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) had only stopped to think for five minutes before he made his speech


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Will the hon. gentleman pardon me. The hon. gentleman is now arguing about the delegation of powers which we have the right to recall. But in the present case it is a power that we are taking from' the provinces. The hon. gentleman has just stated that the provinces cannot legislate on such matters as we legislate upon. Suppose this Bill is passed by this House and is afterwards adopted by the provincial legislatures, does he say that the provincial legislatures afterwards could amend this Bill in any way, or repeal any part of the power we are taking in passing it ?


Robert Laird Borden: I should think that the studies of my hon. friend in constitutional law would have taught him that any legislature which has power to pass an Act has power also to repeal it.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Exactly. We have the power to repeal this Act, the provinces have not.


Robert Laird Borden: The provinces have the right to repeal any Act they have once passed, and no provision passed by this parliament could take away from any provincial legisl|ature that powerj for a single instant. If my hon. friend possessed the miost elementary knowledge, as I am sure he does possess a very great knowledge of constitutional law, he would understand that that is the case. If we desired by the mosit emphatic words in the world to override the right of a provincial legislature to repeal an Act it once passed, we could not do it. A moment's reflection would have shown my hon. friend that that is an elementary principle of constitutional law. In the face of that, how can it be contended that this Bill is an invasion of the rights of the provincial legislatures ? If I thought
4450

it was, I would be the first to oppose it. The scheme, in. a few words, is that this parliament, being the only legislative body that has the power to do so, shall create a council to regulate the medical profession in Canada. Under the amendment proposed by the mover of the Bill to-night, that council can only toe constituted by the assent of every province of Canada. Therefore every province oif Canada has the most absolute and complete control over this council, because any province can prevent it being constituted, or can make any regulations or qualifications with regard to it that it desires. It can do that just as freely after this Bill passes as it could before. My hou. friend hinted at some dark scheme on the pant of the mover of the Bill to begin an invasion of provincial rights, or spoke as if the Bill might be a mere cover for some attempt to invade provincial rights in the future. The scheme is one( which I would have thought would have provoked the support of a gentleman of the independence and broad-mindedness of my hon. friend who has just taken his seat. lie has told us himself that he is very independent in all these matters, and we are bound to believe him. In fact, I think he sometimes hints vaguely that he is the only really independent gentleman in this House, with possibly one or two exceptions-that every other member of the House is more or less bound up by some ties or mysterious influences which prevent him following the dictates of his conscience; but my hou. friend always claims for himself that he is wholly independent of ali such influences. That being the case, I would have supposed that my hou. friend would have looked at this Bill from this standpoint, that it was right that medical men in Canada-those of the great province from which he comes as well as those of the province of .which I come-ishould have something more than a provincial status; that they should stand before the world as tnen qualified to practice all over Canada; (that, having that status, they should have rights conceded to them all over the world, which, in some instances at least, they do not possess at the present time. Looking at the question from that standpoint, will not my hon. friend, who is fair in regard to all these matters, come to the conclusion that it is in the interest of the medical men of his own province as well as the medical men of every other province of Canada, that this object should be attained, and that the medical profession should not iu the future have a mere provincial status, but that, while preserving to their own province the rights 1 have mentioned, they should have the status of Canadian medical men rather than the status of mere provincial practitioners, having no rights outside of their own .province ? If my hon. friend looks at the matter with his usual fairness, and excludes from his mind this bogy of au attack on provincial rights, he 140
7. 1902
will really come to the conclusion that this Bill merits his support. I trust that my hon. friend will on reconsideration give it his support, and that it will pass unanimously.


Louis Philippe Demers: 

(i) The qualifications to be required from all persons desirous of being registered, either as practitioners or students, under the authority of this Act, including the establishment, maintenance and effective conduct of examinations for ascertaining whether such persons possess the qualifications required ; the number, nature, times anU modes of such examinations.
What would the practical result of this legislation be, were it passed into law ? When this Bill is once passed and accepted by the provincial legislatures, the medical profession will come under the control of the Dominion parliament. AVhen the provinces have adopted this Bill, they will be dispossessed of the exercise of a right which they are now enjoying. As I said a little while ago, the subject-matter of this Bill is not within the purview of the powers of this parliament. The provincial legislatures having primary jurisdiction over educational matters and civil rights, we have no right to legislate here on these matters.
That tlie right to practice medicine is a civil right, and not a political right, is beyond dispute. Now, that is a subject-matter which is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of this parliament. And I say without any hesitation that, when the hon. gentlemen from the province of Quebec have an opportunity to oppose such a legislation, they would prove false to their duty should tuey remain silent and fail to resist any encroachment on provincial autonomy.
This Bill, we are told, shall have no force, shall not become operative, until all the provinces have concurred, that is to say, until all the provinces of the Dominion, acting through their legislatures, shall have ratified this legislatiou. But we all know wnat a pressure will be brought to bear upon such provinces as may decline to adopt this legislatiou ; and it will he urged that the other provinces have taken it up and made it their own. They know that the province of Quebec is large-hearted ; that it was not like to lag In the rear ; and who would venture to say that one day it will not accept aud ratify that legislation ? It is on record tuat parliaments have sold their country ; and it would be no matter of surprise that the Quebec legislature should surrender one of Its rights.
Were I satisfied that this parliament is dealing with a subject-matter which properly comes within its jurisdiction, I would be quite ready to accept it.
It is urged that the medical profession is going to benefit by this Bill. 1 quite agree that it would be conducive to the good of the medical bodies, were graduates in medicine to receive a qualification to practice in more than one of the provinces. But the present state of things may be remedied by other means than the one suggested here. It lias not been shown that such a remedy as the one I am going to suggest would not apply to the medical profession. For instance, what has been done for the legal profession Mr. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).
would also apply to the medical profession. There exists between the provinces of Ontario and Quebec an understanding under which barristers from one or the other province are allowed to practice their profession in those provinces, upon payment of the usual fee. Such a reciprocity has been brought about without any interference from the Dominion parliament. The conditions, however, were quite different. But the bars of Quebec and Ontario have come to an understanding, after having satisfied themselves that such reciprocity would be conducive to their mutual interests. For instance, not long ago the solicitor of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was admitted to the bar of tlie province of Quebec, without having had to pass any examination, and upon payment of the customary fee. The members of the legal profession did not come before this parliament to ask for the passage of such a legislation as is now under discussion.
Should the medical practitioners in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec come to a similar understanding, it could certainly be brought about without being sanctioned by this parliament.
On these several grounds, I move that this Bill be not read now, but this day six months.


Mr. FLINT.: It must be very gratifying to tlie promoter of this Bill to realize that so far the argument against the adoption of this measure has only been of a constitutional or legal character. I do not see that any argument has been made with regard to this Bill that Is detrimental to the practice of the profession. Some lion, gentlemen seem to fear that the medical profession will suffer if this Bill should come into operation. Legal difficulties have operated upon their minds and created the fear that the measure could not be satisfactorily put into force. They ha ve raised the question of provincial rights, I think, with perhaps rather undue warmth, considering the amendment proposed, and which appears to be favourably received by tlie House. Certainly, while we all agree that provincial rights are of great importance and that we should be very careful not to infringe upon these rights by any legislation, such as might perhaps require the intervention of the courts to decide as to whether the law we might pass were ultra or iutra vires, It does seem to me that there may be almost too much of a fetish made of provincial rights. The amendment does away with the last vest-age of complaint on that ground. There surely can be no objection to tbe provinces willingly giving up any vestige of a right they may have for the general benefit of the whole community. This was recognized by the British North America Act in one particular, though not as fully perhaps us would be desirable. But at any rate the reasonableness of such a course has been

recognized by tlie British North America Act. The medical profession is in many ways the most liberal of all the professions. It is one, the practice of which is not at all bounded by provincial linets. The practice of medicine involves the whole science of life in all its most minute ramifications, and is therefore not of a provincial or even of a Dominion character, but rather of an international nature, and if by any wise legislation this parliament can assist in raising the medical profession beyond provincial limits and even introduce international features into medical education and practice, I believe that we will be advancing along the lines of modern progress. The idea that a certain amount of protection should be thrown around the medical profession of each province will not stand, I think, careful examination. This Bill, if passed by this House, will not go ini to. full operation for quite a period of time, because it must be considered and adopted by the various provincial legislatures before it can become effective, and there must consequently be negotiations between the promoters of the Bill and the various provincial medical bodies in order to bring about such provincial action. But I believe that once this Bill is adopted by this parliament the time will no doubt come when the practice and study of the medical profession will be placed upon a much higher basis than at present. It is not at all probable that the Dominion government will ever be called on to contribute financially towards medical instruction, but when this council is once established and the different provinces give up their provincial privileges in the matter of medical education and practice, it is quite possible that some great scientists and philanthropists in the future will be induced to contribute largely of their means to the promotion of medical and scientific education, and the council incorporated by this Bill will be in a position to receive gifts from such sources and utilize them for the promotion of higher scientific Instruction. We know what is taking place in the neighbouring republic, owing to the munificence of Mr. Carnegie, who has devoted $10,000,000 for the benefit of science, and has established, with the aid of Congress, a board of trustees to supervise the expenditure of that fund. No doubt there were some timid souls in the American Congress who feared that state rights might possibly be violated by congress incorporating a board of trustees to administer this fund, but I have no doubt that such advocates of state rights have by this time discovered that their fears were groundless. It is possible that this measure will lead to something of that kind being done in Canada in the future. At any rate I believe that this amendment, approved, if not introduced, by the mover of the Bill, will remove all ob.jecti ins of this kind, and that this measure, when carried into operation, will be a means of placing 140*
the medical profession of this country upon a higher and broader basis than it has hitherto occupied. It must be a matter of regret always to the able physicians of the various provinces who have made their mark in the profession, that they cannot move from one province to another to practice their art when circumstances require them to do so, and I believe that this Bill when adopted will be a powerful lever towards raising the medical profession as high as a Dominion institution as it stands to-day as a provincial institution. I think I may say, without fear of contradiction, that no body of men stands higher in the various provinces than the medical men. They are devoted to their profession and all their ambitions are for the advancement of that profession, and when the distinguished medical men of the various provinces are called to this council, I have no doubt that the rising medical men of the country will be induced to take a higher course and prosecute their studies in Europe where they can enjoy all the advantages given by the highest universities dn the world, and the result will	toe a	higher
standard for the medical profession of the Dominion as a whole, which will place it on a par with that same profession in such countries as Germany, England and France. Let me add that the promoter of the Bill deserves well of the body to which he belongs and of which he is so distinguished an ornament, for the persistence he has shown in pressing this measure forward to its present stage.


The PRIME MINISTER.: In view of certain remarks made a moment ago by my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), I think I ought to say to the House that he is labouring under a false impression when he thinks that the government have adopted this Bill. The government have done nothing of the kind. It is a public Bill, introduced by a private member, and the government have no policy with regard to it. But I may say that after having given a good deal of study to the matter, I have come to the conclusion that this is a measure which ought to be adopted. When its second reading was moved I noticed an objection made by my hon. friend from St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers), to the effect that it was an infringement of provincial rights and therefore unconstitutional. I gave that point some attention and it appears to me that, to remove this objection, I need only refer to section three which provides
3. The persons from time to time appointed or elected, or otherwise being, under the provisions of this Vet, members of the Medical Council of Canada, are hereby constituted a corporation under the name of [DOT] The Medical Council of Canada.' hereinafter called ' the council.'
This suffices to show that we have jurisdiction in the matter and can pass the Bill.

Therefore, the technical objection made by several of my hon. friends behind me that this measure is beyond the power of this parliament and belongs exclusively to the provinces, cannot stand. But the real objection, which was not expressed but ought to have been taken, and which to some extent has been advanced by hon. members, is that it deals with a class of subjects which come exclusively within the jurisdiction of the local legislature. The question therefore resolves itself into whether it is expedient for us or not to pass this proposed legislation, which certainly we have the technical right to do. My hon. friend says the whole question is not whether we have the technical right or not, but whether it is expedient to pass a Bill of this kind, even though we should have the power to do so, since it deals with a clasis of subjects which properly come within the powers of the provincial legislature.
I noticed the argument, the very strong argument, of my hon. friend from St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers). He said that we were removing the medical students fiom the control of the provinces and bringing them under the control of a corporation created by this parliament. This is a very fair question for debate. But, after all the only question is whether it is wise or unwise to pass such a measure as this. When the Bill was introduced, the point raised by my hon. friend from St. John and Iberville might properly have been taken; and. if the Bill had remained as it was when introduced, I would have supported the argument of my hon. friend and would have said that we should not interfere with the status of the medical students and with the rights properly belonging to the provinces. But, with the Bill as it is now, with the amendments which have been made declaring in so many words that this Bill, shall not come into effect until it has been ratified by all the provinces, how can that contention be maintained ? I am a staunch supporter of provincial rights, as is my hon. friend from Labelle. But I would be safe in saying that the provinces would never be interfered with if the Bills passed by this parliament had a rider attached to them that they must be ratified by the provinces. The hon. member for Labelle says that we are stultifying ourselves by passing a measure of this kind, by passing a law and leaving it inoperative until it is ratified by the provinces. In my estimation -and surely it must be clear to my hon. friend-there is no stultification of ourselves whatever. We have power to do a certain thing, but we say : We will not use that power absolutely, we will enact a law which we think ought to be passed, but will leave it to the provinces themselves to say whether they will be bound by it or not. But my hon. friend from Labelle evidently went further. Evidently he has something in his mind, which, knowing him Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
as I do, did not surprise me. He says : This is the first step in the invasion of provincial rights in a more or less disguised way; suppose that next year legislation of this kind is introduced to incorporate lawyers of the Dominion. If any one were to introduce legislation of that kind, I would vote against it. I virtually gave the reason for that a moment ago when I said the question was whether it was wise or unwise to pass this Bill. I think it would be unwise to pass such a Bill relating to the bars of the several provinces. And the reason is obvious. The laws of the different provinces are different. There are no two provinces with the same laws. Therefore, it would not conduce to any good object to unite the bars which are to administer the laws. But the laws of the medical profession are the same everywhere. There is no difference in the teaching of medicine and the practice of the profession-and a noble-profession it is-between one province and another. Therefore, I think it is conducive to the interest of mankind to have as few as possible of these corporate bodies which have laws against one another. Leaving the technical and theoretical question aside, my hon. friend knows that in this very city of Ottawa there is a rivalry between the practitioner in Hull and the practitioner in Ottawa. The man having a certificate from Ontario would not dare to go to the assistance of a man in Quebec, nor would one having a certificate from Quebec give advice to an unfortunate invalid in Ontario. If argument is needed to justify such a measure as this. I think it can be furnished by the contemplation of such a case-a case that is not merely hypothetical. but a matter of everyday reality. I am moved in this matter by considerations of the expediency of the Bill. But I would not support it without the amendment that has been made providing that the Bill shall come into effect only with the concurrence of the provinces. If even one province does not give its concurrence, then my hon. friend the promoter of the Bill says, the law shall remain inoperative. Under the circumstances, it appears to me that the danger which some of my hon. friends think they see does not really exist.
Moreover, I am influenced by another consideration, which I give to my friends and to the House at large. Aside from other considerations, I do not hesitate to say, as a member from the province of Quebec, that, in my opinion, we would be warranted in supporting the Bill by the fact that there is no province that would profit so much by this measure as the province of Quebec. In my province we furnish a larger proportion of professional men than other provinces. There are French groups in all the provinces of the Dominion, and young men educated in the province of Quebec would be able, if this measure were in force to practice their profession amongst those groups. I do

not care very much-and In this I share the view of my hon. friend from Labelle-for reciprocity with other countries, but I care a great deal for reciprocity among the provinces of the Dominion. This argument, apart from all others, in my opinion, would be enough to warrant members of the House, and especially those from the province of Quebec, in supporting this Bill.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It would not be necessary for me to add anything to what the right hon. gentleman (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has said, were it not for one statement made by my hon. friend from Labelle. The hon. gentleman said : If we wish to have peace in this country, let us respect each others rights. Well, I might add : If we wish to have peace in this country, for God's sake let us try to know each other better. I do not see what harm can come from scientific meetings among the members of the medical profession in this country. We do not take anything from the provinces by the Bill now under consideration, but simply provide machinery by which the provinces can, if they wish, form a body of medical men. If all the provinces do not agree, this body cannot be formed. My own opinion is that the province of Quebec will cheerfully agree to the Bill. I have reason to know that medical men of the highest standing in the city of Monreal-I speak of men of my own race-are in favour of this Bill, I am for the rights of the provinces, but I am also for the broader rights of this Dominion. There is no reason why Canadians should not work together wherever they can do so without invading each other's rights; and in this case, 1 do not think there is any invasion of rights or any danger of it. We must not exaggerate the rights of the provinces. My hon. friend from Labelle, who is a student of history, does not forget, I am sure, that it was the exaggeration of state rights in the United States which created [DOT] their trouble. We must not exaggerate provincial rights. We are bound, after all, to live together here ; let us not be afraid, then, to meet each other face to face, especially on the ground of science. A French Canadian physician is quite able to hold his own against any physician of any other race. I, for one, am not afraid of this Bill, far from it. As the Prime Minister has remarked, when this Bill has gone into force, you will see French Canadian doctors practising their profession in the other provinces more freely than they are doing now.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This Bill is being opposed by a certain number of gentlemen on this side of the House on the ground that it constitutes an infringement of what they call provincial rights. Now, I am one of those who do not believe in the cry of wolf, that provincial rights
are being invaded. I think we ought to resist any attempt to invade them; but I certainly do not think that we ought to cry wolf when the wolf is not in sight. I think that remark applies to the present case. There is absolutely no attempt to invade provincial rights by this Bill; and I am sure if my hon. friends, instead of reading only one clause of the Bill had read it in its entirety and had construed each clause by the others, they would have perceived that this Bill is nothing more or less than an enactment by this parliament that constitutes an invitation to the provincial legislatures to co-operate with us fully to occupy a ground that neither alone can occupy completely. Now, my hon. friends talk of provincial legislatures having exclusive rights. The provincial legislatures and the federal parliament have exclusive rights, but there is a common ground that both can occupy. There is no question better settled in this country by those who have studied law, than that any provincial legislature may occupy a ground of legislation until such time as the Dominion parliament steps in and takes the place of the provincial legislature. Take the ease of insolvency legislation, for instance. The point was settled beyond dispute by the Imperial Privy Council that the Ontario legislature had the right to legislate with respect to bankruptcy; but the Privy Council said : You have right to legislate with respect to bankruptcy until such times as the ground is taken up by the federal parliament; only until then. So there is a common ground that both the legislature and the parliament may occupy.
Something was said about legislation bydelegation. Now, about the time that the case of the Queen and Hodges was decided it is undoubted that there was some difference of opinion among the judges of this country as to whether a body could legislate by delegation. But there never was a time when there was any doubt that you could legislate by reference. Take a case that comes up here every day, a case well known to all, the jury system in a province. You have in the Criminal Code a clause which declares that the provincial jury system shall be applicable to criminal cases. If there is one thing we have a right to do, it is to legislate here with respect to criminal procedure. But we adopt provincial legislation with respect to the jury system and we make it our own. That is what is called legislation by reference, that is not legislation by delegation. Legislation by delegation is that which the leader of the opposition spoke of a moment ago, for instance, that with respect to municipalities. However, I do not propose to discuss this at great length, because it is a very easy matter to make a cheap display of knowledge in a matter of this sort.
When this Bill first came up the Department of Justice examined it closelyr to see
*459


Robert Laird Borden: Permit me to suggest, what I forgot to mention a moment ago, that in my own province, at least the legislature confers upon the medical council of the province the right to legislate, an illustration of the very thing which is attempted by this Bill, that is, legislation by reference.


The MINISTER OE JUSTICE.: In addition to that, you have the provision in the section that has been amended to-night, which practically declares that this Bill shall have no force, shall not become operative, until such times as all the provinces of the Dominion have concurred, that is to say, until all the provinces of the Dominion, acting through their legislatures, shall have adopted this legislation, taken it up and adopted it and made it their own. Now, if we make this legislation dependent upon the action of the provincial legislatures, Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
wThere is the encroachment on provincial rights ?
An attempt was made a moment ago to make a comparison between this legislation and the provision of the British North America Act, which has reference to uniformity of laws; and my hon. friend confused the matter by saying that the British North America Act provided for the unification of the bar. There is no reference of that sort in the British North America Act, there is no reference to the bar. But in this section 94, which is a special section, provision is made for a departure from the whole scheme of the British North America Act. The whole scheme of the British North America Act is that the legislature shall have exclusive control over laws affecting property and civil rights in the province. But section 94, which is a departure from that, provides that with respect to some of the provinces there can be uniformity of law. But that is not what we are attempting to do here at all. Now, to conclude what I said a moment ago, I will i-ead the opinion I gave at the time the Bill came to the department for examination :
The Bill is in effect a proposal carefully thought out constituting nothing more than an invitation to the provinces to legislate to adopt the qualifications to be established by the Dominion council. It is quite optional with each of the provinces whether it will accept this invitation or not, so long as any province does rot legislate in the manner necessary to supplement the provisions of this Bill it cannot be in any wise affected by the Bill. It is certain that the proposal, *n order to have any effective result as to any province requires joint legislation hy the Dominion and the province. The Bill is an attemi.it perfectly constitutional and legal, I think, t.o give effect to a scheme which owing to what may be termed the defects of the federal system cannot come into operation except by joint action.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I hope the House will pardon, me if I trespass at this late hour by taking up a few moments in discussing one aspect of the Bill which has not been referred to at any great length before. Whilst I am prepared to support the Bill on the general and broad grounds so well given to the House by the right bon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Eaurier) and other bon. gentlemen who followed him, and whilst I agi-ee entirely with those grounds as well as with the ground that this Bill is absolutely constitutional and within the power of this House to enact, I want to point out to some of my hon. friends from the province of Quebec that in looking at this question they are doing it exclusively from the point of view of some of the French Canadians of that province. I want to look at it from the point of view of the French Canadians in the province of Ontario, for whom I think I have some warrant to speak, as I am one of the trwo representatives of the French Canadians in the province of Ontario. I think I voice

the feeling of the 250,000 French Canadians in the province of Ontario, when I say that they are desirous of having medical men of their own tongue to minister to their wants in case of illness, and that this Bill is going to confer a great boon upon them. Much difficulty has been experienced in the pasit on many occasions in securing the aid of such medical men in the city of Ottawa, and the difficulty has not been confined to the city of Ottawa. It has been experienced all along the Ottawa river, and all along the boundary line between the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario. People living on either side of the boundary line have not been able to secure the services of medical gentlemen living on the opposite side. To my own knowledge for several years past a number of medical men have come to Ottawa from the province of Quebec with the intention of practising their profession. Because they wore not sufficiently familiar with the English language they have found difficulty in passing the examination necessary before they are permitted to practice in this province, and these gentlemen after one or two unsuccessful attempts to pass this examination have gone back to the province of Quebec.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is not a compliment. All the members of the medical profession in the province of Quebec speak both languages.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I do not agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux). I may say that there are many who are able to speak both languages who would find difficulty in undergoing a technical examination in English. I do not think that in saying that I cast any reflection upon the medical gentlemen of the province of Quebec; or upon their scientific or literary attainments. The number of French Canadian doctors in the province of Ontario is altogether inadequate to the wants of the French Canadians who live in this province. In view of that fact, I hope that this Bill will be adopted


Charles Marcil: Mr. Speaker, I wish to explain why I am compelled, as 1 am compelled, to vote in favour of the amendment. I regret exceedingly if the vote which I feel obliged to give on this occasion should be interpreted as being in any way hostile to any well-directed movement made in this country in favour of broadening our Canadianism. I appreciated very much the remarks made by the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and by his colleagues, and I appreciate the motive of the hon. member for Montreal, Sit. Antoine (Mr. Roddick). Referring to the remarks of the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) who spoke for the inhabitants of one end of the province of Quebec and also of the adjoining portion of the province of Ontario, I may say that I represent a constituency situated
at the other end of the province of Quebec, which occupies towards the province of New Brunswick the same position that this portion of the province of Quebec occupies towards Ontario. I have come to the conclusion that under the circumstances we have not had produced either in this House, or before the special committee that was charged with the consideration of this Bill, an expression of opinion from the medical profession of the province of Quebec. I hold in my hand a memoir which was addressed to parliament by La Societe Medical e de Quebec in which they raise very serious objections to this Bill, and in which they state that through a misunderstanding they were unable to have their views placed before the committee. They very reasonably ask that this Bill be deferred until next session for further consideration. If the object to be attained is one to bring together all the medical men from the various provinces, I think that nothing should be done which would be of a nature to cause any friction between the various provinces. I have no difficulty in understanding that the English provinces of the Dominion will immediately accept this Bill, but the position of the province of Quebec is very different from that of the English provinces. Quebec has an educational system of its own. Its universities guide its classical studies. This medical council will, should this Act go into force and be ratified as it may be by the provincial legislature, have the power to control tlie curriculum of studies in the various educational institutions in Quebec.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Absolutely none.


Charles Marcil: I understand the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) to say absolutely none; but subsection (c) , clause 4, says that one of the purposes of the council is :
The determination and "fixing of the qualifications and conditions necessary for registration, including the courses of studies to be pursued1, the examinations to be undergone, and generally the requisites for registration.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Registration, where ?


Charles Marcil: Under the authority of this medical council.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Exactly.


Charles Marcil: But here is the position iu which this matter will stand twelve months hence if this Bill shall go through the House unopposed to-night and which the English provinces will accept :	Will the province of Quebec be
placed at the bar of public opinion in this Domiuiou, because, in trying to protect its own educational interests, it refuses to accept this law ? I do not say it will, but I do not think it is fair to the French province of this Dominion to put it in that

position. Like every otiler member of this House, I would like to see science make more rapid progress even than the wonderful strides it has made lately, but I do not wish this to be done at the expense of the good understanding and good feeling which should prevail between the various provinces of this Dominion. We have the example of the neighbouring states. In the neigbouring states no federal authority has attempted to legislate in the matter of medical diplomas. That power rests exclusively with each state which is one of the rights now enjoyed by the .provinces.


Thomas George Roddick: They are about arranging a scheme similar to ours, providing for a national council.


Charles Marcil: Well, the Americans are a very progressive people. If they have reached an arrangement of that kind in the United States, I do not say that it will not be reached in Canada, but my sincere conviction is that the immense majority of the medical practitioners in the province of Quebec are at this moment, and until they are convinced to the contrary, opposed to this Bill for the reason that the promoters have gone about it in the wrong way. They are trying to deal by federal authority with the question of education which is one of the sacred rights of the provinces, and for that reason, I consider it is my duty to vote in favour of the amendment.
House divided on the amendment.
YEA3 :
Messieurs
Angers,	Gauvreau, Lavergne,
Bazinet,	
Bernier,	Lemieux,
Bourassa,	. Malouin,
Bourbonnais,	Mareil (Bonaventure),
Bureau,	Prelontaine,
Demers (Levis).	Rose (Rimouski),
Demers (St. John),	Tobin.-16.
 NAYS :
Messieurs	
Alcorn,.	Loy,
Belcourt,	Maclde,
Bell,	MacLaren (Perth),
Blain,	McEwen,
Borden (Halifax),	McGowan,
Boyd,	McGugan,
Bruce,	McIntosh, .
Calvert,	McLennan,
Calvin,	Martineau,
Campbell,	Meigs,
Carroll,	Morin,
Champagne,	Mulock,
Christie,	Oliver,
Clarke,	Parmelee,
Cochrane.	Paterson,
Cowan,	Puttee,
Davis,	Reid (Restigouche),
Earle,	Richardson,
Erb,	Roche (Marquette),
Farquharson,	Roddick,
Fielding,	Rosamond,
Fitzpatrick,	Ross (Ontario),
Flint,	Ross (Victoria, N.S.),


Charles Marcil: Fraser,
Galliher,
Gibson,
Gilmour,
Gourley,
Henderson,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.); Hyman,
Ingram,
Johnston (Cape Breton) Kaulbach,
Lancaster,
Lang,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Logan,
Scott,
Siftcn,
Sprcule,
Stewart,
Sutherland (Essex), Sutherland (Oxford), Talbot,
Tarte,
Taylor,
Thompson,
Toimie,
Tolton,
Turgeon,
Wade,
Wilson.-76.
Amendment negatived.
Main motion agreed to, Bill read the third time, and passed.


FIRST READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 166) to incorporate the Securities Bank of Canada.-Mr. Calvert.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 12.10 a.m. Thursday.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 0, 1902.