[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 2) to amend the Passenger Tickets Act.-Mr. Reid (Grenville).

Mr.   R.@: BICKERDIKE (Montreal, St. Lawrence) moved for leave to introduce Bill Mr. LEMIEUX.
(No. 3) to amend the Railway Act. He said:	The Bill is largely on the lines of
the one introduced during the last two or three sessions by my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), and which passed this House last session but was defeated in the Senate. Public opinion is aroused to that extent that something on those lines will have to be done this session, and I hope that the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) will give the Bill his attention and possibly take charge of it and put it into proper shape.


Mr. LENNOX.: And on the right side.


Mr. BICKERDIKE.: There is no doubt that what is often called the deadly level crossing has become so subject to accidents, especially during the past few months, that it is opportune to introduce some measure which will meet the approval of both Houses.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Does it differ from the Bill passed by this House three or four times?


Robert Bickerdike: It is a little milder. I do not wish to impose on the railways any more burdens than we can help. In the cities, towns and villages we should have gates at the level crossings. Outside in the country districts and prairies, I was at a loss to frame an amendment which would meet all cases, because while on the prairie a man can see a train ten miles either way, in the woods he cannot see it until he i3 right on the track. Possibly the municipalities may contribute to the expense. For instance, in New York state the cities contribute 25 per cent and the state 25 per cent towards paying for the lowering or elevating of the tracks, as the case may be.


Mr. FOSTER.: Does the hon. gentleman make any proviso in his Bill to protect life on level crossings on the prairies?


Robert Bickerdike: Yes, I do, but I leave that largely to the Railway Commission, because it is very difficult to frame an amendment which will cover every case. If my hon. friend has one, I shall be pleased to accept it. The Railway Commission, which has done such good work, more especially during the past few weeks, may be trusted to deal with this, and a clause to that effect is the only one I can think of at the moment which will meet the case.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BICKERDIKE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 4) to amend the Criminal Code. He said: We have in all our large cities, probably to a greater extent in Montreal than elsewhere, a class of men who will, on the slightest provocation, draw

a dagger or stiletto or pistol. We have had highway robberies to a great extent, and a class of men who will beat their wives in the fall in order to get six months comfortable lodgings in jail during the winter. That class of men should get the lash, and plenty of it. Instead of giving such a man six months in jail for beating his wife, I would give him thirty days and thirty lashes. If that is done, he will never beat his wife again. That class of criminal is more afraid of the lash than even of the rope, and I think that if more of them got the lash we should have less need of the rope.
Mr. E. N. LEWIS (West Huron).: What is the difference between this Bill and the one introduced by myself last session?


Robert Bickerdike: I do not know what the difference is. But I know that the Bill proposed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lewis) did not carry, and I did not know whether he had got tired of it or not.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 5) to amend the Naturalization Act. He said :	The proposed amendment is
based upon a similar provision in the British Naturalization Act. It provides that, in addition to the safeguards contained in the present Act, the alien applying for naturalization shall furnish evidence, under the oath or affirmation of two British-born subjects, electors residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the court to which the application is made, - and neither of whom is to be the agent or solicitor of the applicant-that the applicant is of good character. This amendment, I may say, has been asked for by some judges in the west who have met with practical difficulties in administering the Act, and is designed to overcome these difficulties and to provide a safeguard similar to that provided in England for admission to citizenship.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.

Mr.  E. A.@: LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 6) to amend the Railway Act. He said: This Bill is exactly the same as that which has been passed by this House each year during the last three years, but has been rejected by the Senate. It is to protect the lives of people at level crossings in cities, towns and villages. I do not think it could be made any milder than it is and do injustice to the people of the country. As the House has unanimously passed it three times, I hope it will do so again, and that
the Senate will think better of its previous action and adopt what is evidently the will of the people.


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

Mr.  A. H.@: CLARKE (South Essex) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 7) to amend the Railway Act. He said: The object of the Bill is to remove an anomaly in the present Railway Act as to the liability of railway companies for fires caused by defective locomotives. The Bill was introduced last year by Mr. Kennedy, then representing New Westminster. I think it passed the Railway Committee, but did not become law. But as I believe it to be a Bill that ought to become law, I ask leave to introduce it now.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 8) to amend the Dominion Lands Act. He said. The Bill is to correct a displacement of some three or four paragraphs which was inadvertently made in the passage of the Bill through the House or in the printing of it. There is no proposition in any way to effectively amend or change the provisions of the Act.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Before the orders of the day are called, I desire to say that I have had the honour of being returned for two constituencies, namely the electoral division of Halifax and the electoral division of Carleton (Ont.). It becomes necessary that I should elect for which of these two constituencies I sit; and I accordingly now declare my election to sit for the electoral division of Halifax, and, for that reason, I resign my seat as member for the electoral division of Carleton.



ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Todd for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. RALPH SMITH (Nanaimo).: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to have a word to say on the resolution before the House. After a long, hard, and tedious campaign in British Columbia, and after having been in the House seven or eight sessions, and having some good friends who

should have their initiation in parliamentary work, I had made up my mind to sit quiet awaiting a later occasion to say or do something. However, matters appertaining to important interests of British Columbia have been involved in the discussion of this subject, and some of my friends from British Columbia have thought fit,-very properly-to take this opportunity to make some explanation with regard to^ matters affecting the representation in this parliament as compared with the last. The Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) took advantage of the occasion to give some explanation with regard to matters connected with the campaign in British Columbia, and tried to account for a very radical change made in the representation of that province, and my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Cowan), and especially my hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell), and, to some extent, the hon. gentleman for Victoria City (Mr. Barnard), sought to present what they thought to give to the House the impression that the reasons given by the Prime Minister for the change in British Columbia were not the good reasons and sought to present what they thought were the good reasons for that change. The two great issues they represented to this House as being the cause of the change in British Columbia, were better terms and oriental immigration. My hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Cowan) sought to impress the people in the province with the belief that the salvation of British Columbia rendered it absolutely necessary that it should be represented by Conservatives instead of Liberals in this House. I do not intend to follow that argument at great length, because my hon. friends have intimated that they intend to bring up these questions in another form, at a future time. But it is my conviction that, whilst my hon. friends have been sent to this House to seek to promote legislation that will settle these two great issues satisfactorily to British Columbia, at the same time those issues were not presented fairly and justly to the people of British Columbia by my hon. friends. That is my conviction, and I am going to try and show that it is well founded.
What are the processes through which the issue of better terms has gone ? How has it been considered and represented ? How was it considered and represented to the electorate of British Columbia ? The issue of better terms, in point of fact, was absolutely settled by the united provincial conference. The provinces, and especially British Columbia, had been agitating this question for a considerable time, and they appealed to the Premier of the Dominion to call a conference of the provinces to take into consideration the question of a readjustment of the terms of union between the provinces and the Dominion. The whole Mr. RALPH SMITH.
question of better terms, so far as British Columbia is concerned, was presented and finally determined by a tribunal comprised of the representatives of all the provinces. Sir Wilfrid Laurier asked this parliament to consent, not to what his government thought was right or reasonable, but what these several provincial premiers at that conference had decided was the proper thing. That, Sir, was the foundation of the case. Whatever be its merits or demerits whether the conclusions reached were reasonable or not, the one thing certain is that the conclusions were reached by the unanimous opinion of the several representatives of the provinces. My hon. friend from Vancouver shakes his head. Does he dispute the fact that the documents are on record ? Does he dispute the fact that a request was made to the Premier of Canada to call a conference ? Does he dispute the fact that the Premier of British Columbia accepted the proposal to represent the province in that conference ? Does he dispute the fact that the representatives at that conference stated what they thought was right and reasonable for British Columbia ?


Mr. COWAN.: British Columbia was not a consenting party to that proceeding.


Ralph Smith: 

was a good vote catcher. He said to the people of British Columbia:	You have
nothing to lose; the expenses of the inquiry-will be met for you, and if you do not like the result, you do not need to take it, for somebody else will pay the cost.' I do not think that is a position that any responsible diplomatic influence of this country would endorse. Neither do I think that any leader of any great party in this country would get the endorsation of the representatives of the various provinces of this Dominion to a proposition of that kind. The question went to the conference of provincial premiers, and if there is to be special consideration by this absolutely independent tribunal, that independent tribunal itself must be created by the representatives of the provinces themselves ; and if they are not going to stand by the decision of that absolutely independent tribunal, then I want my hon. friend to say what will be the next tribunal to which he will refer the case, if the people of British Columbia refused to agree to their recommendations.
Now, as I have said, I believe there is need of consideration in changing the terms of union with British Columbia. It is a question that must be settled with the agreement of the different provincial factors of this Dominion. The Premier of the Dominion said to the provinces: 'Decide what you think is right and reasonable and whatever you decide I will bring before parliament and seek to have put into operation in your interests.' I submit, Sir, that that position was never put before the people of British Columbia. The whole contention was : You need not look for the adjustment of your rights to the representatives of eastern Canada. Our friends opposite sought by innuendo and insinuation, to convey the impression that the representatives of the interests of British Columbia were not to be found in eastern Canada-an impression that in my opinion is disloyal to the interests of British Columbia, and an impression which, after the people of British Columbia have time to think, will not redound to the security of our hon. friends in the position they occupy to-day. The people of British Columbia are suffering a kind of temporary inactivity in the consideration of political questions, and they accepted the statements of our hon. friends on that question without proof. The question has to come up for consideration later on, when I shall have an opportunity, as the one member from British Columbia on this side of the House, to discuss it further.
Now, I want to deal with the oriental question. The Conservative representatives from British Columbia have been sent to this House to save the province from an influx of hordes of orientals. I consider that the facte connected with the legislation on that question give to the people of British Columbia no Mr. RALPH SMITH.
reason for looking to their Conservative representatives in this House for the settlement of the question. In order to prove my case it is necessary for me to look a little at the history of this question. Let me ask, who created the oriental question in British Columbia ? Was it the Liberal party or the Tory party ? The oriental question in British Columbia was created twenty-five or thirty-five years ago, when the Conservative government of that day appointed their own commission, and their own commission reported that oriental labour in British Columbia was a necessity to the development of that province.
Mr. Speaker, the real evil of orientalism in British Columbia to-day is not, as our friends opposite would try to make it out, the recent influx of certain classes of orientals ; the foundation of the oriental evil in British Columbia was laid by the Conservative government 25 years ago when, instead of inaugurating a system of white immigration into British Columbia, they adopted the report of their own commission which said that oriental immigration was absolutely necessary to develop the resources of that province. But the gentlemen opposite never tell the people of British Columbia anything about that; they consider the whole question at the present day in connection with the Japanese immigration. For 15, and 16, and 17 years after that date representations were constantly made by the people of that province to the Conservative party in power to redress the wrongs which they had inflicted on the province in connection with their immigration policy. Let us look for a minute on the other side of the picture, and, Sir, I placed these facts before my constituents just as I am placing them before this House now. I had not the honour or the privilege of submitting my views to the good people of Vancouver, but I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cowan) who represents that constituency will not gainsay the facts as I now state them. The Liberal party came into power in 1896 and the first parliament thereafter the tax was increased to $100. The commission which had been demanded by the people of British Columbia was granted by the Liberal government, and two and a half years from the date of the report of that commission everything that British Columbia had ever asked in regard to the regulation of orientalism in British Columbia was passed into law. Let hon. gentlemen look back at the petitions and the resolutions presented by the different organizations in that province and they will find that the demand prior to that time always was that there should be a tax of $500 upon the Chinese, There was no Hindu question then and practically there was no Japanese question. True, the Japanese question came for consideration before that commission,

and the commission reported to parliament that at that time it was not a serious matter and that it would be unwise to pass restrictive legislation since the representatives of Japan had promised that it was not their desire or intention to send Japanese immigrants into Canada. And from the year 1903 up to the time these special contracts were made to bring in this large number of Japanese there was no intelligent agitation, and no representations made to this parliament by petition or otherwise in any strong way whatever, in favour of special restrictive legislation against the Japanese. It is important that the members of this House should not forget that the legislation which the people of British Columbia had been demanding for 16 years prior to 1896 had been entirely refused by the Conservative government. On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that all the legislation asked for by the people of British Columbia was conceded absolutely, within five or six years of the advent of the Liberal party to power.
Now Sir, I come to the question of the Japanese treaty, and I shall consider what our friends opposite say as to the effect of passing that treaty-or rather of our agreeing to the British treaty-on the interests of British Columbia and of Canada. Unfortunately, after the passing of this treaty certain employers of labour in British Columbia organized to bring in large numbers of Japanese. Let me first remind this House that whatever responsibility there is associated with the concluding of this treaty, it is a responsibility which is equally shared in by every member of this House on both sides. I want to say also that my hon. friends opposite had absolutely no authority-according to the statement made by the leader of the opposition himself the other day-they had absolutely no authority to state to the electors of British Columbia that if the Conservative party were put in power the Conservative party would do more than had been done by the Liberal government. All through the campaign in British Columbia the one impression sought to be made was that there would be an absolute guarantee that the Conservative party would readjust the oriental question and would do more than the Liberal government had ever done in that direction.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Ralph Smith: I am very glad to hear my hon. friends opposite endorse that statement, but I would like to ask any one of these gentlemen from British Columbia what evidence he has that the leader of the Conservative party would, if he had the power, do more for British Columbia in connection with the oriental question than the Liberal government has done 41
up to the present time. The forged telegram which was read in the city of Victoria purported to be a declaration of the leader of the opposition that he would stand for absolute and entire exclusion, but when that telegram was forced on the attention of the leader of the opposition in this House the other day he renounced any responsibility for it. Can any of these gentlemen opposite give any tangible evidence ? Can they quote from a statement made by any of the leaders of the Conservative party at any time, that more would be done by them in the settlement of the existing difficulty than has been done by the Liberal government ?	_ _
Now, Sir, what is the present condition of the oriental question in British Columbia ? Perhaps hon. gentlemen opposite have not looked carefully into that matter. True, they depreciate the importance of the Lemieux settlement, but I have looked up the record and I have official figures in my possession which I think will surprise many hon. gentlemen in this House. _ I make the statement on my responsibility as a member of this House, that whatever could have been accomplished by inserting in that treaty restrictive powers, has been accomplished by the settlement made between the Postmaster General and the Japanese authorities. That arrangement has been honourably carried out to the letter.
I will concede that however important and satisfactory that settlement may be, the people of British'Columbia have not confidence that the Japanese authorities will carry it out. I will make that admission frankly. The complaint in British Columbia was not against the settlement itself, but it originated in the lack of confidence which the people had in the integrity of the Japanese authorities to carry the settlement out in the spirit in which it was made. However that may be, we have to take things as we find them and when the practical people of British Columbia realize that the Japanese are not coming into that province since the date of the settlement, they will, I believe, admit that it has been effective. The direct effect of that settlement came into operation in June, 1908, and I must confess that I was myself surprised at what the public records show since then. I believe in having the facts as they are whether they are for us or whether they are against us. If this question is to be settled it must be settled on the facts and not on any political feelings which may be introduced, and I have every confidence in the intelligence and judgment of the people of British Columbia that when the facts are made known to them they will gladly admit that the settlement has been effective. As I have said, the practical effect of that settlement came into operation in June, 1908. Only 51 Japanese came into British Columbia in June,

1908. Of these 51, 22 were women and children, so that as a matter of fact only 29 Japanese labourers entered British Columbia in June, 1908. In July, 1908, 39 Japanese entered British Columbia, and of that number 16 were women and children, leaving only 23 Japanese labourers coming into the province in the second month after the settlement. In August, 1908, only 27 Japanese entered that province, and of this number 19 were women and children, leaving only eight Japanese labourers. In September, 1908, only 21 Japanese entered the province and of these seven were women and children, leaving 14 Japanese labourers entering in September. In October, 31 Japanese came to British Columbia, and of these 'eight were women and children, leaving 23 labourers entering the province in October, 1908. In November, only 12 Japanese came into British Columbia, and in December only 16. Thus in the whole period of six months since the settlement, only 198 Japanese have come into the province of British Columbia.
Let me remind my hon. friends from British Columbia of another thing. During the same period of six months the immigration of Chinese was extraordinary. In June, against 51 Japanese, there were 154 Chinese; in July, against 39 Japanese, there were 418 Chinese. What is the conclusion? That the successful enforcement of the Lemieux settlement drove the employers of British Columbia who always want orientals, to pay the $500 head tax on every oriental labourer coming into British Columbia. Thus it seems to me that the settlement of the question of Japanese immigration has been very successful in attaining the object which the people desire, that is that the Japanese should be kept out. If they are kept out by the settlement of my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) there can be no complaint. Our hon. friends received the political advantage of the suspicion of the people of British Columbia that the Japanese would not adhere to their contract, but these figures demonstrate clearly that the Japanese government have lived up to their contract. What are the conditions of that contract? There are two or three important conditions that perhaps may not be known to all the members of this House. One is that Japanese coming into Canada must come directly with passports from Japan, cutting off absolutely the immigration from the American islands where the principal immigration used to come from. The next is the definite provision that no contract Japanese labour may be brought into British Columbia without the consent of this government. I cannot imagine that any restrictive legislation connected with the treaty itself could accomplish that purpose in a more direct and practical way than it has been accomplished by the settlement Mr. RALPH SMITH.
of my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux). As I say it is what the people want, they want to keep the Japanese out and the " settlement has kept them out successfully.
Is there any evidence of the operation of that provision? Yes. The Canadian Pacific .Railway Company some time ago wanted to put 300 Japanese on their irrigated lands in the district of Calgary. The company made an application to this government to suspend the provisions of that agreement and let them bring these men in under contract, but the government refused to do so and the 300 Japanese labourers could not be brought in and placed upon the irrigated lands, contrary to the terms of that agreement. Thus the agreement has been successful and that is exactly what the people want. I think I am right in the statement that that agreement, that is the treaty between Britain and Japan, expires about 1911. My opinion is, and I say it boldly, that if the present condition of Japanese immigration can be strongly maintained for the next two years, by the operation of the settlement which the government has with Japan, then in the renewal of the treaty necessary to meet the sentiment of British Columbia absolutely, may be inserted and that will give absolute satisfaction to the people of British Columbia.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Ralph Smith: never distributed or printed, or read in the constituency of Victoria. I never heard of that telegram until Friday afternoon last in this House.


Ralph Smith: My hon. friend is committing himself to an enormous responsibility when he says that telegram was not distributed or read in the constituency of Vancouver. Do the electors of Vancouver not 2read the ' Daily Colonist' ? Is that newspaper not sent over by the steamer on Sunday morning ?


George Henry Cowan: The hon. gentleman knows '*'well that the 'Victoria Colonist' does not get distribution in the city of Vancouver. iHe knows perfectly well that the statement 1 have made is correct. That telegram was not printed in Vancouver, it was never read by me in Vancouver, it was never heard of by me until I came to this House.


Ralph Smith: I accept of course my hon. friend's present statement, but that statement rather intensifies the responsibility taken by the friends of the leader of the opposition in Victoria. My hon. friend says that the people of Vancouver did not read the telegram, but the people of Vancouver read the 'Daily Colonist', and in the 'Daily Colonist' you have what purports to be an exact copy of a telegram from the leader of the. opposition in Halifax, and that was distributed in every coast city the day before the elections. A special sheet was distributed in Nanaimo on the day of the election stating ' For White, British Columbia'. My leader, said the Conservative candidate on the day of the election, stands for the entire exclusion of Asiatics, and this information was sent broadcast throughout British Columbia, because everybody in British Columbia reads the ' Daily Colonist-.' My hon. friend himself must be affected by the rivalry which Vancouver has against Victoria if he refuses even to read the newspaper of the latter city. But that does not exonerate my hon. friend from the responsibility for this telegram. The point I make is this, here is a telegram signed by the leader of the Conservative party which promised the people of British Columbia what they wanted on this question.
This telegram had its influence. It was distributed widely. I met it on the platform in the Kootenay district, as I have stated. And to my hon. friend who is to follow me, I may say for his information, that on the platform I gave the leader of the Conservative opposition credit by saying that I did not believe he had said such a thing. But the fact remains that a principle materially affecting the interests of British Columbia was announced over the signature of the leader of the Conservative party, that he himself, since the gathering of this House, has declared was absolutely Mr. COWAN.
untrue, but which, in my opinion, affected very materially the result of our elections. And the last man I would have credited with this was the hon member who got a dozen majority in the city of Victoria, and that same hon. gentleman read this telegram, not as it was sent by the leader of the opposition, but as it is found in the ' Colonist' to-day, and as it was distributed throughout the province of British Columbia. The hon. gentleman said on Friday last that it was an emissary of the 'Colonist' office who brought the telegram to him. But he will not say that it was not a political adversary who brought him that telegram. He knew that the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Cowan), just a few weeks before, had taken a mandate from the leader of the opposition on this question. That hon. gentleman announced plainly in the press of Vancouver that the leader of the opposition and the Conservative party were prepared to abrogate the treaty with Japan if the conditions of the new settlement were not adhered to. I am sure that my hon. friend from Vancouver will endorse my statement. The hon. member for Victoria, when he read the forged telegram in Victoria, had read repeatedly the mandate stated by the hon. member for Vancouver on an entirely contrary principle. I say that my hon. friend is not absolutely free from the responsibility for reading that telegram.	.
There are two ways of settling this oriental question in British Columbia. I will join my friends opposite in any reasonable method of settlement; but it can never be settled by forging telegrams; it can never be settled by approaching the question exclusively from a partisan point of view. The attitude of the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Cowan) in this debate was absolutely a partisan position. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was his great cause of complaint.
' I wish,' he said, ' that I had never heard his speech.' Well, after we got the information about the forged telegram, we were not surprised that he wished he had never heard that speech. For more reasons than one, we shared the hon. gentleman's wish. I have said that there are two ways of settling this oriental question. One way is for employers of labour in British Columbia not to employ orientals. The second way is by reasonable legislation. I am not sure that any one of the hon. gentlemen I have referred to can subscribe to the first principle. They stand for a * white Canada.' Their whole programme was for a ' white Canada.' But I question whether one of the five men can stand up in this House and say that he never employed an oriental in British Columbia. ' He 'that is without sin, let him cast the first stone.' Don't all speak at once. We stand for a white Canada for everybody in British Columbia, but the five Tory representatives.

My hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) stated the other night that he appreciated the settlement of the Hindu part of this question by the Dominion government. There are two things I appreciated in my hon. friend's statement. I appreciate very highly his generosity in admitting that that question had been settled in a broad and statesman-like way, and I appreciate his kindness as an employer to his own workmen.


Mr. BURRELL.: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ralph Smith) a question? I think he will admit that in all my campaign the whole of this matter brought before the House


Some hon. MEMBERS: That is not a question.


Martin Burrell: I would ask if he heard me discuss any phase of the question except that of the Japanese? And did I not differentiate between the Japanese and the Hindus?


Ralph Smith: My position in this House is that I do not differentiate between the Chinaman the Japanese and the Hindu. And I say that that is the position of the average man in British Columbia.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Prime Minister does.


Some hon. MEMBERS: The government does.


Ralph Smith: I did not need to be reminded of that. But I say that I do not differentiate, and if the government does, then, of course, on that point, I am at variance with the government. But what I am pointing out is that, so long as the employers of labour in British Columbia employ orientals, the demand for orientals will be encouraged, but the moment you destroy the demand the supply will look after itself. And I want to make this statement-for I think this is a time to put the case plainly- that these hon. gentlemen who stand for a 'white Canada' do employ yellow men. And so long as these gentlemen come to this House with crocodile tears, bemoaning the depressed condition of British Columbia and declaring their desire to defend the white labour of British Columbia against the yellow races, yet spend their own money in encouraging the presence of these orientals in British Columbia, the people of that province will not believe for very long that they are true advocates. The subterfuge may be successful on election day for once. But ' chickens come home to roost,' and when the electors' facts become known, the permanency that these hon. gentlemen expect in their political lives will be absolutely destroyed. I have preached against orientalism


George Henry Cowan: Good.


Ralph Smith: What does my hon. friend (Mr. Cowan) say?


George Henry Cowan: I say that ' preached ' is good.


Ralph Smith: I have preached against orientalism strongly, and I do so yet. But I have practised what I preached, for I have never spent a dollar in the employment of an oriental. And it is my business to put it up to these hon. gentlemen that they are not consistent advocates on this burning question for British Columbia. They must clean their own doorstep. If their influence is to be of importance in this House, they must give a guarantee that they do not encourage with their money and through their business that class in British Columbia of which they complain and over whose presence they pretend to be broken-hearted.
I believe the effect of the settlement of this question has been reasonable and fair.
I believe that when the facts are presented to the people of British Columbia the government will get credit for its position. When the contract with Japan expires, two years from now, if, in the judgment of the people of this country, it is absolutely necessary to have restrictive legislation associated with the treaty, that is the time to put it through. But I submit that, according to the figures before this House, Japanese immigration has been reduced by the settlement, and yet encouragement has been given to oriental trade which is entirely in the interests of the great undeveloped province of British Columbia. I venture to think that that is the position that the people of British Columbia will stand for when they realize the meaning and importance of what has been accomplished, and the government must see that this exclusion must continue.
I have spoken longer than I intended to do, but it is important I should spea,k long. I am the only representative on this side, and I have to reply to all my hon. friends opposite. I am in earnest on this question, because I am a believer in a white British Columbia, and I am glad to say that I put that belief into practice. I think this government ought to go as far as possible to exclude these people, and that we ought to encourage white people instead to come to British Columbia and assist us in developing that great province. As long as you have 30,000 orientals in that province, you make it impossible for white labour to come in from the British Isles. I repeat that while our Tory friends have made the province of British Columbia an oriental country, and never did a thing when they were in control to restrict oriental immigration, the Liberal party have taken vigorous steps against Chinese im-



migration, and have entered into a reasonable agreement with the Japanese government to restrict immigration from that country. They have successfully reduced the emigration of these people to British Columbia in the last six months, down to 18 persons in the month of December last, and this must continue. If this government compelled the government of Japan to stand to the integrity of that agreement, the people of British Columbia themselves, four years hence will support this government in their Japanese policy.


Mr. A. S. GOODEVE (Kootenay).: As a representative of British Columbia, I desire to say a few words on the issues that have been raised by the First Minister with regard to this question, and I also propose to deal with the arguments advanced by the Postmaster General. I wish to say with regard to the question raised by the First Minister, that if this government was so signally defeated in our province, it was due to the four factors mentioned by my hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell). In my constituency at least the question of the deferred election and the presence of the Minister of the Interior in that riding, had a great deal to do with the majority I obtained. The sense of justice and fairplay so eminently characteristic of the west, resented the deferred election. Our people felt that they were being unfairly and unjustly treated, and they showed their resentment. In regard to the second issue, there were certain districts in my constituency in which we conceded a Liberal majority ; but after the Minister of the Interior had come in and spoken on behalf of the Liberal candidate, and explained the policy of the government, as we considered, authoritatively, he found the sentiment in those districts altogether hostile, and the result was that in those Liberal districts I received a very large majority.
Now, Sir, in dealing with the issues raised by the Postmaster General, I desire to say here that I was delighted,' on this the occasion of my first appearance in the House, to hear the eloquent language of the minister, but I regret to have to say that, while admiring his eloquence, I cannot also admire his logic. I regret to say that I can neither agree with his logic nor with his conclusions. I also desire to thank the hon. gentleman for the compliments he paid to our splendid province and its representatives. He has argued, as most of the speakers on the government side have argued, up to a certain point in agreement with the position taken by the people of British Columbia. I think I can say that as regards the economic phase of the question, we are m accord. The First Minister himself has stated much more eloquently than I could hope to do, the exact economic changes involved in bringing these Asiatics and orientals into Mr. RALPH SMITH.
the province of British Columbia. He has explained that owing to their environment in their native country, to the fact that for generations they have lived in poverty and distress, the presence of any considerable number of them in that portion of Canada creates a disturbance in the economic conditions. We are at one on that part of the question. But it seems to me that when hon. gentlemen opposite reach a crucial point in their argument, they fail to follow it out to a logical conclusion ; they point in a more or less distracted way to the old flag and in various -ways endeavour to avoid the logical conclusion of their argument. That has been the case with all the speeches from the other side that I have listened to so far. They say that if it was only the economical question that was in dispute, that could be easily settled.
But they have gone on and told us that there was danger to the empire at large. Sir, what are the arguments they have advanced in support of their attitude in that respect ? Not only during the last campaign, but during the last eight years, I have failed to find a single argument advanced by any member of this government to support their contention that the people of British Columbia are guilty of any disloyalty to the empire in the attitude they have taken on this question. Both the Prime Minister and the Postmaster General have told us that if we push the policy we have taken with regard to this question to a conclusion, we are likely to disturb the friendly relations existing between the empire and Japan. Now let us look at this question from a non-partisan standpoint, as one appealing to the whole Canadian people. My good friend the Postmaster General says that the people of British Columbia do not understand this question, that they do not understand the people of Japan. He says, they have not visited Japan, as I have done. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is true, we have not been so fortunate as to be able to visit that beautiful country he describes, at the expense of the Canadian people. But I venture to say that if we were sent over to Japan as delegates from the province of British Columbia, or from the Dominion of Canada, we would not come back and recommend to this parliament that they should place the control of immigration into Canada in the hands of the Japanese government. I will go further and say that if the Postmaster General himself would visit that great province of Manitoba, that was so eloquently referred to by the mover of the address as the granary of the world, if he would go farther and visit the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta and observe their flocks of cattle on a thousand hills or if he would go still further west and stand on the summit of the Rock-

ies and look over that sea of mountains, to quote the words of a Liberal leader of former days, if he would take note of the splendid natural resources of that great province, of her lakes and rivers, of her immense wealth in minerals, fisheries and timber ; if he would look over this vast heritage and realize that the men who are called upon to develop these immense resources are of the Canadian race, descendants of the great Anglo-Saxon race that has done so much for the civilization of the world, I venture to say that even the Postmaster General, however much he may admire our little brown friends in Japan, would not say that we should give up to them the task of peopling and developing that province.
I venture to say that even the hon. Postmaster _ General would hesitate to hand over this vast Dominion to these people, as ii6 is advocating at tliis time. The answer of the hon. Postmaster General is that we have the assurance of the Japanese government, both by word of mouth and in writing, from the \ oar 1900, and that assurance Has been repeated in ten or twenty communications from that government since that time, that there would be no immigration from that country to Canada exceeding 600 a year, and yet I find in Hansard, in a speech of the Minister of Agriculture c.emered in this House seven years afterwards, the statement that in ten months 8J25 Japanese had come into Canada What explanation does the Minister of Agriculture make of that fact ? He said : It is true, 8,125 Japanese came into Canada from January to September, but of that number some 4,000 come from the islands of Hawaii and some 900 came in under contract for certain immigration agencies or bureaus, and a certain number passed through to the United States, leaving something like 3,000 remaining in Canada according to the minister's own figures. But when we go behind the statement of the Minister of Agriculture, we find that every one of those immigrants had a passport direct from the Japanese government, as was brought out at the investigation in Victoria. This shows that there is nothing in the spoken or written promise of the Japanese government. What difference does it make to the labourers or artisans of British Columbia whether these men are brought in under contract or as free labourers? If you bring 900 or 9,000 Japanese into the labour market, under contract, you are doing the very thing that we in the west and the whole of Canada are fighting against. We want this country for our own Canadian people. But we find that the wages of our labourers and artisans are being cut down by the influx of these people into our country. We are told that this is more or less a local question. When it comes up for discussion, as it will later on, we shall be able to bring forward such facts
and arguments as will convince both sides of this House that it is not merely a provincial question affecting the province of British Columbia alone, but a question affecting gravely the whole Dominion of Canada, and affecting the whole British empire.
There is a side of this question that has never yet been touched upon, so far as I have seen, on reference to Hansard, or heard in any of the speeches I have listened to from time to time. The hon. Postmaster General has referred to the fact that the Japanese are aggressive and intelligent, and he afterwards took credit to the government that by increasing the head tax on the Chinese from $50 to $500, they had done much to shut out the Chinese. He did not agree with the hon. member for Nanaimo, but said:	'I make a clear distinction between the Chinese and the Japanese'; and he went on to explain what the distinction was. He said that the Chinese engaged in more menial occupations than the Japanese, that they were not so advanced in western civilization. I want to point out that that is the very thing that makes them all the more dangerous. On this point I will call the attention of the government to the report of their own royal commission, consisting of three Liberals, appointed to investigate this question some years ago, when the various boards of trade and labour organizations throughout British Columbia and the other western provinces were bringing the question to the attention of the country. That commission consisted of Mr. Clute, who has since become a judge, Mr. Foley and Mr. Munn. That commission investigated the question with a good deal of care, and the gist of their report was that the admission of the Japanese into the Dominion, and particularly the province of British Columbia, was more dangerous and more inimical to the interests of the people of Canada than an influx of even the Chinese. But, Sir, notwithstanding the finding of their own royal commission, notwithstanding that they sent one minister twice and another minister once to Japan to study the question, the government of Canada have done practically nothing other than to get the personal assurance of the Japanese government that they themselves would restrict this immigration. The hon. member for Nanaimo tells us this afternoon that under the agreement made by the Japanese government with the Postmaster General the immigration of these people has been restricted to such an extent that in certain months of the year not more than twenty-three or twenty-four come in. But the agreement the Postmaster General made could not possibly restrict immigration from Janan. I find from a stenographic report received by the Japanese newspapers on the discussion that took place in the Diet of Tokio, the minister with whom he had the correspondence spoke as follows :

Japanese newspapers received in yesterday s mails give stenographic reports of the discussion in the Diet at Tokio regarding the question of Japanese immigration to Canada. Count Hayashi, Foreign Minister, in the course of a long speech is reported as having declared that after the Vancouver riots Canada asked Japan to negotiate a treaty differentiating labour immigration from her shores and that the Japanese government bad replied that it could not possibly negotiate any treaty differentiating injuriously against its own nationalists, and that all negotiations having that object must be futile.
Nevertheless, Canada has sent Hon. Mr. Lemieux to this country last November, with instructions to negotiate such a convention if possible. In that respect the envoy's mission had failed, but he had received assurances from the Japanese government that would continue to exercise to the full all the functions delegated to it by law in this matter.
Notwithstanding that at that particular time the Postmaster General was negotiating this very treaty, this minister of the Japanese government claims that the only treaty that could possibly be made must be carefully defined within these lines. Such a treaty is certainly not such a treaty as was described by the Postmaster General in his speech on Friday last. I quote further from the remarks of this Japanese minister:
Mr. Lemieux had asked for an interchange of documents in that sense, and despatches were given which have already been published. The question then arose as to exactly what immigrants were to be vetoed, and it bad been agreed that no restriction whatever should be imposed with regard to the following, namely:
This is the gist of the whole matter:
first, travellers, merchants and students; secondly, Japanese subjects who, although belonging to the labouring class, had their wives and families in Canada; thirdly, labourers who had returned to Japan from Canada and who contemplated going back to Canada; fourthly, contract labourers, that is to say, men having fixed employment; fifthly, Japanese subjects discharging the duties of domestic servants and accompanying their employers; and, sixthly agricultural labourers Obviously the only labourers not included in this category were those who drifted to Canada without any resources of their own and on the chance of finding employment.
Ip other words, this is a distinct declaration that the Japanese government would enter into no negotiations with the Postmaster General for a treaty which would debar these particular classes from free entry into Canada. It was not argued by any member from British Columbia-at an'j rate it was not argued in my constituency-that the treaty gave any special privileges to the Japanese outside of the Immigration Act, but what I do say is that the Japanese government distinctly stated that they would not be restricted further than our Immigration Act restricted other Mr. GOODEVE.
nationalities. The fact is that the Japanese government have simply given an assurance to the Canadian government that in so far as it is reasonable or in so far as they themselves are satisfied they will restrict immigration, while at the same time they hold themselves free at any time to allow the immigration of all these classes which I have enumerated and which include the very labourers and artisans about whom we have been speaking.
We grant that the Japanese are a people who are rapidly taking up with western ideas. They have a territory of over one million square miles and a population of over forty million people. The Postmaster General argued on Friday last that we are constantly increasing our intercourse with these eastern nations, and he suggested that when the time came, and it was rapidly approaching he said, that we would have an ' all red route,' intercommunication between us and oriental nations would increase more and more. Therefore, Sir, the danger will be getting greater as the years roll by. The Japanese people with their enormous population crowded into such a small area are naturally casting their eyes around to see wherein their surplus population may find a home. And, if we have the same great influx of these people into the fair lands of our western shores that we have had in the past, let me ask this House wliat would be the result? In British Columbia we have a large territory and a sparse population, and if the influx of orientals were to continue the time is not far distant when the alien and foreign population would exceed the native population. There is this difference between oriental and European immigration, that the orientals cannot and will not assimilate with our people. We never look to the time when by marriage and inter-marriage with the Chinese and Japanese these orientals shall become assimilated with the people of our race. Every man in this House knows that is an impossible thing. I ask you then, in what position will Canada be when we have several hundred thousand of these orientals, remaining loyal to their own flag and unassimilated with us. Do hon. gentlemen think what the result might be in case of war ? There is not a single Japanese who leaves his native land who is not enlisted and who does not report every three years to his home government. What would such men do in the case of a call to arms for the defence of Canada? Hon. gentlemen opposite may perhaps say that I am raising a bugaboo, but is it not well that in the government of a nation we should look to the future ? We trust, Sir, that the alliance between the Biitish empire and the Japanese empire may long continue, we believe it will, but when we are dealing with such a question as this we must look at it in all its aspects. It is only ordinary prudence that we should

endeavour to see what may occur in the future, and what effect our policy of to-day may in the years to come have upon our country and our empire. Only to-day I read a despatch in the newspapers- I may say, however, that I have no confidence in that despatch-only to-day I read in the newspapers that one of the leaders of the pc-ople to the south has declared that if the United States should continue in their policy of withdrawing their warships from the Pacific ocean it will mean war. I mention that merely to show what the trend of public opinion is and how the people of the United States realize that the great Pacific slope is looked at with longing eyes by these oriental races. It is therefore necessary that every Canadian, no matter what his politics, should realize that this is no longer a question for British Columbia alone. It is a question that concerns every man, woman and child, not only in the Dominion of Canada, but in every part of this great empire of ours. We should view it from that broad standpoint, we should realize that any action we may take now should be taken for the benefit of the whole empire. When the question of this tieaty with Japan first arose it was submitted to the government then in power in Canada, and they suggested to the Colonial Secretary that Canada could only accept that treaty if there was a clause in it giving us control of our own immigration. The question remained in abeyance for several years, and although the present government of Canada had all the information concerning it before them, although they had sent their ministers three times to Japan to study the question, although the British gcvernment itself had called the attention of the Canadian government especially to the matter and asked if they wanted any restriction, this government said: no, and they deliberately signed that treaty without any provision whatever for the restriction of immigration into Canada. We in British Columbia are meanwhile the sufferers from the economic disturbance caused by the results of this treaty, and so we realized more than did the people of eastern Canada what this disturbance means, and we took up the issue. When the question comes up later on we shall endeavour to place our arguments in such light before this House that I think the House will agree that some steps must be taken to restrict the Japanese in their free ingress and egress to this country. That is the whole question. We are just as loyal to the empire as are the gentlemen who sit on the government benches; we admire as much as they do the progressiveness of the Japanese people, but we say that in considering this question we have got to view it in the light of a business proposition. Why, as the Postmaster General argued should they feel any offence, why should their feelings be hurt because we make laws in regard to
the restriction of the entrance of their people into this country? Would it not have been a reasonable proposition? Do we not impose similar restrictions in regard to our own people? We know that under the Immigration Act we restrict the entrance of even our own people into the country. Then is there any reason why we should not in the same way restrict the immigration of Japanese?
The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith) has made much of the fact of a certain telegram having been sent to Victoria in regard to this question. Speaking for my district, I never saw that telegram, I never heard of it, I never heard it read or knew anything about it until I heard of it in this House on Friday afternoon. It had little bearing in my district of Kootenay. Some one may have read it, and I accept the word of the hon. member (Mr. Ralph Smith) that it was read in his presence, but as he stated I was not present at the time and I repeat that I never heard of it and know that it had nothing whatever to do with the question. I was surprised that the hon. member (Mr. Ralph Smith) seemed to think the whole crux of the question rested on that telegram. Yet what was the real argument in regard to it ? Simply that if he was correct, if his arguments were correct, then the people of British Columbia are very much in earnest on this question. If that telegram swayed votes in favour of the opposition as against the government, there is only one conclusion to be drawn and that is that they are very much in earnest in regard to this question and want it settled along lines that will preserve to them the good heritage of this Dominion of ours.
In regard to the question of better terms, the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) said that the Hon. Mr. McBride's mission at the conference of the premiers in regard to this question was a failure. I venture to differ from him in regard to that. When the province of British Columbia applied for an independent tribunal to try their case, they were refused, and instead of giving them an independent tribunal the goi eminent called for a conference of the premiers of the various provinces to go into this whole question. There was nothing wrong in that, but I appeal to your sense and judgment whether or not that was an independent tribunal as putting the claim of one province against the claim of another province. Every member, every school boy, knows that if any one of those premiers had given more to one province than he obtained for his own, the first question asked of him on returning to his constituents would be : Why did you not get as much as the other provinces ? That is natural, that is right and that is fair and yet I can prove to you that our claim was so just that even the biassed

and I say advisedly, prejudiced tribunal admitted the right of the province of British Columbia to special consideration and so the Hon. Richard McBride did not fail in his mission here at that conference. I have here the resolution adopted by that conference, a tribunal composed of premiers, every one fighting for his own province. Yet they felt that our position was so just that they passed this resolution :
That in view of the large area, geographical position and very exceptional physical features of the province of British Columbia, it is the opinion of this conference that the said province should receive a reasonable additional ailowanoe for the purposes of civil government in excess of the provisions made in the Quebec resolutions of 1902, and that such additional allowance should be to the extent of $100,000 annually for ten years.
I rather regret to say-I may be wrong- but I thought I detected certain sarcasm beneath the words of the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) when he said that the province accepted the $100,000 for ten years, or $1,000,000, although they said it was not enough. Is there anything wrong in the province having accepted that concession ? Would you have them act as children and when they asked for a cake and get only half a cake throw it down and say : I will not take it ? I venture to say there was nothing wrong in the province of British Columbia accepting the $1,000,000 that was offered them, at the same time entering their protest that it was not a fair or adequate amount under the conditions. Mr. McBride's mission was not a failure.
Then the Postmaster General (Mr. Le-mieux) said that Mr. McBride went to the foot of the Throne and again was not successful. I intend to prove from the resolution that Mr. McBride was successful. After having obtained an admission from a prejudiced tribunal that the province was entitled to special and exceptional terms to the extent of $1,000,000, Mr. McBride went to London. We had from the First Minister himself a statement that that was a final and unalterable settlement, that it had been settled by the conference of premiers of the provinces and was final. But, Sir, the premier of the province of British Columbia did not so regard it and I am glad to say that in this he was supported by the leader of the opposition in the British Columbia House at Victoria, Mr. J. A. Macdonald, who himself moved a resolution in which he said that the amount was inadequate and that therefore they did not want this to be a final and unalterable settlement. The result of that was that the legislature unanimously, Liberals and Conservatives alike, agreed to send the premier of the province to- the foot of the Throne to argue that the Mr. GOODEVE.
rights of the province were denied by the Liberal government at Ottawa. I venture to say again that they were successful because I find that when the premier of the province of British Columbia went home and placed this matter before the British government he obtained this communication :
Downing Street, June 5, 1907. To the Hon. Richard McBride,
Hotel Victoria, London.
I am directed by the Earl of Elgin to inform you that His Lordship has given the most careful consideration to the documents which you presented to him and to the views advanced against the proposed amendment of the British North America Act fixing the scale of payments be made by the Dominion of Canada to the several provinces.
2. Lord Elgin fully appreciates the force of the opinion expressed that the British North America Act was the Tesult of terms of union agreed upon by the contracting provinces and that its terms cannot be altered merely at the wish of the Dominion government.
I am to add that no mention will be made in the imperial act of the settlement being final and unalterable, such terms being obviously unappropriate in a legislative enactment.
I venture to say that the hon. the Postmaster General was incorrect in both the assertions he made. Mr. McBride was both successful in the conference and successful with the home government. He had these words struck out so that in the future we can easily obtain justice and fair-play for i ur province.


Mr. JAMES DAVIS TAYLOR (New Westminster).: Although the ground has been very fully covered by other members from British Columbia, I consider it my duty to rise and add my quota to the explanations which have been made regarding the special case of the province of British Columbia. Let me say at the outset that I appreciate the compliment paid to the members on the Conservative side from British Columbia by the right hon. the leader of the government when he said that in our province this election was fought on principle, and I wish to congratulate the Conservative members generally on his further statement that in the other provinces the test was not so much of principle as an appeal to sectional feeling and prejudices. I would like to point out that the result of the appeal to principle in British Columbia was a substantial Conservative majority, and that the result of the sectional appeals throughout the rest of Canada was a Liberal majority. We have the admission of the right hon. gentleman himself to this effect, when he told us that his party had adopted a pamphlet issued against it by a certain organization in this Dominion, but intended only as an address to those interested in the principles of that organization. Well, we hove the First Minister admitting that his

party had circulated that same appeal in quarters hostile to the organization which issued it; and had done this for the purpose of injuring the Conservative party.
It seems to me that this debate has taken a most extraordinary turn, and that we have reached a new era in parliamentary affairs when we find the leader of the House, in his speech on the address, making no mention of the legislation promised and giving no explanation of any of the measures outlined in the speech from the Throne, but instead making theatrical production of shoddy in the shape of a disputed telegram and laying a copy of it on the table, although it was well known to his associates at least that that telegram had been repudiated by the hon. gentleman whose name was signed to it. It certainly was a most unusual experience for a new member to be taunted, as the hon. member for Victoria was taunted the other night by the leader of this House, with having secured his seat by false pretenses and with occupying a seat which by right should belong to another. I think we should have further explanation as to the origin of that telegram. I think we should have heard something on that point from the hon. member from Nanaimo (Mr. Smith), who took up a good deal of time this afternoon. We should have heard something from him regarding the control of the ' Colonist,' in which that telegram appeared It would certainly have come with very gcod grace from him to tell the House that the ' Colonist ' is not in any sense of the word a concern in which the Conservative party has any proprietary control. The ' Colonist,' so far as its ownership is concerned, is a thoroughly independent newspaper, and its editor is one of the most pronounced and prominent Liberals in all British Columbia, and a close personal friend, if I am not very much mistaken, of the hon. member from Nanaimo, who this afternoon sought to make the House believe that this telegram had emanated from sources entirely favourable to the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Barnard), and that the Conservative party should be held responsible for the use made of it. I would like to add that the facts I have mentioned regarding the control of the ' Colonist ' are very well known to the members of this government. It seems to me-and I say it with all the humility which becomes a young member making his first appearance that it is not in accord with parliamentary traditions that stigma should be cast on a whple party because of a document as to which that party cannot be held responsible.
I wish to add that I do not impute any wilful wrong to the 'Colonist ' newspaper or its editor. In justice to one of the great newspapers of British Columbia- and with which I had at one time a pretty long connection-I can say that, so far as I know, that newspaper is conducted now, as
ever, on the most honourable lines. I would like to have an explanation as to how this telegram came to be distorted, but 1 would not for a moment attribute any wilful distortion to the ' Colonist.' But when you examine the words substituted, namely, ' The absolute exclusion of Asiatic labour,' and contrast them with the words said by the leader of the opposition to have been in the telegram signed by him, namely, ' the absolute protection of white labour/ when you contrast these and get ycur mind away, for the moment, from the enormity of making any alteration whatever in a telegram published with the signature of the author, you will find that, after all, there is very little difference between them.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
Mr, J. D. TAYLOR. You will find, I say, Mr. Speaker, that there is very little difference between them. I would like to impress that particularly upon the hon. member for Nainaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith), and ask him, as the representative par excellence of the labour interest, what difference he sees between the absolute protection of white labour in British Columbia and the exclusion of Asiatics from British Columbia. To my mind, the terms, in meaning are identical. But I can well see the point which the right hon. gentleman who introduced this matter before the House might have made against the leader of the opposition if he could have fastened upon him the responsibility of sending the telegram as it appeared. It is quite plain to any one who considers the matter that in the face of the Japanese treaty, in the face of the possibility that the sender of that telegram might, within a short time, have had to assume the responsibility of leading the government of this country, it would have been a very undignified position for him to take to send a message which might have been interpreted as a message of defiance to the Japanese people with whom we had a treaty. Under the treaty, and the agreement in connection with it, the condition of affairs in British Columbia with respect to the Japanese would have been very much better than it had been in the past, especially the then recent past. While we can well understand the caution which would move the leader of the opposition in sending the telegram,
I say, as a member of the Conservative party in British Columbia and in this House, that, whether or not our leader sent the telegram, that our policy was one of absolute exclusion of Asiatics from British Columbia, I do believe that that is the policy of the Conservative party of Canada, and I do maintain that, so far as the members from British Columbia can be influential in shaping the policy of the Conservative party, they will stand to a man in fa-

Your of the exclusion of Asiatics from our magnificent province.
Another reason suggests itself to my mind -and probably will suggest itself to the minds of others-for the extraordinary heat shown by the leader of this government in connection with this Japanese question. It occurs to me that this Japanese treaty was of the nature of a personally-conducted excursion into the realm of legislation, and that it followed the appearance of the siren within the precincts of the Privy Council. It appears to me that the fatality attending upon these personally-conducted excursions has had an irritating effect upon the right hon. gentleman. When we see the latest excursion of this kind followed by the disappearance of the Minister of In land Revenue, and when we recall that a previous essay of this nature was _ followed by the disappearance of a Minister of the Interior, and when we remember certain negotiations from which the Minister of Railways was excluded, followed by the disappearance of that Minister of Railways, we can understand the heat with which the subject is approached by the Prime Minister, and his natural annoyance that a third should have been added to the cabinet fatalities, and that he should be held, in a measure, responsible for the disappearance of his unfortunate colleague.
Now, we heard the right hon. gentleman challenge the patriotism of the members from British Columbia when he said-I speak from recollection-that our attitude with regard to Asiatic immigration was a menace not onlv to the interests of Canada but of the whole British empire. Sir, we are not a peculiar people in British Columbia. The most of us are Canadians from the eastern provinces who have been attracted by the greater opportunities of the west, but who, in our progress westward, have not had our vision narrowed. We have not lost anything of our affection for Canada or for the British empire because we have removed from Quebec or Ontario to British Columbia. But we think we can claim that we see this Asiatic problem with clearer vision than that of our fellow countrymen who have remained in the east. We do not want to see the Japanese planted in our fields. We do not want to hand over our fisheries, as has been the case with the Fraser river, to the
swarm of their boats. Emphatically we do not want to surrender our anchorage in the harbour of Esquimalt or the harbour of Vancouver to the warships of the Japanese nation. The Prime Minister suggested that these ships would be likely to ride at anchor there at a future date to protect us from molestations by enemies of our Empire. I may say that no man in British Columbia that I ever heard indicated that he looked for foreign molestation from any quarter which Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.
would cause us to welcome the protection of the Japanese fleet. I do not know that any person in British Columbia has ever feared that the time would come when the power of the British navy would be insufficient to protect our shores. If I have heard criticism in that respect, it has been of the policy of the Canadian government, which policy has dismantled our only naval station in British Columbia and has made of the great naval yard at Esquimalt little but a wreck and has left us, indeed, at the mercy of any hostile vessels that might have come there. I say, we are not apprehensive of hostilities from any quartei. But when we think of these matters, we remember that a few years ago we had a naval base and that to-day there are no ships of war there. And when we look for the cause, we find it largely in the refusal of the government of Canada to contribute to the cost of imperial na.val defence or to take any part in negotiations said to have been set afoot by the British authorities with the view of a businesslike arrangement to that effect.	.
Before I leave this subject of oriental immigration I would like to say that the position in British Columbia is very much aggravated by the attitude of this government towards the Japanese who have come to our province and are naturalized there. It is bad enough to have these people monopolizing our industries, especially to have them take possession of the sockeye fishery of the Fraser, but when we find the government proposing to put these orientals by thousands upon the voters' list in British Columbia and so place them in a position to swamp the white vote, then the electors of a riding such as New Westminster, which I have the honour to represent, believe that it is time for a pause, believe that it is time to take most resolute action to arouse public opinion to the danger to which we are exposed, the danger of humiliation in an electoral sense brought upon us by the most peculiar attitude of this government m relation to the Japanese. We find on the records of three or four years ago a most indignant remonstrance by the then Minister of Justice of Canada against an Act of the legislature of British Columbia denying to Asiatics, the right to be registered on the voters' list of that province.
The Minister of Justice of that day, endorsed by his colleagues, declared that the province of British Columbia should not be allowed to deny the privilege of the franchise to naturalized subjects of His Majesty; and that representation should be made to that province to the effect that naturalized Asiatics should go upon the voters' lists. Now when this proposition came to be discussed by this government they knew the extent to which the J apanese had been naturalize 1 in British Columbia, and in New West

minster particularly. It is part of the Dominion fishery laws that no man can obtain a fishing license for the salmon fishery unless he is a naturalized British subject. We had at that time close upon
3.000	naturalized Japanese holding fishing licenses, and the proposition of the government virtually was to put that whole
3.000	on the voters' list in British Columbia, mainly in the riding of New Westminster. I appeal to any person who can understand the meaning of an Act of that kind, I appeal to his sense of fair play, whether any community would be true to itself that remained inactive, and did not strain every nerve to resist such a proposition, that did not do as we have done, and form Asiatic Exclusion leagues, which have done so much to educate the people of British Columbia and to make possible the emphatic answer we returned to the policy of this government.
Now a few words on the subject of better terms. It seems to me that the case has not been so fully stated by the members of the government as it might have been, seeing that they are so much more conversant with the facts than the average men can be. This is a matter of first importance in British Columbia. Our application for an increase, which we call better terms, had been before the government of Canada for about six years. We were able to show by the most detailed calculations that we were paying into the federal exchequer a sum in excess of the other provinces, proportionately, and that we were not getting back what was rightly due us. We were exasperated that the government, year after year, made no reply to our appeal for redress, and virtually ignored us. Finally the premier of British Columbia received an invitation from the Prime Minister of Canada to come down to Ottawa, not to discuss the matter with the other provincial premiers alone, but to discuss it also with His Majesty's ministers, with a view to a solution of a long standing problem. Mr. McBride's grievance began when he arrived at Ottawa and proposed to discuss with His Majesty's ministers the special claim of British Columbia, that did not involve the other provinces at all. We had a claim that was not shared by the other provinces, and we addressed that claim solely to the government of Canada. I say that when he came to Ottawa, and when His Majesty's ministers refused to discuss that claim, and told him that he must take it before a conference of provincial premiers, that the federal government would not consider any representations at all except such as came from that conference, then of course Mr. McBride was forced to take his case before those premiers, and according to all the reports we have received he presented his case in a most heroic manner. I say that he achieved a
signal triumph when he obtained from the conference of provincial premiers a verdict that in consideration of the special disabilities of the province, we were entitled to a 'reasonable compensation' in addition to what we received from all other sources. Now, Mr. Speaker, those were the terms of the resolution passed by the provincial premiers, namely, that we were entitled to reasonable compensation. And what we hold now, what we have been pressing on our constituents during the recent campaign, is that the government of Canada, as at present constituted and then constituted, distinctly refused to enter into any calculation to ascertain what was a reasonable compensation. We were told that we must accept the frivolous sum awarded by that conference, and the government refused to make any calculations to ascertain whether it was reasonable or unreasonable. On the other hand, we have received from the leader of the Conservative party a distinct pledge that if he were placed in power he would refer our case to an independent tribunal to ascertain the amount to which we were entitled, and I appeal to any fair-minded man whether the leader of the Conservative party can be accused of bribing the province of British Columbia, whether he has not acted fairly towards the province and whether we would not have been unworthy of the support of our constituents if, having been turned down by the present government, we had not made the appeal of the leader of the opposition to put himself on record. Can any person in this House or out of it hold for one moment that a fair and distinct promise publicly made by the leader of a party upon a great public question like that, can be regarded as a bribe ? I wish to refer for a moment to the extraordinary attitude taken by the minister representing British Columbia in the Cabinet. We were told by Mr. Templeman that the question of better terms was as dead as Julius Ceasar. Well Sir, our reply is the empty seat of the Minister of Inland Revenue. He it is who perhaps is as dead as Julius Ceasar, and were it not for the esteem in which the late member for Comox-Atlin is held bv his constituents, and deservedly held, as a gentleman who has been most diligent in looking after the affairs of his riding, the Minister of Inland Revenue would remain as dead as Julius Caesar. Whether or not he will have opposition, I have no information. but I say that if the Minister of Inland Revenue is resurrected, it will be solely because of the compassion of the electors of Comox-Atlin for that hon. gentleman, because they wrill not desire to see the undoubted sacrifice made in vain, which has been made by Mr. Sloan in retiring from this House.
Now I desire to say a few words bearing more directly upon some of the subjects

mentioned in the speech from the Throne. I dissent from the position laid down by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that because he has been re-elected by his constituents, and because this government has been returned to power, he has a right to regard the charges made against himself and this government as having been disposed of. To my mind the minister and the rest of the members of the government still stand arraigned at the bar of public opinion, and must be judged by their action upon the report of Mr. Justice Cassels. In regard to the reference in the address to this report, I would remind you that in 1891 we had a similar *condition of affairs in this House. We had a serious arraignment of the government of that day. We had a report presented exonerating a minister of guilty knowledge of irregularities in his department. But he resigned his portfolio, because he felt that he had not been sufficiently conversant with the operations of his department, and had not discovered the irregularities that the commission found to exist in it. We had an amendment to the Criminal Code at that day, introduced by the then Minister of Justice, Sir John Thompson, providing certain punishment for offences of that nature. It seems curious that no steps have ever been taken, under the special clauses inserted in the Criminal Code by Sir John Thompson, to deal with offences by employees of the government against the government. I for one would have liked to have heard on this occasion how it is that there have been no prosecutions under these provisions, whether it is because Sir John Thompson was so poor a draftsman that he was not able to draft a section covering cases of this kind, a supposition which I do not think any one in this House will admit for a moment-or whether it is the benevolent intention of the government to absolve all the persons shown to be guilty of having used the money of this country for their private benefit, by passing an Act which shall not be retroactive but apply only to offences committed subsequent to its adoption. I think we should have some explanation why there have been no prosecutions, why matters in this respect have been allowed to drift.
Mr. Speaker, I have no more to add. I have to thank the House for the patience with which they have listened to me on this occasion, and to join in the hope expressed by my colleagues from British Columbia that on a more fitting occasion we shall have the subjects of more particular importance to our province brought before this House and discussed at greater length, so that we may have a thorough understanding as to the attitude of the government and as to what we may expect to Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.
be done for the advantage of British Columbia during the term of this parliament.


Edward Norman Lewis: Mr. Speaker, owing to indisposition I was unable to hear the first part of this debate.
I have, however, read the speeches delivered on Friday and have heard the hon. gentlemen who have addressed the House to-day, and I wish to congratulate the province of British Columbia on the contingent which it has sent to represent it in this House. The hon. gentlemen who have preceded me have been discussing the yellow labour question. I wish for about ten minutes to discuss a white labour question, one which is very material to the interests of Canada and is of special personal interest to the members of this House. It is a question affecting labourers who, most of them will claim, are harder worked and less paid than any others on this continent; I refer to the labourers for the Dominion of Canada whom I see around me. I wish, Sir, to bring to your notice- and I do so without any political animus whatsoever, but simply for the good of Canada-the question of the length of the session. For eight long months, mostly within a year from now, the parliament of Canada was in session here. The question which I wish to ask is this: To what end did the legislation of those eight months tend? Did it tend to benefit the Dominion of Canada for the time spent ? The opposition and the government were like two hostile fleets reconnoitering and man-oeuvering for one purpose only-to influence the impending general election; they were trying to get the weather gauge on each other; and I contend that if that session had lasted but three months, it would have served the general good of Canada quite as well as it did. I do not mean to say for one moment that one side is more obstructionist than the other. In what I am about to say I do not mean to reflect on the members from British Columbia who have spoken in this debate, because so far as I have heard or read their speeches, they have not conflicted with each other; there has been no tautology or reiteration in them. But the habit has been growing in this parliament that when a member from one of the smaller provinces makes a speech on a subject pertaining to that province, every other member from the province gets up and goes over the same ground. There should be some changes in our practice. We have drifted into a system of managing the public business that is very detrimental to the interests of the country. We take longer to do the business of the country than any other parliament on the face of the earth. I have looked into the matter, and I find that during the eight months this parliament

was in session last year we passed 157 Bills. In the province of Quebec the legislature was in session one month and twenty-two days and passed 218 Bills. In the province of Ontario the legislature was in session two month's and twenty days and passed 146 Bills. The imperial parliament at Westminster passes on an average between 200 and 300 Bills in a session shorter than ours. In the United States there are introduced into congress upwards of 15,000 Bills on the average every session, and upwards of 2,000 are passed. The sessions last an average of five months. I contend that we in this parliament have drifted unconsciously into a system of carrying on our parliamentary business which is not suitable to this country. We have adopted the poor rules and not the good rules of the parliament of Great Britain. Now, I do not for one moment advocate what is known as the closure and there is a misconception in the public mind that the Speaker in the British parliament has the power of closure. However, we must remember that the Speaker of the English House of Commons is an entirely different official from our Speaker here. In England the Speaker of the House of Commons is like a judge of the land, appointed for life, but here he is elected each parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: So he is in Great Britain.


Edward Norman Lewis: Yes, but jin the British House the same Speaker is re-elected.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, the election is a mere convention.


Edward Norman Lewis: The same gentleman is elected from parliament to parliament in England. Now, power could be given our Speaker to see that all reiterations were omitted, and as is done in England all questions could be answered in writing and published in 'Hansard,' and if there is anything objectionable in the answers^ it could be referred to later. Another thing that would tend to lessen the length of the sessions would be to insist that all speeches delivered in the House should be of original matter and in the hon. member's own words.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Edward Norman Lewis: If he found it necessary to refer to documents the quotations could be handed into the ' Hansard ' and the Deputy Speaker could act as reviser and strike out anything that might be objectionable in these quotations. That would materially shorten the session. As to the length of speeches, the hon. member who introduces a Bill should be allowed one hour and the gentleman who follows him should be allowed one hour also; the remaining speeches could be curtailed.


Mr. STAPLES.: How are you going to justify the three and a half hour speech you made yourself.


Edward Norman Lewis: I have seen the error of my ways and have reformed. And with reference to that particular speech, had I been allowed to hand in my quotations to ' Hansard ' instead of reading them-and I may say that these quotations are being used tc-day and were used last session by the government to found legislation upon-had I been allowed to publish them without reading them my speech on the transportation question would not have lasted over twenty minutes. There is an old proverb in the oil regions which might be applied to the speeches in this House, and that is that if a man who is making a speech cannot strike oil in 30 minutes he either has a very bad auger or he is boring in the wrong hole.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Edward Norman Lewis: Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not only expressing my own opinion, but I am expressing the opinions of a great many people throughout this country. The greatest movements in the history of nations have arisen, not in the parliament itself but around the smithy fires, in the hotel waiting rooms, in the railway cars, and in the comer stores. I have a letter here .'which was written to me at the end of last session by a gentleman who lives at Snowflake, Manitoba, and who left my native town 15 years ago to seek fortune in the west. He is a strong Liberal and he wrote me that a bunch of them were gathered around the big stove in the store the other evening discussing the federal parliament, and the merchants, the commercial travellers, and the farmers there assembled had come to the conclusion that there was too much talk and ballyragging in the House of Commons and that if there was more common sense displayed there would be a better administration of the laws.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Hear, hear.


Edward Norman Lewis: Another matter of considerable importance is the question of the health of the members of this House. I do not now refer to gentlemen who have been a number of years here and who have grown up on the foul atmosphere, but the figures which I have compiled show that the average number of deaths in the Canadian House of Commons is greater than in that pestilential climate where they are building the Panama canal. During the last ten years 39 members of this House of Commons have died in harness, which shows a higher average than the preceding 10 year period when the sessions were shorter. I 1 leave it to hon. gentlemen who were here



last parliament to agree with me that with the exception of some old veteran war horses, there is not a man who has sat for four years here who is not ten years older than he was four years ago.
Seme hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Edward Norman Lewis: Now, Mr. Speaker, we should certainly get through this session in three months. I had no intention when I rose to speak for more than ten minutes, but some of the hon. gentlemen who desire to come after me are anxious that I should continue until six' o'clock.


Some Hon. MEMBERS.: Hear, hear.


Edward Norman Lewis: I wish to say, Sir, that the greatest speeches that the world has ever known lasted under one hour.


Haughton Lennox: With the exception of yours.


Edward Norman Lewis: 
Ralph Smith: I would like to ask m hon. friend if I understood him to say that I sold the labour men for a price; is that what the hon. gentlemen said?


Mr. CAMPBELL.: That is exactly what I said.


Mr. SPEAKER.: That is going beyond parliamentary language.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Withdraw.


Glenlyon Campbell: If you decide that I should withdraw that expression


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think it is an imputation that should not be made against any hon. member of the House.


Glenlyon Campbell: I should be very pleased to comply with anything you say, Sir. And perhaps, Sir, at this stage of the game, coming, as I do, from the wild and woolly west, bred and born there and not up to the ways of the effete east, I shall have to put myself in your charge. I can promise you that as far as I can, I will conform to the ways of civilization, and will try not to make it necessary for you to call me to order, if you will promise me that you will not call me to order any oftener than you can help.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think the hon. member (Mr. Campbell) will understand that the expression referred to ought to be withdrawn.


Glenlyon Campbell: I will withdraw the expression at your order, Mr. Speaker. Now, the matter which particularly brought me to my feet was the reference made by the Prime Minister to the fact that the Manitoba elections had gone against him and his government. I regret exceedingly that the Prime Minister is not in his seat, because I would like to have said what I have to say in his presence, and in the presence of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) whom he designated as his authority for the statement he made to this House. The Prime Minister said that the reason, and the sole reason why the Manitoba elections had gone against his government was that the lists were most outrageous, and he quoted as his authority the hpn. member for Brandon. But. he qualified his quotation of that member as a reliable authority by saying that he thought he could give credence to the hon. member for Brandon. Were the Prime Minister in his seat, I would tell him that he has another thought coming, and I will explain to you, Mr. Speaker, why I say so. The Prime Minister said the lists were most outrageous. Were he here, I would ask him if he had ever read the Franchise Act of Manitoba. Had he read that Act, marked, learned and inwardly digested it, he could not have failed to see that, if lived up to, it was the fairest election law on the statute-book of any

province of this Dominion. It is absolutely impartial. No appointee of the government has the right to put any name on the list, with the exception of the judges of Manitoba, who I understand, are appointed by the Dominion government. Any man, twenty-one years of age, a British subject, whether by naturalization or by birth, who has lived one year in the province of Manitoba and has lived three months in the constituency, can and must get his name on the list, if he goes and makes personal application. And there is no case-and I state this advisedly-that can be shown of any man, whether Grit or Tory, Independent, Socialist or anything else, who had the right to get his name on that list and who has taken the oath to that effect being kept off the list. These are the absolute facts, as I call all men to witness, and I defy even the hon. member for Brandon himself, and the hon. member for Proven-cher (Mr. Molloy) who comes from Brandon, to deny what I am stating. I will prove it in this way. The 'Telegram,' which is supposedly a paper in the interest of the Conservative party in Manitoba, came out with a challenge. Let me read that part that pertains to this subject :
Firm in this confidence, the 'Telegram' will pay $25 to any qualified elector, who, not being on the voters' list and applying in the regular manner, was refused the right to register in the last revision of the Manitoba voters' lists.
I am not calling any Conservative to prove this case, but I call on every Liberal in the province of Manitoba. I call on every Liberal member who sits here. For, had any Grit in the province of Manitoba known of any case, do you think he would not have tried to earn that $25 ? Would not the hon. member for Provencher, who had an election staring him in the face, have tried to earn that $25 to assist in paying his election expenses ? Even the hon. member for Brandon, who is reported to be a millionaire,-why, $25 would have gone a long way, I feel sure, to save his personal pocket in the cost of his election. And not only that, but it would have justified the stand that the Prime Minister took the other day when he said that he had been defeated by a list which was outrageous. If 'outrageous' in the dictionary of my right hon. friend means right, and proper, and honest, I agree with him. But if it means, what ordinary English dictionaries tell us it means, I cannot agree with him. If he said the lists were outre from the Liberal point of view, or from the point of view of the Liberal party heelers of Manitoba, I would agree with him, because from their experience, a straight list is something that they cannot comprehend.
May I digress to the extent of going back to the system followed by the Greenway government, the former Liberal government Mr. CAMPBELL.
of Manitoba ? When the Greenway government were in power, they brought out one list which one of the most prominent Liberals in Manitoba characterized as a monstrosity of monstrosities. No Liberal can say that of our lists. I venture to say that in the little constituency that I have the honour to represent, where there are between 8,000 and 9,000 voters, not more than ten names had been left off the list that should have been put on, and these, I fancy, were left off by a typographical or clerical error. Besides, of the men whose names were so left off, the majority were supporters of mine. How different from the time of the Greenway government.
They had a Franchise Act and they appointed a partisan registration clerk. He took in the names that were handed to him by any Liberal, and the names that were handed to him by a Conservative were quietly shelved. They had petty lawyers as a rule-I say rule, because it was the rule that obtained in Dauphin-they had a petty lawyer from Winnipeg appointed as judge. I went to him with over 240 names- I am speaking from my own experience- names of my own supporters. I took them to the court of revision for the constituency of Dauphin, and Dauphin, remember, is one-third of the whole province of Manitoba, extending from one side of the province to the other. I went with him over that constituency and gave evidence, and got Liberals to give evidence. I did everything legitimate in the power of man to do to get these men on the list, and out of those 240 there was so few put on the list that it didn't matter much one way or the other. At every court of revision when I gave evidence or procured evidence in regard to any name I wanted on the list, this petty lawyer from Winnipeg who was appointed as a judge, this partisan Grit who was appointed by the Greenway government, would say: I will take this name to Avisandum. He took the list to Avisandum, and that person took it down to Winnipeg. I thought I had sufficient education to understand what Avisandum was, but I did not understand till afterwards that Avisandum meant Theodore Burrows in the city of Winnipeg, the Greenway candidate. That is the way things were manipulated under a Liberal government in our province, and I defy any man in all Canada to controvert successfully what I am saying. The result was that I went out into the election, a byelection at that-because the gentleman I have just mentioned never ran an election in his life till this last time-I went into that election and was counted out by two. And how was that majority of two procured? It was procured by stuffing the ballot box at Fisher river, where only eight men voted. Four of them voted for me, four voted for my opponent, and the others were found in the ballot box. Some of the men whose

ballots were found in the box were visiting in England; two of them were visiting in the happy hunting grounds, .above or below. Those were the methods, that was the style of education I had to learn in regard to politics. I have already mentioned the fact that I could call every Liberal in Manitoba as a witness to the truth of what I say with regard to the Manitoba Franchise Act. I have already mentioned the fact that I could call upon the ex-Minister of the Interior, the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), to deny the truth of what I say. He cannot deny it, because he knows it is true. The other members from Manitoba cannot deny it, because they know it is true. If any Liberal was disfranchised in Manitoba through the fault of the Conservative party in that province, he had a right to be. The challenge came out in the Conservative organ of Manitoba to get out like men and say: That is false and here is the evidence. And when they did not do that, it was time for them to sit down and for ever hold their peace.
I am glad, Sir, to see some reference in the speech from the Throne about the building of the Hudson Bay Railway, and I hope that the right hon. the First Minister, in sending out his survey parties, will carry out the promises made to the people of my constituency by the ex-Minister of the Interior, the member for Brandon, and the promises made by my opponent in the late election. Both of them had the Hudson Bay road surveyed to the house and doorstep of every farmer in my constituency, and I hope that the Prime Minister will see that his survey parties will carry out the promises made by these gentlemen on the public platform in Dauphin.
There is another matter I wish briefly to refer to, and that is the timber regulations that prevail in my locality arid in the province of Manitoba. This is not a matter of national interest, but it is a matter that concerns deeply every man in the district I have the honour to represent. That is not a prairie country like most of the territory of Manitoba, it is a scrub country. A change was made some years ago in the inducements that had drawn most settlers into that country. These inducements were free timber in unlimited quantities. Settlers were induced to come in for the reason that timber was there in unlimited quantities, and it could be cut and used freely, and in any quantity desired by the settlers. Those were the regulations that obtained when settlement first came into Dauphin. Those regulations were changed lately, regulations that had been in force since 1896. At present a farmer can only take from the forest reserve to the amount of 10,000 feet per year, and the amount the farmer has to pay for that 10,000 feet is exactly double what he had to pay under the
former regulations. Now, Sir, if a petition were sent round to the people of that district, there is not a man there who would not sign to have the regulations changed back to what they were before. I might go into this subject at greater length, but I do not wish to detain the House. I may add that when the new regulations went into force the reeve of the new municipality of Dauphin was a Liberal. He is now president of the Liberal Association of Dauphin. Two of the councillors moved a resolution praying that the regulations be changed back to what they were before. Copies of that resolution and that prayer were sent to the various municipalities throughout the province, and over 50 municipalities responded by signing that petition to the government of Canada to change back the regulations. Before I came here I had the pleasure of speaking to the Minister of the Interior on this matter. I told him that I did not desire to make political capital out of it, because I represent the great proportion of the honest Liberals of my constituency as well as all the Conservatives in my constituency. All I desire is fair play to the people in the locality from which I come. All I ask of the hon. Minister of the Interior is the privilege of discussing this matter with him for half an hour, and I know he will grant all I am asking. I have passed over-and I regret that I have- the reason that I might have given the right hon. the First Minister for the defeat of his party in the province from which I come. In the words of a dead language, they are ' multum in parvo.' One word very nearly describes the whole situation from the Manitoba point of view; that word is ' Siftonism.' It is a word that we had to coin. We were compelled to coin a word to describe properly the whole situation. It could perhaps be described in the words of the commission.who made inquiry into the Department of Marine and Fisheries-found conscienceless, ineffective and without any regard for the public weal. That is what defeated in Manitoba the government of the right hon. the First Minister.
Before I sit down I want to refer for a moment to the remarks of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Bro-deur). He was like the rest of the ministers, in that when fault was found with the administration of his department, he laid the blame on some poor old Conservative hack. He did not blame himself for want of horse sense; he blamed some poor Conservative employee. That has been the history of the Department of the Interior. Some years ago the whole law of Canada was changed in the matter of the regulations with regard to the giving of timber to applicants-changed for a few months- changed by the then hon. Minister of the Interior, the present member for Brandon
. COMMONS
(Mr. Sifton)-changed long enough to give fifty square miles of the best timber in the riding that I come from to his brother-in-lawf for ;a nominal sum-giving it away without any tender, simply as a gift from the people of Canada; a gift that lasts not for a few years only, but just as long as he likes to keep it; a gift which evidently, in-the experience of the poor Euthenian farmers who live in that neighbourhood, includes not only the timber, but the little hay which grows in the swamps; because last year the employees of this gentleman seized three or four tons of hay which had been put up within the bounds of that limit by a poor Euthenian farmer who was trying to eke out a living in that neighbourhood. It is shameful, when you think of it, for the brother-in-law of the Minister of the Interior to get anything he asks in the way of timber at a dollar a thousand, and to have the law of Canada changed so that he can get it, and the farmers, who by the labour of their hands and the sweat of their brows are building up that western country, obliged to pay $3 a thousand and to take not more than 10,000 feet, and with no redress if any one else comes in and takes their stuff, while the Mounted Police of the Northwest Territories are brought down at public expense to conserve the interests of my late opponent, Mr. Burrows. Isn't it rctten, Mr. Speaker? There is no* other wcrd that I know of that can properly describe it.
I was speaking of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries. His speech was very similar to the speeches made by my opponent in the campaign through which I passed lately. They were a whine from beginning to end. He was excusing himself all the way. The French axiom, ' Qui s'excuse s'accuse,' describes his position. I would give the hon. minister a pointer. I understand that ' he, or his department through him, has been spending during the past year public money on;, musical instruments in the way of fog-horns. These fog-herns, I understand, do not benefit any of the members on either side of the House with the exception perhaps of one. I would suggest, Sir, that he buy musical instruments that will be a benefit to most of the members of this House, such as megaphones and ear trumpets, so that the members on the back seats can hear what is said.
Motion (Mr. Todd) agreed to.


Wilfrid Laurier: That the said address be engrossed and be presented to His Excelilenoy the Governor by such members of this House as are of the honourable the Privy Council.
Motion agreed to Mr. CAMPBELL.



CHAIEMAN OF COMMITTEES.

Wilfrid Laurier: I have a motion to present to the House which I hope will receive its unanimous assent. I move:


That Gilbert H.: McIntyre, Esq., member for the electoral district of South Perth, Ire appointed Chairman of Committees of the Whole House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. WM. PATEESON (Minister of Customs) moved :: That this House will on Thursday next resolve itself into a committee to consider the supply to be granted to His Majesty.


Mr. E. L. BOEDEN.: When does the House anticipate that the estimates will be brought down and when may we expect the remaining volume of the Auditor General's Eeport ?


William Paterson: It is intended that the estimates will be brought down this week.


Mr.  A. H.@: I understand that the Auditor General's Eeport is in the hands of the printer and will be ready in a few days.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Paterson: That this House will on Thursday next resolve itself into a committee to consider the ways and means for raising the supplies to be granted to His Majesty.


Frederick William Borden: I would like to know whether or not there is any truth in the announcement in the press that a supplementary convention has been signed between Great Britain and France in respect to the confirming or modifying the convention which was drafted last year and ratified by us.
Et, Hon. Sir WILFEID LAUEIEE (Prime Minister). The rumour is correct. I have had communication from Mr. Fielding to the effect that a new arrangement has been entered into with the French government; the only substantial change from the old treaty being as regards fat cattle and conditions for slaughter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
NEW WING OF HOUSE OF*COMMONS.
Mr. FOSTEE-by Mr. Taylor (Leeds)- asked :
1.	What is the cost to date of construction and furnishing respectively, of the new wing of the House of Commons; how many new

rooms and with what floor space have been provided how many old rooms and with what floor space have been eliminated in the process of construction; what number of employees have been provided in the new rooms and what number have been ousted from the eliminated rooms?
2.	What is the estimated cost to complete in construction and furnishing respectively?
['I understand the reason is this:\tUnder the American\nconstitution, the treaty making power is vested in the President and Senate of the United States, and no treaty can come into force unless it has been ratified by the Senate and by the President. Under our constitution, the treaty comes into force on its ratification by His Majesty the King. The treaty is now on the ocean for the ratification of His Majesty, and perhaps I may be able to inform my hon. friend later whether we can lay it before the House before it has been ratified by His Majesty.']
Hon.   WM@: PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) ;
1.	(a) Paid to date on construction, $247,495.08. Nothing paid on furnishing.
(b)	43 new rooms in new building, 270,926 cubic feet; 13 new rooms in old building, 67,344 cubic feet; total 56 new rooms, 338,270 cubic feet.
(c)	7 rooms eliminated, 22.980 cubic feet.
(d)	and (e) To be answered by the Speaker of the House of Commons.
2.	Construction, say	$90,000
Furnishing, say	15,000
The answer to the last paragraph of the first question furnished by Mr. Speaker, and is as follows:


Mr.   L.@: Dube, housekeeper, has lost three rooms by the erection of the new building; Mr. C. George, the Speaker's steward, has been given one room in said building.
There have been no	other	changes	affecting the employees	of	the	House	of
Commons, except that Mr. O'Brien, law clerk, Mr. Foran, assistant law clerk, Mr. Laplant, assistant clerk, Mr. Loucks and Mr. Throop, law branch, have been moved to other rooms in old building in lieu of their respective offices. -



[Stage Direction]
Air. FOSTER-by Mr. Taylor (Leeds)- asked :
Are all supplies for the Marine and Fisheries Department and for the Public Works Department now being purchased on the basis of public tender, advertised for in newspapers, irrespective of party leanings, and upon contracts made with the lowest tenderer in each case?
Air. PUGSLEY.: All supplies for Department of Public Works are now being purchased, whenever reasonably possible, on the basis of public tender by public advertisement.


OLD AGE ANNUITIES ACT.
[Stage Direction]
Air. FOSTER-by Air. Taylor (Leeds)- asked :
1.	What persons are employed, and in what capacity, at what salary and expenses in each case, in looking after and operating -the Old Age Annuities Act?
2.	How many persons have availed themselves of the provisions of this Aot, and what is the total amount of annuities sold to date?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER :: 1.	On the inside service a superintendent at $4,000 per annum one French and German translator, who is also a stenographer and typewriter, at $750 per annum; five temporary assistants (one of whom is a stenographer and typewriter) engaged in distributing literature.
On the outside service: one leeturer-in-ehief, at a salary of $1,000 per annum with an allowance of $15 for each lecture delivered, besides actual travelling expenses; one assistant lecturer at $500 per annum, and an allowance of $10 for each lecture delivered, besides actual travelling expenses; and two agents at $1,500 each, besides actual travelling expenses.
2.	As regards this question, a full report will be made in the manner provided for in the statute. Meantime, it may be observed that owing to the complicated character of the calculations required to be made and the difficulty in obtaining books and pamphlets in sufficient number, it has not been possible to commence active operations until within a very few days.


APPOINTMENTS TO CIVIL SERVICE SINCE 1908.
[Stage Direction]
Air. FOSTER-by Mr. Taylor (Leeds)- asked :
1.	What persons have been appointed, transferred or promoted, respectively, since July 1, 1908, in the various departments, coming under the operation of the Civil Service Act of 1908?
2.	What were the positions and salaries of such persons as have been transferred and -promoted at the -time of the change?
3.	What are the positions and salaries at present of all who have been so appointed, transferred or promoted, and which of these appointments, transfers or promotions were made in accordance with the -present Civil Service Act?
Hon.   CHAS@: A1URPHY (Secretary of State). As this motion calls for considerable detail, I would ask to let the question stand as a notice for motion for a return.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The question will stand as a notice of motion for a return.


CIVIL SERVICE REORGANIZATION.
[Stage Direction]
Air. FOSTER-by Mr. Taylor (Leeds)- asked :
1.	What departments of the civil service have been reorganized under section 8 of the Civil Service Act?
2.	What temporary clerks formerly paid out of civil government contingencies have been classified under section 7 of the Civil Service Aot, in what position and at what salaries ?
Hon.   CHAS@: A1URPHY (Secretary of State):
1.	Agriculture, Auditor General, Customs, Finance, Mines, Governor General's Secretary, Library of Parliament, Indian

Affairs, Inland Revenue, Insurance, Justice, Labour, Marine and Fisheries, Militia and Defence, Northwest Mounted Police, Post Office Department, Printing and Stationery, Privy Council, Public Works, Railways and Canals, Secretary of State, Trade and Commerce.
2.	Eighty-five temporary clerks, formerly paid out of Civil Government Contingencies, have been classified under section 7 of the Civil Service Act from the 1st of September, 1908, and have been placed in the 3rd division, subdivision B of the Civil Service Act at the following salaries: 1 at $800, 27 at $700, 19 at $650, 6 at $600, 9 at $550, 23 at $500. Total, 85.
Mr. FOSTER-by Mr. Taylor (Leeds)- asked :
1.	What appointments have been made since September, 1908, under section 21, Civil Service Act?
2.	What sum of money not voted by parliament for civil service salaries has been paid up to date under section 47, Civil Service Act?


Hon. CFIAS. MURPHY (Secretary of State) :: 1.	None.
2.	$8,875.	'
LANDS SOLD FOR GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC STATIONS, &c.
Mr. FOSTER-by Mr. Taylor (Leeds)- asked :
What lands, at what price, and to what persons or corporations have been sold along the route of the Grand Trunk Pacific for station, terminal or town site purposes?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the interior).: As the reply will be somewhat voluminous, I would ask that this question stand as a notice of motion for return.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The question will stand as a notice of motion for a return.


SOUTH AFRICAN VOLUNTEERS SCRIP.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOSTER-by Mr. Geo. Taylor-asked :
1.	What number of scrip have been so far issued on account of South African Veterans' land grants, and what area of land do they cover ?
2.	Have any employees in any of the departments been, to the knowledge of the Government dealing in this scrip? If so, who, in what departments, and what action has been taken by the government in relation thereto?
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):: 1.	3,767 South African bounty land certificates have been issued, covering an area of 1,205,440 acres.
2.	Two officials of the Interior Department, Messrs. J. N. Ferguson and J. Anderson, were reported on the 11th November last to have entered into negotiations with


Mr. MURPHY.: certain volunteers to purchase their volunteer land certificates on behalf of friends. On inquiry being made it was found that in the case of Mr. Anderson he had undertaken to procure the certificate of Mr. George Morse, of Montreal, and in that of Mr. Ferguson the certificates of Mr. Frank H. Prior, of Toronto, and Mr. B. K. Snider, of Montreal. In explanation of their action they represented that they were not aware that in so doing they were violating the provisions of the law. The Dominion Lands Act provides that employees of the Department shall not locate scrip, but makes no pre-vision against their purchasing bounty warrants. While the action of the officials was in fact within the letter of the law, it was considered to be so contrary to its spirit that both men were suspended for a month without pay, and notice was issued to all officials and employees that dealing in volunteer bounty warrants would be followed by instant dismissal.


SEED GRAIN EXPENDITURE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOSTER-by Mr. Geo. Taylor-asked :
What disposition has been made in detail of the vote of $25,000 under miscellaneous, for seed grain in Alberta and Saskatchewan?
Frank Oliver: As the answer to this question
would be very voluminous, I would ask to have it stand as notice of motion for a return.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Stands as a motion for a return.


STEAMER ' LADY EVELYN.'
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOSTER-by Mr. Geo. Taylor-asked :
1.	What was the cost of the steamer ' Lady Evelyn ' at place of purchase ?
2.	What repairs and improvements and at what cost have been since made?
3.	What was the cost of delivering her in Canada?
4.	Under what system are the men provisioned?
5.	When did this steamer arrive in Canada, when was she ready for service, and what actual service has she since performed?
6.	What is her full complement of officers and crew?
7.	What has the operation of the vessel cost up to December 31, 1908?
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General):: 
PURCHASE OF DREDGES-PUBLIC WORKS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOSTER-by Mr. Geo. Taylor-asked:
1.	(a) When was the dredge ' Industry' bought by the Department of Public Works; (b) at what price; (o) and out of what appropriation was payment made?
2.	(a) Were any scows or parts purchased with or for the dredge?. If so, what were they; (b) from whom purchased; (c) at what price, (d) and out of what appropriation were the payments therefor made?
3.	Were the dredge and scows in good order and fully equipped for work at the time of purchase?
4.	If not, what addition and repairs, and at what cost in respect to the dredge and scows, respectively, have since been made or contracted for, and with whom?
5.	(a) Where was the ' Industry ' when purchased; (b) and by what vessel was she taken to the place of repair, and from what place did this vessel start on her mission of transfer?
6.	From whom was this last named vessel purchased, at what price, and whether by tender or otherwise?
7.	(a) When; (b) and by whom was the ' Industry ' built; (c) where, (d) and in what kind of work had she been employed up to the time of her sale to the department; (e) and for what special district was she designed?
8.	(a) On whose special and expert examination and report was the purchase made; (b) where is the dredge now; (c) when will she be ready for work; (d) and what then will be her total cost to the government?
9.	Were tenders called or any offers made to the department for supplying dredges of the capacity required from builders or owners of dredges in connection with the above purchase? If so, who made the tenders or oners, and at what prices?
10.	Will the Minister lay on the table of the House the order in council authorizing the purchase and also the reports of the examining experts on which the purchase was based?
11.	Have any other dredges been purchased since the end of the last session of parliament by the Department of Public Works? If so, from whom, at what price, whether by tender or otherwise, on whose special report, and what additions and repairs made since, and at what cost?
12. Will the Minister lay on the table of the House the orders in council in each case, and the special report on which purchase was based ?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	(a) 3rd September, 1908;	(b)	$157,-
378.78, including plant; (c) ' New dredging plant, maritime provinces.'
2.	(a) One 500 cubic yard scow purchased
at the same time; (b) St. Lawrence River Power Company; (c) $10,000;	(d) 'New
dredging plant, maritime provinces.'
3.	No, but- dredge was in working condition.	.
4.	No repairs to dredge, excepting new boiler to be installed by the Poison Iron Works Company, Limited, at a cost of $9,300. Contract, in the sum of $3,500, has been entered into with John Inglis Company for repairs to scow.
5.	(a) Massena, N.Y.; (b) Delivered by the owners at Cornwall; from Cornwall she was taken by the government steamers 'Hercules' and 'Speedy' to Toronto.
6.	' Speedy ' purchased from Gardner & Cox -for $36,750 in 1904; ' Hercules,' from Poison Iron Works Company for $62,500 in 1908.
7.	(a) In 1906;	(b) Duluth Superior
Dredging Company; (c) Superior, Mich.; (d) Employed by St. Lawrence River Power Company, dredging their waterway; (e) Great lakes.	_
7. (a) Messrs. Thompson, Laurie and Howden; (b) Toronto; (c) 1st of May, 1909; (d) About $175,000, including plant, but not including $39,351.85 duty.
9.	No.
10.	Yes.
11 and 12. No.
I assume this question not to refer to any dredges which are in process of being purchased, the purchase of which has not yet been completed. I mention this so there should not be any' misunderstanding. My department has arranged for the purchase of a Fruhling dredge. The Fruhling dredge is manufactured in Germany and is peculiarly adapted for the dredging of silt, but the purchase is not to be made and no money is to be paid until the dredge is delivered in British Columbia, set up ready to work and after it has been tested for such time as shall be satisfactory to the engineers of my department. I therefore do not consider it to come within the question asked.


CANADIAN MINT-COST AND OPERATION
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOSTER-by Mr. Geo. Taylor-asked :
1.	What is the total cost of the Royal Mint to 31st December, 1908?
2.	What were the total expenses of the Royal Mint for the calendar year 1908, (a) for additions and improvements, (b) for maintenance, (o) for salaries, (d) for bullion copper, silver and gold respectively?
[Stage Direction]
3.	What amount of copper, silver and gold coinage was struck during that time?
4.	What- was the net profit on each kind of coinage?
William Paterson: The Finance Department would like that to stand as a notice of motion for a return.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Stands as a notice of motion for a return.


DISPOSITION OF LOAN.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOSTER-by Mr. Geo. Taylor- asked:
What disposition was made of the loan of $21,900,000 falling due in London on November 1, 1908?
William Paterson: 
William Pugsley: 1 & 2. No.	,


DEPORTATION FROM MONCTON.
James Davis Taylor: 1- Has a boy by the name of Higgs been deported from Moncton to the United States or elsewhere?
2.	What steps have been taken in connection with the deportation of such boy?
3.	What are the circumstances or ground upon which deportation has been decided upon?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):: 1.	No. The Immigration Department has no knowledge of the case.


NET DEBT OF CANADA.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN asked:: 1.	What is the present amount of the net debt of Canada?
2.	What was the increase in the net debt during the twelve months ending 31st December, 1908 ?


George Eulas Foster: 


Hon. WM. PATERSON (for Minister of Finance):: 1.	Net debt 31st December, 1908 (the latest date on which the books were balanced), $291,573,767.02.
2.	$37,830,314.65.


FREE MAIL DELIVERY.
Robert Laird Borden: What principle or policy has been adopted by the government or by the Post Office Department in respect of free mail delivery,
(a)	in towns, (b) in villages, (c) in rural communities ?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: A system of delivery of mail matter by letter carrier is provided whenever the population of a municipality reaches 12,000 and the gross postal revenue $20,000.
The department also provides for the delivery and collection of mail matter to persons residing in rural districts along and contiguous to the line of travel of any existing stage route of one mile and upwards in length, provided that such persons do not reside within one-quarter of a mile of the corporate limits of any city, town or village, and that they shall erect a box (approved of by the department) upon the roadside, to be located in such a manner as to be reached by the courier without dismounting from his vehicle or horse.


THE ALL RED LINE.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN asked:: 1.	What steps has the government taken and what negotiations have been entered into in pursuance of or in connection with the resolution passed by this House on the ninth day of July, 1908, relative to the All-Red Line, so called, therein referred to?
2.	What progress, if any, -has been made in the matter?
3.	To what engagements, if any, has the government committed or agreed to commit Canada in connection with this project?
4.	What is the present position of the matter ?
5.	Has any -definite plan or arrangement been agreed to or arrived at?
6.	Ha,s the government in pursuance of the said resolution suggested or submitted any definite plan or arrangement to the government of Australia and New Zealand, respectively, or to the Imperial government? If so, what is such plan or arrangement?


Mr.  A. H.@: No steps have been taken except to send a delegate to Australia to present the scheme to the Australian government and have a report upon the same. No report has yet been received.


THE FRENCH TREATY.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN asked:: 1.	Has the convention of September 19, 1907, with the Frenoh Republio come into force? If not, what has occasioned the delay?

2.	Is it anticipated that this convention will soon come into force? If so, when?
3.	For what reason has France failed to approve the convention?
4.	Is the delay or failure to approve the convention on the part of France due to any alleged inaccuracy or inexactitude of statement or representation on the part of Canadian representatives during the negotiations thereof ?


Mr.  A. H.@: As I have just stated the convention will be modified and as soon as received the treaty will be laid on the table of the House.


MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE FOR DECEMBER, 1908.
Robert Laird Borden: What are the particulars of the following item of the revenue for December, 1908, it is shown >at page 1938 of the issue of the ' Canada Gazette ,' published on January 16, 1908, namely, ' Miscellaneous, $699,235.52 ' ?


William Paterson: Interest on investments	$ 68,915 31
Patent fees	
16,425	00Casual	
33,939	29Ordnance lands	
608	72Fines and forfeitures	
962	05Premium, discount and	exchange 23,594 01Mariners' fund	
48	52Electric light inspection	
4,345	50Steamboat inspection	
52	00Gas inspection	
4,300	00Weights and measures	
5,903	52Cullers' fees	
360	93Law stamps	
398	95Penitentiaries	
1,870	39Insurance .inspection	
21,633	77Fisheries	
2,918	40Modus vivendi	
121	50' Canada Gazette '	
481	73Superannuation fund	
162	53Dominion steamers	
725	09Military college	
596	78Militia	
1,213	45Sup. and Exch. court	reports..	4 00Dominion lands	
501,836	01Militia pensions rev	
1,679	88Inspection of staples rev	
7,571	54M. police officers' pensions rev-	589	79


$699,235 52 RAW WOOL IMPORTED.
Mr. LENNOX asked:: 1.	What quantity of raw wool was imported into Canada in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1907?
2.	What duty was it subject to?
3.	Was this duty collected, and to what did it amount?
4.	What quantity of raw wool, similar to wool produced in Canada, was imported into Canada during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1907?
5.	What duty was it subject to?
6.	Was this duty collected, and to what did it amount?
7.	Was the duty to which raw wool imported into Canada is subject under the Act bona fide, imposed and collected in the fiscal year 1907?
8.	The same information as above is asked *as to the fiscal year 1908?


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs) :: 1. The raw wool imported in the fiscal years ending March 31, 1907 and 1908, is as follows:
Combing or lustre wools, dutiable-
9 months 12 months ending 1907.	1908.
Value	 None.	None.
Duty collected. . None.	None.
Wool n.o.p., free of duty-
Quantity	
3,928,271	lbs.	6,129,216 lbs.Value	
$853,152	$1,407,2742,	3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. According to the classification of imports by customs officers at ports of entry, there was no raw wool imported subject to customs duty for the fiscal periods ending March 31, 1907, and March 31, 1908.	.The raw wool which is subject to customs duty is described in the tariff as follows:	.
Wool, viz.: Leicester, Cotswold, Lincolnshire, Southdown combing wools known as lustre wools and other like combing wools, such as are grown in Canada, per pound :
British preferential tariff	 2 cents.
Intermediate tariff	 2J ^
General tariff	 3


THE WOOLLEN INDUSTRY.
Haughton Lennox: 1 How many woollen mills were there in Canada at the end of the fiscal year ending in 1896, and at the end of each subsequent year, and what was the annual output?
2.	What quantity of Canadian wool was used by Canadian woollen mills in each of those years, and what was its value?
3.	What quantities of foreign wool, similar to Canadian-grown wool, and what quantities of other foreign wool, tops, noils, waste, rags, and other raw material were imported into Canada for manufacturing purposes in each of these years, and their values?


William Paterson: With reference to the first question, the government have not got that information. The nearest I can give it to the hon. gentleman is what the Census Department have furnished me with from the census of 1901.


Haughton Lennox: Does the hon. gentleman mean that that information is probably correct; I understand it is not.


William Paterson: I can only give what the official documents show. The hon. gentleman asks for each year, and of course that is not within our knowledge. The

nearest I can give is the census of 1901. and then there was an intermediate census of the manufacturing industries of 1906. This is the information I have:
Census 1901.	Census 1906.
1.	218	227
$11,307,440	$12,676,642
With reference to the third question


Haughton Lennox: What about the second question as to the quantity of Canadian
wool used by Canadian woollen mills in each of these years and its value?


William Paterson: We have no means of ascertaining that. We could not tell that unless we had a return which would have to be voluntary on the part of the mill owners themselves and all we have to go by is the census. The answer to the third question is as follows:	.
-	Wool, combing or lustre wool, such as are grown in Canada, and worsted tops from such wool.	
1896	
1897	Pounds. 2,571	Value. 3461898	
1890	201 6	19 01900	1901	1902	1903	1904	'431905	09	1906	1907 (9 mos.) ....	1908	'	405!Wool, not further prepared than washed, hi.O.P.	Noils and worsted tops, N.O.P.	Rags, all kinds, and waste except mineral.	Pounds.	Value.	Value.	Cwt.	V alue.8,992,241	1,215,584	31,945	370,224	241,822:5,704,194	878,339	30,790	105,741	191,69711,785,899	1,885,489	103,216	504,988	335,9269,413,739	1,335,096	148,191	404,976	298,5618,054,699	1,574,834	151,510	1,551,557	300,8438,574,605	1,292,895	89,847	390,028	225,92410,300,738	1,374,054	204,995	367,373	167,9027,994,712	1,239,998	187,835	241,286	295,1207,339,309	1,319,735	206,914	254,484	333,8157,617,211	-1,553,431	302,219	1,116,215	324,7476,311,837	1,489,268	291,127	1,697,801	361,7223,928,791	853,152	331,199	156,102	314,6906,129,216	1,407,274	496,859	323,453	760,797
The Customs Returns do not indicate whether these imports are all used for manufacturing purposes or
not.


THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY.
Mr. LENNOX asked:: 1.	What is the number of farmers in Canada ?
2.	What is the estimated number of persons who are dependent upon farming operation for their support?
3.	What is the amount invested in agriculture in Canada?
4.	What is the annual value of farm products?
5.	What is the annual value of the exports of farm products ?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (for the Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	Census 1901, 471,833; estimate, 1908,
675.000.
2.	Census 1901, 3,349,516; estimate 1908,
3.788.000.
3.	Census 1901, $1,761,486,180; estimate, 1908, $2,440,000,000.
4.	(Field crop) census 1901, $208,417,821; estimate, 1908, $432,534,000.
5.	Values of exports of field crops, animals and animal products in calendar
years:
1901		$ 84,719,292
1902		 108,788,748
1903		 112,085,222
1904		 95,611,109
1905		 109,684,506
1906		 117,727,860
1907		 113,157,793
1908		 128,903,794


William Paterson: 


MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES.
Mr. LENNOX asked:: 1. What is the number of manufacturers and manufacturing firms and companies in Canada?
2.	What is the number they employ, (a>
males, (b) females?
3.	What i9 the amount invested, exclusive of working capital?
4.	What is the amount of working capital?
5.	What is the value of the raw material consumed in manufacturing?
6.	What is the annual value of the output?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Census 1901. Census 1906.
1	
14,650	15,7962.	m	
262,943	319,578f	
76,230	72,9523	$209,378,638	$467,274,9054	
237,537,849	379,310,1185	
266,527,858	..6	
481,053,375	718,352,603


JUDGE CASSELS' COMMISSION.
Mr. LENNOX asked:: 1.	Has the government instituted oriminal proceedings against the persons shown by the Oassels commission to have defrauded the government? If not, why not?
2.	Does the government propose to prosecute these persons? If so, when?


Wilfrid Laurier: The government has not instituted criminal proceedings. The matter could not be looked into by the government until the report of Mr. Justice Cassels had been received.


DREDGING CONTRACT-ST. JOHN, N.B.
Mr. LENNOX asked:: 1.	Has the government recovered or taken action to recover $39,933, of which the country was defrauded by the action of George Mc-Avittie and C. S. Mayes in connection with a [DOT]dredging contract? If not, why not?
2.	Has the repayment of this money been demanded? If so, when and from whom? If not, why not?
3.	Does the government propose to take action for recovery of this money ? If so, when? If not, why not?
4.	Has the government consulted with or taken the opinion of the Department of Justice as to its rights in the premises, and particularly as to the right of action for recovery of said money?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The words in the second line which reads ' of which the country was defrauded,' appear in the question by an oversight and should not have been allowed. These words contain an allegation of fact. With these words stricken out the *question may be put.


Haughton Lennox: I will insert the word * alleged ' so that the question will read " alleged to have been defrauded.'


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have not the word ' alleged ' in the question.


Haughton Lennox: It can be considered as inserted.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: If these words are stricken out the question can be put.


Haughton Lennox: Then the question would not have any meaning. If the question says " alleged to have been defrauded ' we would *comply with your honour's suggestion.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Perhaps the question may be allowed to stand until it has been drafted.


Haughton Lennox: Let it stand.


TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH SPECIAL COMMITTEE.
Mr. LENNOX asked:: 1.	What were the total expenses incurred in connection with the telegraph and the telephone investigation conducted by the special committee of this House, appointed during the session of 1905?
2.	Were the proceedings of the committee and its finding and recommendations reported to the House?


Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister *of Customs):: 1.	$10,619.35.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT.
[Stage Direction]
1901-5, 0.16	 $6,199 15
1905- 6 , 0.16	 3,960 20
1906- 7, 0.16	 460 00
[Stage Direction]
2.	On the 15th July, 1905, the select committee appointed to inquire into and report regarding the various telephone systems in Canada, presented a report submitting to the House the minutes of their proceedings with all evidence taken by them. Owing, however, to the voluminous nature of the evidence and the late period of the session the committee felt it impossible for them to come to any conclusions or make any recommendations to the House on the subject referred to them.

Haughton Lennox: Referring to the report in the press that ex-Chief Justice-Tuck, of New Brunswick, is said to have stated that he was offered a knighthood two or three years ago upon condition of retiring from the bench.
1.	Has the government any knowledge of this?
2.	Was the offer made?
3.	Was Chief Justice Tuok requested to retire? If so, by whom, and with what object?
4.	Was it the desire of the government or of the Department of Justice at about the time referred to that Chief Justice Tuck should retire from the bench?
5.	Was the government or department at about the time referred to seeking to appoint another person in his place if Chief Justice Tuok could be induced to retire?
6.	Has the ex-Chief Justice denied the statement attributed to him by the press, or has his attention been called to the press statements by the government or the department?
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime
Minister):
1.	The government have no such knowledge.
2.	No such offer was made to Chief Justice Tuck.
3.	Chief Justice Tuck was not requested by the government to retire.
4.	The government had no such desire. If they had had such desire, they would have put it into action.
5.	The government was not seeking to appoint any person in Chief Justice Tuck's place.
6.	The government is not aware whether ex-Chief Justice Tuck has denied or has not denied the statement attributed to him. His attention has not been called to the matter by the government or, so far as I know, by the Department of Justice.


STATISTICS OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT.
Mr. MACDONELL asked:: '
1.	When did the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907, commonly known as the Lemieux Act, come into force?

2.	What was (a) the number of strikes; (b) the number of employees involved; and (c) the amount of time lost through strikes in Canada for each of the calendar years 1901, 1905, 1906, 1907, 1908 respectively, giving separately and in addition the above deferred information for such part of the calendar year 1907 as the said Lemieux Act was in force?
3.	(a) How many boards were constituted under the Act; (b) how many boards reported under the Act; and (c) how many settlements were effected under the Act during each of the calendar years 1907-8 respectively ?
4.	How many reports made under the Act were not accepted or were disregarded during the calendar years 1907 and 1908 respectively?
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Minister
of Labour):
1.	March 22, 1907.
2.	(a) Number of strikes (according to calendar year):
In 1903	 160
1904		 103
1905		 87
1906		  138
1907.,	 HO
1908	 65
Number of strikes subsequent to date of passage of Industrial Disputes Investigation Act during the year 1907, 118.
(b)	Number of employees involved:
In 1903	 49,513
1904		 15,665
1905		 16,329
1906		 26,014
1907		 34,972
1908		 26,232
Number of employees involved in strikes subsequent to date of passage of Industrial Disputes Investigation Act during 1907, 31,740.
(c)	Amount of time lost to employees in woiking days:
In 1903	 752,181 working days.
1904	
278,956	"1905	
284,140	"1906	
489,775	"1907	
613,986	"1908	
708,191	"
Amount of time lost to employees in working days on account of strikes subsequent to date of passage of Industrial Disputes Investigation Act during 1907, 575,182.
3.	(a) Number of Boards constituted in 1907	 20
Number of Boards constituted in 1908.. 25
Total	 45
(b) Number of Boards reporting in 1907	 17
Number of Boards reporting in 1908	 26
Total	 43
One board established during 1908 reported since the close of the year and one Board established on December 31, 1908, had not reported on January 25, 1909.


Angus Claude Macdonell: (c) Number of settlements effected in 1907	 23*
Number of settlements effected in 1908	 22
* This figure includes several settlements effected under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907, without the establishment of a Board.
4.	One case was reported to the department in each of the years 1907 and 1908, in which a strike occurred in connection with a dispute which had been referred for adjustment under the terms of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. In each case the findings of the Board were ultimately accepted.


MEAT AND CANNED FOODS ACT.
Mr. A. H. CLARKE asked :: 1.	What establishments have applied for exemption under the Meat and Canned Foods Act?
2.	What establishments have been exempted from the operation of sections 3 and 4 and sections 6 and 10, inclusive?
3.	What directions have been given by the government to railways or other carriers relating to the transportation of dressed hogs?
4.	Have such directions been given respecting the transportation of dressed hogs to consignees other than ' establishments ' as defined by the said Act? If so, by what authority ?
5.	At what points in the counties of Essex and Kent has provision been made for inspection of dressed hogs, and what is the nature of such provision?
6.	Why has not similar provision been made for inspection at the other shipping points in the said counties?
7.	Why were the service of qualified local inspectors dispensed with?


Rodolphe Lemieux: 1 and 2. Nil.
3.	Directions have been given by the department to railways and other carriers to comply with the provisions of the Meat and Canned Foods Act and the regulations thereunder.
4.	Yes. Under the authority of the Act and regulations thereunder.
5.	Chatham, Amherstburg, Harrow, Essex, Oldcastle railway freight sheds have been declared establishments and placed in charge of inspectors regularly appointed under the Act.
6.	The volume of trade at other points did not warrant such action.
7.	No local inspectors were dispensed with, none were employed as the services of members of the regular inspection staff were available.


EXPERIMENTAL FARMS AND AGRICULTURAL STATIONS. .
Mr. PAQUET asked :: 
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (for the Minister of Agriculture) :: 1.	During the year 1908 land was secured for an experimental station at Rosthern, in Northern Saskatchewan, and the establishment is now being organized.
Arrangements were made during the year of 1908 with Mr. E. W. Calhoun, of Kamloops, B.C., for the use of ten acres of his farm on which he is to conduct a series of experiments in dry farming under the instructions of the Director of Experimental Farms.
2.	It is not customary for the government to give any information regarding the estimates before they have been brought down.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
For a return showing all armouries built since July 1,	1896, giving situation, cost,
capacity, officials employed in each, with yearly expenses of each armoury, distributed under the head of maintenance, improvements, extensions and salaries, with the number of troops actually making use of the same, and to what i extent each year.-Mr. Foster.
For a return showing the various statistical and special information publications issued by the several departments of the government, the number and pages of each, the number and cost of each for the year 1908, the number of persons employed in their preparation, the salaries paid to each person so employed, the number of special employees for engraving or illustrating these publications, and the salaries and expenses of the same, including work and apparatus, the firm or printing company publishing the same, and the amount paid in each case for printing and binding.
The above ' return is not to include the regular reports of the departments, but to be so presented as to show the name of each statistical or special publication, the number of such printed, and the number of pages in each, the number of officials employed in the preparation of the publication, the total cost of each, and the total cost of all such publications for the year 1908.-Mr. Foster.
For a copy of all orders in council, despatches, correspondence, reports, documents and papers, not already brought down, touching or relating to the convention of 19th day of September, 1907, entered into by plenipotentiaries appointed by His Majesty and the President of the French Republic,-Mr. R. L. Borden.
For a return showing all free mail deliveries established or authorized since the 30th of June, 1908, in towns or villages, all free rural mail deliveries established or authorized since said date, the number of persons served by each such free mail delivery in the community or route for which it has been so established,
and the cost in each instance.-Mr. R. L. Borden.
For a return showing in relation to each dog-fish reduction plant or establishment for the reduction of dog-fish erected by or for the government or maintained, in whole or in part by the government, (a) the cost of construction, (b) the cost of maintenance for each year, (c) the location, (d) the quantity of dogfish treated thereat in each year, and (e) the amount realized from the sale or disposal thereof in each year.-Mr. R. L. Borden.
For a copy of all orders in council, departmental orders, rules and regulations, and schemes of reorganization adopted in the several departments, rules and regulations made by the Civil Service Commissioners, and all other orders, steps and proceedings made, had or taken under or pursuant to the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908.-M r. R. L. Borden.
For a copy of all orders in council, correspondence, reports and other documents and papers, not already brought down, touching or relating to the All-Red Line, so-called, as referred to in the resolution passed by this House on the 9th day of July, 1908, or touching or relating to any similar or substituted proposal for the like purpose.-Mr. R. L. Borden.
For a return showing : 1. The number of accidents which occured at level railway crossings in Canada during the period of five years prior to the 31st day of March, 1908.
2.	The time where and the places at which these accidents occurred.
3.	The alleged cause of the accident in each case.
4.	The number of persons killed in each case.
5.	The number of persons injured and the nature of the injury in each case. ,
6.	A statement in each case as to whether the crossing was protected or not, and if protected, by what means.-Mr. Lennox.
For a return showing in detail the items comprised in the amount $699,235.52, given as miscellaneous revenue for the month of December, 1908.-Mr. Ames.
For a return showing in detail what expenditures, chargeable to capital, have been made in connection with the Department of Militia and Defence since 1895.-Mr. Ames.
For a copy of all correspondence during the last three months with reference to Lachute Mills post office.-Mr. Perley.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: Before the House adjourns, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he can inform us when we may expect that the recent treaty negotiated with the United States will be laid before us. As I understand, it is already before the Senate of the United States; if that is so, there seems to be no reason why it should not be laid on the table of this

House. I recollect that last session we had rather a long delay during which a treaty was accessible to members of the Senate of the United States, but was not accessible to members of this parliament. I must confess that I do not understand why that should be the case. It may be that there is good reason for it, and I would like to know what the reason is.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand the reason is this:	Under the American
constitution, the treaty making power is vested in the President and Senate of the United States, and no treaty can come into force unless it has been ratified by the Senate and by the President. Under our constitution, the treaty comes into force on its ratification by His Majesty the King. The treaty is now on the ocean for the ratification of His Majesty, and perhaps I may be able to inform my hon. friend later whether we can lay it before the House before it has been ratified by His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 9.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, January 26, 1909.