QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: I rise, Mr. Speaker, to a question of privilege. In the discussion which took place a few days ago on the report of the Central Railway Commission, I find, upon pages 5197 and 5198 of 'Hansard' that the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) is reported to have made the following statement:
And another portion of the record, which is very suggestive, I think, in connection with the assignment of these subsidies to Messrs. Pugsley and Skinner, is a letter which will he found at page 192 of the hook entitled ' Orders in Council and Documents.'



WM. PUGSLEY.

[Stage Direction]
Then the hon. member proceeded to say:
And in that way the entire amount of the subsidies which were authorized for the construction of branch lines was disposed of, $20,000 for branch lines, and of that same sum David O'Connell, money lender of the c\ty of St. John, received $5,600 under the direction of ffm. Pugsley. Now, I think, in view of this record, the statement which the Minister of Publio Works made, and the strictures he passed upon the commission for commenting upon this matter, will not carry very much weight, either in this House or with anybody who reads his speech, and who reads the record that I have adduced.
Any one reading the statement would assume-and no doubt the hon. gentleman intended that to be assumed-that the $5,600 was assigned and paid to Mr. Connell in satisfaction of some old claim in 1896, some Mr. PUGSLEY.
eight years before, which Mr. Connell had against me. I desire to say that Mr. David O'Connell had no claim against me and that there were no transactions outstanding of any kind or description between him and me; and so far from this $5,600 having any connection with business between] Mr. Connell and myself, it was for the payment of a promissory note of the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company which Mr. Connell had discounted and the proceeds of which were used to pay fori steel rails purchased from the Intercolonial Railway at Moncton and used on the branch lines of the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company. Regarding the remaining portion of the $20,000 subsidy to the branch lines the $14,000 was paid the Bank of New Brunswick on account of a note which the bank_had discounted for that company and the proceeds of which had gone into the construction of these branch lines. I felt it my duty to call attention to this as early as possible so that the House may understand there is no ground whatever for the suggestion sought to be conveyed by the hon. member for York referred to it, I suppose, by reason is to be found in the report of the commissioners. They did not refer to this matter at all, but the hon. member for York referred to it, I suppose, by reason of orders in council and documents which he found on file but which are not mentioned in the report of the commissioners, which has been printed and is now in the hands of many hon. members. The commissioners make no reference whatever to the $5,600 and make no charge against me such as is suggested by the hon. member for York.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I would like to inquire whether the government propose to lay on the table the report of the Commission of Scotch farmers who visited this country some time ago. Their report has been published in Great Britain and seems to attract a great deal of attention there. It is evidently the work of a very shrewd, observant body of men, and it would be desirable to have it laid on the table and perhaps printed for distribution.


Mr. FISHER.: That report has not been received officially by us from the commission. I was informed that a certain number of copies would be sent the department, but have not received any so far. I shall be happy to lay the report on the table when received and quite agree that it must be of great value.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN.

Mr. LENNOX.: I beg to call the attention of the Minister of Railways to the res

turn which I spoke of a week or ten days ago. It is not yet complete. One of the officers of the Transcontinental spoke to me about it when I called there the other day. He said the return was about being completed. That was some four or five days ago. I should like to have it brought down as early as possible.


Mr. GRAHAM.: I have been telephoning about every day to have it completed and have not been able to get it yet.



THE CIVIL SERVICE BILL.

Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER (North Toronto).: I desire to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) if he will lay on the table this morning the schedules of which we spoke. I would suggest to him also that if this is a chronic difficulty between the government and the Senate which it is impossible to remove quickly, it would seem better not to delay the whole legislation for that. If agreeable to him, as I suppose it is, it would be a convenience to myself personally if we could proceed with this legislation not later than. Wednesday. I have to go away the latter part of the week, and would like to have this matter dealt with.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have received assurances from the chairman of the Internal Economy Commission of the Senate that their classification would be adopted to-morrow evening immediately on the reassembling of the Senate. I hope we shall receive it in time for Wednesday.


George Eulas Foster: And go on with this?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will try to go on.



SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Before the orders of the day are called, I desire to ask if the question has engaged the attention of the government of establishing at some convenient point in Canada-I should say, Ottawa -a school of technology for the study of sanitary science, chemistry, mineralogy and other departments of science that assist in the development of the industries of the country. In some countries these institutions are established, and afford very great assistance in the individual development of the nation. Has the first minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) given any attention to this matter?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: This matter has not engaged the attention of the government.



LOBSTER FISHERY-DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PACKERS AND FISHERMEN IN CAPE BRETON.

Mr. J. W. MADDIN (South Cape Breton).: I desire to ask the Minister of Marine and
Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) if he has cognizance of the situation that obtains in Cape Breton between the lobster packers and the fishermen, and if it is his intention to do anything to relieve the situation either by increasing the number of licenses or by cancelling any existing licenses?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: I do not know to what particular question my hon. friend (Mr. Maddin) has referred. He may be aware that during the session the newly appointed Committee on Marine and Fisheries ha3 investigated this whole question of the lobster fisheries, and that it is proposed that during the recess, the clerk of the committee should go on with that investigation, meeting the fishermen and the others interested, in order that the House may be properly informed on all matters pertaining to the subject. With that information, of course, the committee, and the government also, probably would take some action.


James William Maddin: I am familiar with the work of the committee during the session, but


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman( Mr. Maddin) cannot discuss the matter at this point.


James William Maddin: I am not going to discuss
it.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: In any case, it is not upon the orders of the day properly speaking.


James William Maddin: I am only following the cue given by other members of the House.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It is not regular.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 104) respecting the Thessalon and Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Smyth.
Mr. CONMEE.: Before we proceed further Mr. Chairman, I wish to call the attention of the committee to this very peculiar measure. And I may say that I intend to move that the committee, rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. This is a Bill which, I think, involves the question of provincial rights to a very great extent. I call the attention of the hon. member (Mr. Smyth) in charge of this Bill to the fact that this company was incorporated by the legislature of the province of Ontario, and that its Act of incorporation, which is referred to in the Bill which the hon. member proposes to put through, empowers the company to operate its line by steam or electricity. If this is to be an electric railway, the hon. member will see that to deal with it here invades provincial rights to a very great extent, and, as we have had no

intimation, either by way of order in council or correspondence, from the government at Toronto, I do not see how this Bill can be proceeded with. I call the attention of the hon. member for South Simeoe (Mr. Lennox) to this Bill, and I should be glad to call to it the attention of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) also, but I regret that that hon. gentleman is not in his place. It seems to me that this occasion affords a fair test of the principles of hon. gentlemen opposite on the question of provincial rights. I therefore move that the committee rise, _ report progress and ask leave to sit again, pending the time when we shall receive some communication from the authorities in Toronto with regard to this Bill.


Mr. SMYTH.: Mr. Chairman, I am sure thajt my hon. friend (Mr. Conmee) will feel better now that he has had his little fling at this Bill. I take it that the only part of the measure that can be contentious is that which declares this work to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. Following, as my hon. friend from Soutli Cape Breton (Mr. Madddn) said a moment ago, the cue given by the Committee of the House in previous Bills, I think it might be well that my little Bill should go through in the same way. This Bill proposes to declare this work a work for the general advantage of Canada only for the reason that the Thessalon and Northern Railway Company has entered into an agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway, which, of course, is a transcontinental railway and is clearly a work for the general advantage of Canada. I would not ask this House to pass this Bill were it not for the fact that this railway is going to connect w'ith such a railway as the Canadian Pacific Railway; but, I think I have good grounds in that fact alone for asking this House to pass the Bill. I am sure there can ibe no objection on this ground.


George Perry Graham: This is an amendment which may come up on some other Bill. As my hon. friend explained, under the original charter a line four miles long was constructed, if I remember aright, from Thessalon to the Soo line. Now, they wish to connect with the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and ask for a Dominion charter. Some hon. members do not agree with me in the view I take, that it is better that we should have these lines, as far as possible, under Dominion jurisdiction in order to bring them under control of the Board of Railway Commissioners. This is, strictly speaking, perhaps, an invasion of provincial rights to a certain extent. It is true also that the Ontario government appeared by counsel and protested against this and other Bills in com-Mr. CONMEE.
mittee. My hon. friend from Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) is right in saying that this is amongst those roads against the taking over of which the Ontario government has protested.


Mr. LANCASTER.: But he did not oppose it in committee.


George Perry Graham: But the point is


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I was only explaining that I thought this Bill ought not to pass in the committee, because it was an invasion of provincial rights, but the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River did not back us up.


James Conmee: Counsel for the Ontario government was there.


George Perry Graham: Counsel for the Ontario government was there and opposed the Bill. But on the broad ground ot bringing all these roads, as far as possible, under the Board of Railway Commissioners, I have favoured giving them Dominion legislation where there is 'reasonable claim for it. And I believe that a good many of the provinces at least are of the same opinion.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That was the opinion of the large majority of the Railway Committee, I know. I quite agree that those of us who thought this Bill ought not to pass were in a hopeless minority. The Minister of Railways is right in saying that what he has just said is the opinion of a majority of the Railway Committee. But the hon. member for Rainy River did not do anything to stop this Bill in the committee.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there not a declaration in the Railway Act to the effect that any railway connecting with the Intercolonial is a work for the general advantage of Canada?


William Pugsley: That was repealed. That was in the Act quite a number of years ago, but it has been repealed, and such railways are declared to be for the general advantage of Canada only as to the point of junction. I think it was repealed in 1893.


Robert Laird Borden: Some doubt has been expressed as to whether a declaration of that kind can be repealed. In fact since this was repealed there was some question raised about it in the House. I would suggest to my hon. friend the Minister of Railways that if the. policy which he has outlined is wise-I am not disposed to discuss that question just now-it would be better to enter into negotiations with the governments of the various provinces, and then pass some general statute declaring that railways connected with the Intercolonial, with the Canalian Pacific Rail-

way, with the National Transcontinental, or with other great interprovincial lines, should be considered works for the general advantage of Canada, and in that way .settle once for all the principle upon which parliament shall proceed, having secured the views of the provinces. Then we would have a general statute, instead of having the question come up in individual cases, and determined perhaps on partisan considerations. I venture to submit that to the government as possibly a wise couse, if this policy is to be purused.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: The proper test of the new doctrine laid down by the Minister of Railways is the efficiency of the Railway Commission and the general Railway Act of this country. Fortunately that commission is in a fairly good shape, and the general Railway Act is in fairly good shape. But in order to commend the new principle to the country we will have to show that the Railway Act is kept up to date, and that the Railway Commission is in every sense efficient.


James Conmee: I wish to point out, in answer to some of the remarks that fell from the hon. member for Lincoln (Mt. Lancaster), that when this Bill was before the Railway Committee that hon. gentleman, with some others, contended that the railway municipal board of the province could deal with this subject much better than could the Railway Commission of the Dominion. I may say that I was not opposed to the Bill in the Railway Committee, nor am I opposed to it now. 1 agree with the Minister of Railways that this class of Bill, if passed, is better dealt with by the machinery under the Railway Act of the Dominion than by the machinery under the province. But the new doctrine that has been laid down that this kind of legislation is not to be proceeded with until we hear from the govern ment of Toronto should be followed in this case.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Do you subscribe to that doctrine?


James Conmee: I am speaking of the doctrine laid down by the hon. gentleman and his friends opposite.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Do you agree with it?


James Conmee: I will tell the hon. gentleman when the time comes what my opinions are. I am discussing now the position of my hon. friends opposite. _ They have held up one or two Bills in this House until the local government could be communicated with, Bills that are much less a violation of provincial rights, if such a question is involved, than this Bill is. Yet here is a Bill which because it is introduced by one of their own number, they accept it, and fling all their principles
of provincial rights to the winds, and ask that this Bill go through, without any intimation from the government at Toronto, without a letter, without an order in council, without anything whatever.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is the hon. gentleman talking to me now? Because if he is, he is all wrong. I was consistent, he is inconsistent. I do not care who the promoter of the Bill was, I did not care anything about that in the Railway Committee. What my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. SpToule) and myself fought for was that this Bill ought not to pass because we thought it was an invasion of provincial rights. Now that the hon. member for Rainy River has got his own Bill through he seems to be converted. He had better go to the Senate and tell the senators that he has been converted on this question of provincial rights, and ask them not to pass his own Bill.


James Conmee: Then the hon. member has been converted to the view that was expressed by myself and others in the Railway Committee; he has abandoned his principles.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Not at all-I do not intend to be misrepresented here by the hon. gentleman. I have been absolutely consistent in this matter. I said frankly to the Minister of Railways that although I disagreed with him, I knew I was in a hopeless minority in the Railway Committee. What does the hon. member for Rainy River want? Does he want us to state what the facts are? Is he going to try to quarrel with an hon. gentleman who states what happened, and who agrees with the Minister of Railways himself? I am [DOT] bound by the majority in the Railway Committee, I have respect for the majority of the Railway Committee, although I may still think that they are wrong on that principle. But I want to tell the hon. member for Rainy River that he himself is inconsistent in this House, absolutely and hopelessly inconsistent-I cannot go any further without invading the rules of the House, and I won't do it. Now one word to the Minister of Railways in regard to this sort of legislation. There is a section of the Railway Act which deals with this class of Railway-I am submitting this to the judgment of the House. If a majority of this House wants the Bill to go through,
I am willing to be bound by the majority. But I want to call the attention of the committee to something they have overlooked. Section 8 of the Railway Act is not yet repealed, and it deals with this class of railwav. It says that this Act shall apply even to a provincial railway if it intersects, or crosses, or connects with a Dominion railway. That is why, in the Railway Com-

mittee, I thought that this company ought to have a provincial charter. The Dominion Railway Act must apply to it for certain specific purposes. When a Dominion railway connects with a provincial railway, it has the benefit of the Railway Act; the Board of Railway Commissioners control it in regard to crossings, and traffic. All matters relating to navigable waters, traffic rates, tolls, crossings, and everything of that kind, are dealt with by the Railway Commission, even though the railway remains under a provincial charter. Therefore, I thought we did not need to give the railway a Dominion charter. But so far as I am concerned, if the House thinks that it is better to give it a Dominion charter, I am willing to bow to the will of the majority.


James Conmee: I think I am quite consistent. I was in favour of the Bill when it was in the Railway Committee for the very Teason that has been explained to the committee by the Minister of Railways, for the reason that I believed that railway operation, railway construction, and the general interest of the public, are better provided for under the Dominion statute, in the control of the Dominion Board, than they are under the provincial system. But the hon. member seems to think that 1 am inconsistent because, in the Railway Committee, I called attention to the position taken by him on other Bills of a similar character. I think it is not out of the way for me to call the attention of the committee to that fact. Hon. gentlemen have from day to day made loud professions of their devotion to the principle of provincial rights; and now, in the case of this Bill, the hon. member for Lincoln acknowledges that although that was his view in the Railway Committee, he is now willing to swallow his principles-


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No, I said the very opposite.


James Conmee: -and willing to act in obedience to the order of the majority of the Railway Committee. Why was he not willing to act in obedience to the order of a standing committee of this House-the Standing Committee on Private Bills?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am not a member of it and I do not know what happened there.


James Conmee: The hon. gentleman knew from the records of the House perfectly well that the Bill in respect to which he made such great professions was carried by a majority of the private Bills Committee, yet he did not want to sacrifice his principles.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I was not a member of the committee.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 


James Conmee: I want to put the hon. gentleman where he belongs. He has abandoned his principles and he cannot get out of that position.
Motion (Mr. Conmee) negatived, Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 91) to incorporate the Prudential Trust Company.-Mr. Macdonell.
Bill (No. 135) for the relief of Hannah Ella Tompkins.-Mr. J. D. Reid.
Bill (No. 160) to incorporate the Canadian Red Cross Society.-Mr. Macdonell.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 142) to incorporate the Governing Council of the Salvation Army in Canada.-Mr. Miller.
On section 6, agricultural and industrial colonies.
Haughton Lennox: I do not wish to oppose the Bill, but I would be glad to be informed of the intention of this section, which is broad in its scope, authorizing the army to
Establish at any place in Canada agricultural and industrial colonies and maintain and manage such colonies.


George Eulas Foster: I am not in charge of the Bill but I know a little of the Army's plans, and what they have been doing for some time in some portions of the northwest. This section enables them to bring out a number of their people, selected under immigration supervision on the other side, and to locate them in settlements or colonies. The subsequent supervision over them is a moral and business supervision, going no further than giving them advice as to what is best to be done and how to do it. Then, under other subsections, they have a scheme by which the Army make to these settlers certain advances which the settlers undertake to pay back in certain times and under certain conditions. I know that in some places in the northwest it has worked very successfully.


Haughton Lennox: I am very favourable to the Salvation Army. I believe they are doing a very excellent work and I do not desire to oppose their Bill. I inquired because I do not know what they are doing or if any one has given this Bill any special study. I do not know if there is any precedent for legislation of this kind. The wording of that section is very broad and we should know exactly what authority we are granting.


Mr. MONK.: The only object of the Salvation Army in seeking this legislation is

to get legal incorporation in order to carry out the objects which have been referred to by the hon. member for North Toronto, (Mr. Foster). They now have no legal incorporation and the purposes they have in view are those indicated by my hon. friend from Toronto. As long as they confine themselves within those limits and observe the prescriptions of the immigration Act I do not think we have anything to fear.
On section 15, powers for investment of funds.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: While I am not opposing the Bill in any sense I am afraid we are there giving wide ipowers. Is any law officer of the Crown or minister of the cabinet prepared to say that these are proper powers for us to grant?


Wilfrid Laurier: No special attention has been, given to this Bill; we are taking the Bill as it came from the committee without further investigation. I suppose the law officers of the House have looked into it, but we have taken the report as it came from the committee.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Perhaps it was properly considered in the committee.


Mr. ETHIER.: This Bill came from the Senate. The Private - Bills Committee considered it very carefully. Mr. Culbert of Ottawa, the lawyer who had charge of the Bill before the Senate Committee appeared before our committee and told us that the Senate gave it the most careful consideration.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Did any one in our House give it, consideration?


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: Yes, the Bill after careful consideration was passed by our committee without amendment. The powers asked for are sought only for the purpose of obtaining for this society a legal standing which it has not before enjoyed. I understand that the powers given are such as are usually given to societies of this class. There was no objection to the Bill before the committee and the lawyer in charge of the Bill advanced such strong arguments in its favour that no one objected to its passage.	' J1P


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Did the committee ask if these powers would interfere with provincial legislation on the same subject?


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I do not think the question of provincial rights was raised before the committee.


Mr. MACDONELL.: By section 11, the Bill provides that the laws of the various provinces are to be held to apply. Generally the principle of the Bill seems to be a praiseworthy one, and the clauses do not seem to exceed what is necessary in
order to carry out the powers and objects of the company in a legitimate and ordinary manner, according to the laws of the provinces. I think the Bill should be advanced.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: With that explanation I am prepared to accept it.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



RELIEF OF JOHN DENNISON SMITH.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 157) for the relief of John Dennison Smith.-Mr. A. K. Maclean.
On the preamble:
Robert Laird Borden: The Chairman of the Committee on Private Bills, I believe, called attention in connection with one of these Bills, to a tendency towards acting on evidence of a more or less loose character in considering these Bills for divorce. I have already taken occasion to inform him privately that I entirely concur with the view he expressed. I think it is of the utmost possible importance that the evidence upon these proceedings in the Senate should be given and acted upon only in the way in which such evidence would be given and acted upon in a court, and I would most earnestly deprecate any tendency in the Senate or in our own committee, when examining the evidence, towards a view which would bring a looser condition of affairs than has prevailed in the past. I think these proceedings should be conducted exactly as legal proceedings are conducted in a court, and only such evidence should be received as is strictly legal evidence. Unless there is the clearest possible evidence, and unless that evidence is of a legal character, the Bill ought not to pass the committee and parliament ought not to concur in dissolving the marriage. Every one who is familiar with the proceedings in courts with regard to such matters is aware that there are some precautions observed in court which do not seem to have received very much attention in the proceedings of the Senate. For example, in Great Britain, and in all the provinces of Canada where any such courts were constituted before confederation and therefore remain up to the present, there is the King's Proctor who attends in court, who cross-examines the witnesses, who i3 paid by a fee taxed in the costs of the case, and whose especial duty it is to see that the evidence is sufficient and that there is no collusion between the parties. I do not know to what extent any safeguard of that character has been adopted in the Senate Committee, but I see no reason why every such safeguard should not receive careful attention and consideration in the Senate,

and if it be correct, as the Chairman of the Committee on Private Bills has already publicly declared, that there is a tendency towards the granting of divorce upon evidence of a looser and a less-satisfying character than that which has been required in the past, I, for one desire to raise my protest.


William Findlay Maclean: Is not the conclusion to be drawn that the trial of these cases, if it is to be conducted after the manner of a court, should be conducted in a court created for that pupose, and that the principles on which divorce is to be granted should be accurately defined as in the case of any other statute? The parliament of Canada to-day is over-worked and we all know that these divorce cases are becoming more numerous. The function of parliament, to my mind, is altogether legislative, and it should not exercise the powers of a court. The way out of the difficulty would appear to be to decide that the time has arrived when Canada ought to have a general divorce law on the strictest lines, and that that law ought to be administered in a court and that this parliament, now over-worked, ought to be relieved of the work of dealing with questions of divorce.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: For my part I am not prepared to say that the great amount of work which this parliament has to perform is much hindered or increased by the divorces with which we have to deal, because before the bills come to us they are practically settled_ by the judgment rendered by the Committee of the Senate. That has been my experience. I think that the great evil of divorce has not yet become serious enough in Canada for us to require the institution of a special tribunal for that purpose. We have examples in the United States and in Europe of the dreadful evil that divorce has produced there. We have been singularly free from it in this country, wonderfully free. It is an evil which has now reached us and is increasing, but the reason given by my hon. friend that we have a great deal of work to do in this parliament is not one which commends itself at any rate to me. As long as possible we should avoid passing any law on divorce, and defer the creation of any such tribunal as my hon. friend has proposed. That is my view of the case. We have hitherto been able to dispose of these cases by a very careful examination in the Senate, and I see no reason to depart from that course.


Mr. CARVELL.: My hon. frend will not deem me discourteous if I say that in my judgment the position he lays down is almost untenable. If my hon. friend would propose that this parliament pass legislation absolutely barring the granting of divorces in Canada I almost think I would feel like sanctioning and agreeing to such Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
a proposition, but the moment you admit that divorce is right in principle-and we admit that when we pass divorce legislation every year-then I think we are absolutely unreasonable when we say that this relief should be granted by parliament and should not be relegated to a proper court. I quite agree with the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), once we admit the principle of granting divorce.	[DOT]
.	^[DOT] MACLEAN. We permit it by
the British North America Act.


Mr CARVELL.: Yes, I understand that Act allows divorce courts in provinces which had these courts at the time, but this parliament has the right to abolish these courts. I have had some experience in connection with divorce courts in the province of New Brunswick and have read the reports of the Divorce Committee in the Senate. In the latter it seems to me divorces have been granted on evidence which would be laughed at in any ordinary court. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition pointed out that in England there is.a King's Proctor. True we do not have a King's Proctor in New Brunswick, but it is the special duty of the judge to act as such, and I assure you he is very careful to perform the duties cast on him by the law. It is impossible to get a divorce in New Brunswick unless every condition of the law is complied with. In that law a number of fundamental conditions are laid down, and it is the duty of the judge to see that no divorce is granted until each one of^these conditions has been complied with. But that cannot be said of the proceedings in the Senate. I have read the reports and have seen cases in which the question was never even asked as to whether there was any collusion between the parties, and divorces have been granted in eases which were the absolute result, of collusion. That would be impossible in proceedings before an ordinary court such as we have in our province. On reading over the evidence in this case, I find that all sorts of hearsay testimony were admitted such as would not be considered in a police court or any other court in Canada. In my judgment, once we admit the principle of divorce, we ought to relegate the ques tion to a court which will properly weigh the evidence, which will not allow improper evidence, and which will not grant a divorce unless the conditions of the law have been complied with.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would agree with the hon. gentleman in his conclusions if I could accept his premise, but that I cannot do. I cannot admit that the principle of divorce is right. I am satisfied that the best interests of the country are served by our doing all we can to prevent divorces. I had the temerity some two or three sessions

ago to make a considerable argument on the question, but it was useless in convincing the majority, and a divorce then went through on evidence which would not justify a court in granting even judicial separation. Speaking for myself, I do think that in the interest of the state, we ought to do all we can to prevent divorce and make our young people understand that once they get married they must remain married.'


Mr. MILLER.: There is one thing I notice, and that is that the Senate committee attaches too much weight to the evidence of paid professional detectives. Such evidence would not be admitted by our courts except with the greatest degree of suspicion.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.	(



MANITOBA AND NORTHWEST RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Consideration of an amendment made by the Senate to Bill (No. 81) respecting the Manitoba and Northwest Railway Company of Canada,-Mr. Cash.
Mr. CASH moved that the amendment made by the Senate be disagreed to for the following reasons:
1.	Because the condition imposed by the
said amendment is unusual and embarrasing to the company and is of such a character that it would, if adopted, prevent the company going on with its operations.
2.	Because the company has already shown its good faith by work already performed, and the penalty provided in the said amendment to meet the requirements is unnecessary and would be ineffective; and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours therewith.
Wilfrid Laurier: What is the amendment?


Mr. CASH.: That they must build ten miles within twelve months.


Mr. D. B. NEELY (Humboldt).: 
Mr. A. H. CLARKE.: Where would ten miles take them to?


David Bradley Neely: That is not the point. The building of ten miles of road alone might not be of any special benefit to the com-, munity, but I am satisfied that if the Canadian Pacific Railway were compelled to build ten miles they would not stop at that but would carry out the project and make it of some benefit to the community. The promoter of the Bill, I think, is well aware of the fact that the people of that part of

the country are very anxious to have this branch line built. There is a settlement in my own constituency whose people have to haul the products of their farms forty miles to market over the worst possible road at this season. I refer to the settlement of St. Brieux. These people, mainly from the province of Quebec, came into that part of the country some years ago on the distinct understanding that this branch line should be built. I am here to speak for these people and to say that they would very much prefer that this charter, so much abused by the Canadian Pacific Railway, should be put out of existence, rather than that the company should be allowed to go on and fcol the people as they have done for so many years.


Haughton Lennox: Have they done anything?


David Bradley Neely: So far as the original intent of the charter is concerned, they have-


Haughton Lennox: The hon. member does not understand me. I desire to know if the people to whom he refers have made any representations on the subject? Have they forwarded a petition or done anything to show their attitude?


David Bradley Neely: I have had personal letters from a large number of the settlers. I have had the strongest representations from them both by letter and by word of mouth. But, even if I had no such representations, the very map of the province would show that what I have said is true-that these people are forty miles from a market and that this line would go directly to the settlement.


Mr. J. G. TURRIFF (East Assiniboia).: I agree altogether with the remarks of the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely). I think the amendment proposed by the Senate _is a good amendment, and that the Senate showed good judgment, good common sense in adopting such an amendment. Let us consider what the motion of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Cash) says. This amendment of the Senate is objected to:
First, because the condition imposed by the said amendment is unusual and embarrassing to the company and is of such a character that it would, if adopted, prevent the company from going on with their operations.
Here is a wealthy company, as pointed out by my hon. friend (Mr. Neely), and here is a charter, twenty-nine years old, which this wealthy company has held for sixteen years, and they come before this House now and put a resolution into the hand of the promoter of this Bill that the building of ten miles of the road thus chartered will embarrass the company and will prevent them from going on with their operations. If that is the case-though I do Mr. NEELY.
not for a moment believe that it is the case -surely to goodness we ought to maintain in the Bill the amendment which the Senate has made.
My hon. friend asks what good it would do to build ten miles of road. The object is to get the terminus of the road ten miles nearer to the people who have to haul their grain 40 miles. But the Senate was very moderate, and we are proposing to accept their views. There is no doubt that if the company has to build 10 miles, and in all probability when they are at it, they may build 20 miles. But in a good many cases in the west these roads will add 10 miles to their line during one season, and not any more. I want to point out that it would be a great advantage to hundreds of people who are living 30, 40, or 50 miles from the road, to have 10 miles cut off at one end. Any one who has hauled wheat 40 miles to market will realize the advantage of that. I would also point out that the consideration advanced by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) should have greater weight with this House than the consideration advanced by my hon. friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Cash), because the point on the line where this branch will start, that is at Sheho, is practically on the west side of the constituency of my hon. friend from Mackenzie, it is only some seven or eight miles within the boun-diary of his constituency, so the road is practically outside his constituency, and is nearly altogether in the constituencies of the hon. member for Humboldt and the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Rutan.) They represent the views of the people, and the people have said that they prefer to have the charter cancelled altogether unless there is a clause put in the Bill this year providing for a certain amount of building to be done. The people have asked for that, why should they not have their way? Why should they not be considered? Why should we not adopt the amendment of the Senate? It is a fair and reasonable amendment, it is in the interest of the people and in the interest of the railway company also; and if it is a fact that the building of ten miles of railroad is something that the Canadian Pacific Railway cannot do, then let us annul the charter altogether and let somebody else come in that can build 10 miles of railroad in one year.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Turriff). I think that if we compelled the company, in that great western country of such vast proportions, to construct 10 miles of a road, it might possibly land them in a ploughed field or in a slough.


John Gillanders Turriff: Theq let them build 20 miles.


David Henderson: The Senate in their wisdom ask for only 10 miles. But I want to draw attention to the evident lack of due consideration, on the part of the Senate, of the amendment proposed. I think they did not regard the matter as of great importance. When we come to think that the Senate added an amendment to this Act compelling the Canadian Pacific Railway to build 10 miles of a road that had been constructed and been in operation many years, that fact alone shows that the Senate did not very seriously consider the question. They ask that 10 miles be built of the line between Portage la Prairie and Yorkton. Every Senator there, if he had travelled in that country, ought to have known that that road was many years ago built from end to end. I have travelled on that road some six years ago, from Portage la Prairie to YoTkton.


John Gillanders Turriff: They are asking that ten miles additional be built from Sheho on towards Prince Albert, that is covered by their charter.


David Henderson: I am sorry my hon. friend has fallen into the same error that the Senate did. If the hon. gentleman looks at the section he will find that it does not apply at all to the road beyond Yorkton. This seems to be a very unfortunate Bill. The hon. member for Humboldt some time ago propsed to repeal that portion of the charter covering the territory from Yorkton to Prince Albert, forgetting that 40 miles of that road had then been built and was in operation. Now the Bill goes over to the Senate and they propose to ask the company to build ten miles of the road between Portage la Prairie and Yorkton, a road which has been completed many years ago. It is certainly an evidence that the people who have been putting this legislation through have given very little attention to the matter, consequently I do not think I, at least, am obliged to pay much attention to the amendment proposed by the Senate. There is every evidence that it did not receive careful attention. I am told that since then the Senate has sent over a request through their officer to this House that what they choose now to call a clerical error may be rectified. It seems that clerical errors are in the air. Even the Senate is making clerical errors in its legislation- typographical, not clerical. But must they expect this House of Commons to adopt their typographical errors? I think that alone is evidence that the amendment had received no serious consideration.


Haughton Lennox: Can the hon. gentleman tell us how it reads now?	1


David Henderson: The amendment reads thus:
Provided, moreover, that if 10 miles of the uncompleted portion of the portion of the line mentioned in subsection (a) of clause 8, of chap. 52, of the statutes of 1893, is not built within twelve months from the passing of this Act, the powers of construction conferred upon the company to build the line last above referred to shall cease as regards such portion thereof as shall then remain uncompleted.
This amendment was passed by the Senate, that is what we were asked to confirm in this House. But I understand that since they passed this amendment a request has been sent to this House to permit the figure eight to be changed to the figure nine so as to make it read:	' Subsection (a) of clause nine, instead of subsection (a) of clause eight.' If I am correctly informed this House has conformed to that request, and has allowed the Senate to amend their legislation. Therefore I took the opportunity of pointing out to the promoter of the Bill that the Senate was all wrong, and by some means or other it got mooted round the Senate, the Senate came to know of it, and they suggested this change. But that is not what I am objecting to. My point is that there is every evidence that the Senate gave no serious consideration to this legislation. Otherwise, they would have had it in correct form. It simply shows that a suggestion was made by some member of the Senate, and it was adopted without fair consideration, without good reasons. As I said, it might simply land the road in a mud hole or in a ploughed field, and be little or no advantage to the people out there. I trust the suggestion made by the hon. member for Humboldt will be approved and that the House will not agree to the amendment proposed by the Senate.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I remember that this matter was dealt with by the Railway Committee. It was also dealt with in this House on this very Bill. At all events I wish to say that I am in favour of the motion to strike out the amendment of the Senate made by the hon. gentleman promoting the Bill, because, it having been dealt with in the Railway Committee of the House of Commons, and that committee, after full discussion having decided the point, I am in favour of upholding the committee of the House of Commons as against the Senate.


George Perry Graham: I think it would be a mistake to adopt the amendment of the Senate. We have difficulty in the Railway Committee and in trying to secure uniformity. I cited a case the other day where the House of Commons, some twenty years ago, put a clause in one of these Bills say

mg that 25 miles must be constructed with-ing a certain time.


An hon. MEMBER.: In 1893.


George Perry Graham: But up to the present time they have not constructed any of the road and we have renewed that charter ever since. The inserting of such a condition does not assist in securing the construction of the railway. The general Railway Act says that they must spend 15 per cent and complete the road within five years. If they do not do so they must come back for a renewal. The insertion of such a condition as is proposed by the' Senate does not, to my mind, assist in any way in getting the line constructed. I think that we should not concur in the amendment made by the Senate.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: This is a matter that the House should ask the Senate to reconsider. This Bill was discussed in the Railway Committee and also in the House. The condition requiring the building of ten miles is absurd. It would be a grave injustice to the people living along the remaining 30 miles of the railway to have only ten miles built and then allow construction to stop there. It would have been more consistent on the part of the Senate to have required that the whole 40 miles should be constructed than to require that only ten miles should be built. While the hon. member is anxious to get the railway built he is taking a stepl that will prolom the building of the road. He would secure the construction of the road at an earlier date by allowing the Bill to go through in the proper form. I do not think the Senate should establish a precedent of this kind and I think that this House would be well within its rights in rejecting this amendment and allowing this Bill to go through the same as every other Bill has gone through with a clause compelling the incorporators to expend 15 per cent and complete the road in five years. The building of ten miles only would be a great hardship to the rest of the people living along the remaining 30 miles of the projected road.


Mr. RUTAN.: As this railway is in the constituency that I have the honour to represent, I wish to express my views with regard to it. It will be remembered that not long ago the Canadian Pacific Railway secured the renewal of a charter to build a railway from Lanigan to Prince Albert. At that time there was considerable discussion upon the question. Now, they have their plans registered for an extension from Lanigan to Prince Albert. It is also true that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company have a charter to build a branch from Mr. GRAHAM.
Watrous to Prince Albert. This Lanigan line follows practically the same route as the Grand Trunk Pacific line from Watrous to Prince Albert. When (Bill No. 81), respecting the Manitoba and Northwestern Railway, was up for discussion we asked that the clause of the Bill providing for a line from Sheho north-west to Prince Albert should be struck out. This request was refused by the House. The Bill went to the Senate and an amenument was put in the Bill so that the Canadian Pacific Railway would have an opportunity of showing its sincerity in undertaking to build this branch railway. We do not believe that the Canadian Pacific Railway are ever going to build two lines into Prince Albert, but we do believe that they are holding this Manitoba and Northwestern charter for no other purpose than to keep other railways from building in there. We would like to see some legislation adopted that would compel this company to build the line this summer or abandon the charter which this amendment would compel them to do. If a condition were inserted that they should build a certain number of miles within a specified time it might not compel them; to build the railway, but if they were sincere and expected to build it they would go ahead and build it. The people need it, they are demanding it and if the company do not build it they will be compelled to come back to this parliament in another year for an amendment to their Bill, and in that way we will ascertain whether they propose to build the line or not. They should either build the road or drop it altogether. That is the purpose of the amendment and I do not wish to see it struck out.


Edward L. Cash: I do not wish to detain the House but I would like to place myself in a right position on this question which was fought out pretty thoroughly on a former occasion.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman has exhausted his right to speak on this question.


Edward L. Cash: -I thought I had the right to
reply.


Haughton Lennox: Oh, let him go on.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We would like to hear what the hon. gentleman has to say.


Haughton Lennox: It is a substantive motion.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: By the consent of the House only the hon. gentleman may speak again.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, it would be permissible if it were a motion to concur in the Senate amendment, but I do not understand that it is any such motion.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The motion is that the House do not concur in the amendment of the Senate.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think that is a substantive motion and he is entitled to speak.


Mr CASH.: The hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Turriff) said that Sheho was within a few miles of the western boundary of Mackenzie district and that he did not think I would be much interested in this road. It was also stated, I think, by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) that this charter had been in existence for sixteen or twenty years. Both assertions are true, but the House may remember, in regard to the building of this particular line from Yorkton to Prince Albert, that forty-two miles were completed about four years ago. That does away with the contention that the company have done nothing in regard to the extension of this line for sixteen years. As to our not being interested in this line particularly I would say that I am directly interested in this road because a portion of it is in my constituency and it would be a benefit to us to have this road extended to Prince Albert. We are very unfortunately situated in my district as to getting lumber. Lumber is much dearer in our section than in other sections. If we could get our lumber from Prince Albert we could get it much more cheaply than from Winnipeg. The building of ten miles of this road will have the effect of extending the line to a point half way between Sheho and the Canadian Northern. The people in that district are fairly well supplied with railroads and therefore this will not seriously affect them in that way. I consider that the company would be to a certain extent embarrassed by having this provision tack-to their Bill. A requirement to put in an outfit there to construct this line within twelve months would certainly embarrass any company when they have all the other work they can possibly do now on hand. It is now late in the season and no company wishes to organize a construction outfit for the building of such a line. This amendment was carried in the Senate by only one vote and that was on a snap verdict.
Motion agreed to and amendments concurred in.



RELIEF OF JOHN WAKE.

[Stage Direction]
On motion for the second reading of Bill (No. 178), for the relief of John Wake.- Mr. McCraney.
Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the English orders of the day on private Bills are so different from the French Orders of the Day. For example, in the French orders of the day order No. 16 relates to an Act for the relief of John Christopher Cowan and I do not 193	*
observe No. 9 on the English orders of the day on the French orders. There are 19 items on the English and only 18 on the French orders.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the second time.



ROYAL VICTORIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That the following Bills be placed on the Order Papers for a second reading at the present sitting of the House:-
Bill (No. 177) intituled: 'An Act respecting the Royal Victoria Life Insurance Company, and to change its name to Royal Victoria Life Insurance Company of Canada.'
Bill (No. 181) for the relief of Laura Mc-Quoid.


Haughton Lennox: As far as the Royal Victoria Life Insurance Company Bill is concerned I do not feel inclined to facilitate its passage in any way I can avoid. A number of protests have been sent in and I do not know why the Bill has stood over so long or why an attempt should be made to rush it through now. It is undesirable legislation; it is an endeavour to confuse the names of two companies and if any protest can be made I desire now to lodge that protest against its going on the order paper.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At one o'clock the committee took reces3. Committee resumed at three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 177) respecting the Royal Victoria Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Carvell.
Bill (No. 181) for the relief of Laura McQuoid.-Mr. Carvell.
Bill (No. 163) to incorporate the Prairie Provinces Trust Company.-Mr. Sutherland.
Bill (No. 167) to incorporate the Board of Elders of the Canadian District of the Moravian Church in America.-Mr. Wilbert McIntyre.
Bill (No. 168) respecting Mexican Transportation Company, Limited, and to change its name to Mexico and Northwestern Railway Company.-Mr. Turriff.
Bill (No. 169) respecting the Patents of Washington R. McCloy.-Mr. Rivet.
Bill (No. 166) respecting the Central Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Fisher.
Bill (No. 171) respecting the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company-Mr. Michaud.
Bill (No. 180) respecting the Montreal Bridge and Terminal Company.-Mr. Ecre-I ment.
[Stage Direction]


Bill (No. 182) for the relief of Fleetwood Howard Ward-Mr. Lewis.
Bill (No. 183) for the relief of Aaron. William Morley Campbell.-Mr. W. H. White.
Bill (No. 184) for the relief of John Christopher Cowan.-Mr. Turriff.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 185) to incorporate the Catholic Church Extension Society of Canada.-Mr. Gauvreau.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEOFFRION moved second reading of Bill (No. 176) to incorporate the St. Maurice and Eastern Railway Company.
Mr. BLONDIN (Translation).: Mr. Speaker, I will ask for a few moments the attention of this House, as I want to oppose the second reading of this Bill for many reasons ; first, because its wording is very vague, and secondly, its public utility very doubtful I will even say that it is very restricted.
If this line was constructed, it would have the effect of isolating the town of Grand'Mere, which has certain rights to protect its communications with the city of Three Rivers.
I must say that a railway is already being built under a charter, and that it will connect the city of Three Rivers with the Transcontinental. It is the railway of the Valley of Saint Maurice, which is already constructed as far as Shawinigan Falls. Work is going on upon another section which will reach Grand'Mere. This read will stop at the two most flourishing towns of the district and will connect with the Transcontinental. We will then have a most important railway all the more important because it will be fed by these two towns.
This Bill for which a second reading is sought to-day seems to give a concurrent right, and could only toe detrimental to the other already in construction. If parliament grants this Bill, the town of Grand'Mere, which !has a population of at least 5,200 souls, will be separated from the city of Three Rivers, and as I said a moment ago, Grand'Mere and Shawinigan Falls have acquired rights.
I therefore oppose the second reading of this Bill, and I ask that it should be withdrawn.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I wish just to say a few words on this matter. There is a railway incorporated and partially built starting from Three Rivers and going back to the two important towns of Shawinigan Falls and Grand' Mere on the St. Maurice. That railway was incorporated by this legislature and has been built as far as Shawinigan Falls and is now being constructed about Mr. LENNOX.
five or six miles further to the still more important manufacturing town of Grand' Mere. Shawinigan Falls has a population of 2,500 and Grand' Mere a population of over 5,000. Both are important manufacturing points utilizing the water-power on the St. Maurice at that particular place. Each is within easy distance of the other, and it is proposed by this Bill to incorporate a company for the purpose of constructing a line starting from the Grand Trunk Pacific in the county of Champlain, travers-mg the county of Champlain through the parishes of St. Stanislaus, St. Prosper, St. Nazaire and Mount Carmel, and finishing at Shawinigan Falls, leaving out that still more important point, a few miles further off, called Grand' Mere where there is a population of over 5,000. The definition of the line in question in the Bill is extremely vague. The St. Maurice Valley Railway was incorporated for the purpose of joining the Grand Trunk Pacific going through the valley of the St. Maurice river and serving these two important towns of Shawinigan Falls and Grand' Mere. But by this Bill we would be leaving out the most important point of all in that vicinity which is Grand' Mere. To say that a project of that kind is for the general advantage of Canada is, I think, contrary to what is apparent on the very surface of things. Under these circumstances, we have deemed it important at this point, before the principle of the Bill is adopted, to urge this protest in order to save the rights of the town of Grand' Mere. Perhaps the promoter of the Bill will consent to modify it in that sense.


Mr. BUREAU.: Although I am not the promoter of this Bill, I may say that the railway will not compete with the St. Maurice Valley Railway. When that obtained its charter, it was given the right to run from Three Rivers to Shawinigan Falls through Grand'Mere and up the valley of the Mattawan river to connect with the Transcontinental Railway. At that time the promoters of the St. Maurice Valley Railway were under the impression that the Transcontinental Railway would run further south along the valley of the Mattawan river. By its charter the St. Maurice Valley Railway could not connect with the Transcontinental Railway unless it obtained power to cross the Mattawan river or the St. Maurice river. Therefore, it was decided to construct it to the the town of Grand'Mere,, and the only difficulty up to the present time has been the opposition of the town of Grand'Mere to the St. Maurice Valley Railway running into that town.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has not that difficulty been now overcome?


Jacques Bureau: It has been overcome after a good deal of discussion. My hon.

friend says that we are ignoring or passing by the largest town in the county, with a population of 4,000 or 5,000. I do not say that is exaggerated, but comparing the two points in importance, I may say that while the falls of Grand'Mere have a capacity of
40,000	horse-power, the Shawinigan falls have a capacity of 150,000 horse-power. The town of Grand'Mere has one industry, the Laurentide Pulp Company, while Shawinigan Falls has the Carbide Company, the Aluminium Company and the Belga Canadian Pulp and Paper Company; infact,there are five or six industries there against the one at Grand'Mere, which requires all the power now available, and that is all the power that can be developed at that fall. The object of this Bill is to connect the St. Maurice Valley Railway with the Grand Trunk Pacific, running through Shawinigan Falls before reaching Grand'Mere. It was a question whether it ought to reach Grand'Mere first or Shawinigan first, but this route has been adopted because by the otheT route it would be far more expensive and far more difficult to construct.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend says that the object of this Bill is to connect the St. Maurice Valley Railway with the Transcontinental Railway. That being the case, does he see any objection to stating that the road, instead of being vaguely described as coming to the parish of Ste. Flore, will join the St. Maurice Valley Railway at Grand'Mere? The parish of Ste. Flore is a very large parish, from which has been detached the town of Grand'Mere.


Jacques Bureau: To pass through Grand 'Mere it would have to build a bridge over the St. Maurice river at a cost of $75,000 or $80,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When the St. Maurice Valley Railway was incorporated it was intended to go to Grand'Mere, and it is there at present, I believe.


Jacques Bureau: No, it is not.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It seems, from what my hon. friend has said, that the road will reach the Grand Trunk Pacific from Shawinigan Falls without passing through Grand'Mere at all. I do not think that is right.


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


[Stage Direction]
Mr. SEXSMITH-by Mr. Blain-asked:
1.	What is the surface area of concrete walks, curbs, and gutters at the post office building, Westville, Pictou county, Nova Scotia?
2.	Who was the contractor?
3.	What were the prices to be paid for each class of the work?
4.	What is the total paid and to be paid 193i
for each class of the work, and for the whole
work?
5.	What is the area of gravel walks constructed at said building, what were prices for same, what has been paid and what is to be paid for the work?
6.	What is the area of road to station constructed at said building, what is the distance between the post office and railway station and of what material is road constructed ?	_
7. What were prices to be paid for such work, and what is the total cost of the work?
8.	Has the inspector reported upon the quality of concrete sidewalks, gutters and curbs laid at said building, and has he reported the work satisfactory?
9.	Has he reported the fact that the sidewalk in places has sunk below proper level, is now undulating instead of level, and has already broken up in places?
10.	Did the inspector report that a road
was constructed to station, and recommend payment of contractor's price therefor, $478.80?	, .
11.	Is the inspector of post office building still inspecting? If not, when did he cease work, and what is the total now paid to him as inspector?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	360 2-9 superficial yards of concrete; 163} lineal feet of curb and gutter.
2.	E. F. Munro.
3.	Messrs. E. F. Munro, J. McDonald and J. P. Fraser were asked to tender; two tenders were received as follows: J. McDonald, sidewalks, $2.65 per yard; E. F. Munro, sidewalks, $2.75 per yard; curb and gutter, $1.54 per lineal foot. McDonald's tender was accepted, but as lie declined to carry out the work, Munro was offered $2.65 per yard for sidewalks and $1.25 per lineal foot for curb and gutter (McDonald's prices) which was accepted.
4.	Concrete, $954.59; curb and gutter, $209 69. The total amount paid for the work, which included excavation for grading and lawn, &e., and for three sets of concrete steps, was $1,396.38.
5.	Gravel was spread over yard between mail lobby entrance and examining warehouse and Intercolonial Railway station, 30 yards at $1.75; $52.50.
6 (a) About 180 by 50 feet; 9,000 superficial feet, (b) From the rear line of post office building to the nearest point of station building is about 125 feet, (e) Filling in of stone and cinders and with gravel spread on top.
7.	Tender for road was $100 for filling and grading, and $1.75 per yard for gravel top dressing. Total cost, $478.80.
8.	The clerk of the works certified the accounts. Mr. Hewitt, assistant architect, reported :	' The sidewalks are finished In
good style.'
9.	No.
10.	Yes.
I 11. (a) Yes. (b) $1,893.50.


NATIONAL ART GALLERY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BOYCE-by Mr. Blain-asked:
1.	What amount of money has the government spent to date in the purchase of pictures for the National Art Gallery at Ottawa?
2.	What money annually is devoted to this purpose??
3.	What department of the government has the custody and control of the pictures?
4.	Are the pctures, or any of them, at any time, removed from the gallery for the purpose of loan to any one? If so, upon what principle does the government act in permitting the pictures to he removed from the gallery and loaned or used by any person?
,5- What supervision or care is taken of the pictures, and are they looked after by a competent and reliable officer of the department, and what is the practice of the govern roent in this respect?
Hon- WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):
1.	$40,998.
2.	There is no specific amount set apart for the purchase of pictures; the amount voted for the National Art Gallery includes the maintenance of the gallery, caretaker's salary and the purchase of pictures. At last session of parliament an amount ot JjS 15,50° was appropriated for the National Art Gallery, Ottawa, and in the estimates for the current year, now before parliament, there is included an amount of $10,000.
3.	The Department of Public Works
4.	(a) Yes, loaned to the Speakers of Senate and Commons and the portraits of their Majesties in the House of Commons, (b) The principle has been that no picture can be taken from the gallery except for the purpose of hanging same in some government building in Ottawa.
5.	A caretaker is in charge of the National Art Gallery during the hours it is open; there is also a curator who makes inspections of the gallery, receives all pictures and sees them unpacked and hung.

Mr.  J. A.@: CURRIE-by Mr Blain-asked:
1.	Is it the intention of the government to sell Fort Malden, Essex county?
2.	Has any portion of said fortress or works been sold to private parties? If so, who were the purchasers?
3.	Were representations made by any society or individuals to the government having in view the retention in the form of a park or otherwise of this historical spot, so intimately connected with the early history of Canada?
' Hon FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):
1.	Fort Malden, Essex county, has been sold.
2.	Yes, to John McLeod, and Andrew Borrowman; part to John McLeod on 28th November, 1875, and part to Andrew Borrowman, on 2nd November. 1886.


William Pugsley: 3.^ Representations with a view to the nationalization of Fort Malden have been received, but up to the present time no action has been taken.


NEW BARRELS FOR LEE-ENFIELD RIFLES.
Mr.  J. A.@: CURRIE-by Mr. Blain-asked:
1.	Is it the intention of the government to issue this year new barrels for the Lee-En-field rifles on repayment to corps armed with these rifles?
2.	What is the cost of these barrels to the government ?
3.	If corps are unable to obtain these barrels, and import them from Great Britain themselves, will duty be charged upon them?


Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence):: 
Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	Representations had been made to the department that the St. Andrews Company, limited, which applied for the licenses! though incorporated in New Brunswick, is made up very largely, if not exclusively, of United States citizens, and that the company was formed with the object of defeating the regulations, and that the weirs, if licensed, would be operated for the benefit of United States citizens.
2.	Yes.
3. No representations were received that there was any doubt as to ownership or for whose benefit other weirs would be operated if licensed.

A ^es- Wiliam Holt was a complainant and much general information on the sub-JFj'th'!as Procured through the Inspector of hishenes for the district.
5. Not as at present advised.
INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-CASE OE ANGUS GILLIS	01


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR asked:: 
Hon. G P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 
Hon.  W. S.@: 
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Pub-lie Works):: 1. Yes.
3 If soon as the appropriation is ob tained.
TEANSCOOTXNWrAl^nWiT-TEN-


Mr. SAMUEL SHARPE asked:: 
Hon. GEO  P.@: GRAHAM (Minister of
"Railwavs and Canals):	__ , r,	,
T. In the Winnipeg 'Free Press,' Fort Wiiliam 'Evening Herald,' Port Arthu 'Chronicle,' Kenora 'Miner and News, Fort Francis 'Times' and the Dauphin Free Press ' Six times, two per week in daily papers. Four times, one per week m
W2eandP3aPeTlie Eastern Construction Coni' pany Limited, tendered for the whole 300,-


Mr. CROSBY.: w. W. STORK, VETERINARY INSPECTOR. Mr. BARR asked:
1. What section of the country has Mr. W. W. Stork, inspector at Brampton of the health of animals travelled over during the vear ending 31st March lastr'
2 What are the amounts in detail paid for all'expense of Mr. W. W. Stork, inspector at Brampton of the health of animals, during the year ended 31st March last?


Hon SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: I would ask the hon. gentleman to let that stand as a notice of motion.


MESSAGES FROM THE GOVERNOR
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING delivered messages from the Governor General.
Mr. SPEAKER read the messages as follows :
Grey :	,
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons further supplementary estimates of sums required for the service of the Dominion for the year ending on the 31st March 1909, and in accordance with the mm visions of the Brtish North America Act, 1RK7 the Governor General recommends these estimates to the House of Commons..
Government House,
Ottawa, May 10, 1909.

Grey :
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons supplementary estimates required for the service of the Dominion for the year ending on the 31st Maroh, 1910, and, in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, the Governor General recommends these estimates to the House of Commons.
Government House,
Ottawa, May 10, 1909.
Mr. FIELDING moved that the messages from His Excellency the Governor General, together with the estimates, be referred to Committee of Supply.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Et.Hon. Sir WIILFEID LAUKIEK moved:
That the organization and classification of the officers, clerks and employees of the House of Commons, submitted to the House by His Honour the Speaker on the 11th day of March, be approved and confirmed.
He said: I ask the consideration of the House to the three notices of motion which I have had, for some time, upon the Order Paper. The Civil Service Act which was passed last session provided for a new classification of the Civil Service. The classification which at that time had existed was discarded and a new one was adopted creating three divisions of the Civil Service and within these divisions, first and second subdivisions. Section 8 of the Act of last session provided that immediately after the coming into force, on the 1st September last, of the "Act, or as soon thereafter as possible the deputy head of each department should proceed to make a classification of his own department. The section is as follows:
As soon as practicable after the coming into force of the Act, the head of each de partment shall cause the organization of his department to he determined and defined by order in council, due regard being had tg the status of each officer or clerk as the case may be.
The members of the House who were here last session will remember that there was a discussion as to what should be done with the officers of the House of Commons and Senate, whether they should be brought within the purview of the Act or whether they should be left out of it. After adequate discussion I believe everybody agreed that it would be proper and advisable that the officers of this House should be brought within the (provisions of the Act. The same thing applies to the Senate. The Act provided that the same classification should be made as respects the officers of the House of Commons and Senate as was made with respect to the officers of the Civil Service itself. Of course, the classification
the
could not be made, under such circumstances, by the Governor in Council, because the officers are not under the jurisdiction of the Governor in Council, but they are to be dealt with directly by the House and therefore the House thought it proper that the classification should be made by the House itself. It was provided by section 45 of the Act that:
Wherever tinder sections 5, 8, 10 (paragraph b of subsection 1), 21, 22, 23, M. 26 (subsection 2) 32, 33, 36 and 37 (subsection 4), of this Act or under the Civil Service Act, any action is authorized or directed to be taken by the Governor in Council or by order m council, such action, with respect to the officers, clerks and employees of the House °f Commons or the Senate, shall be taken by the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, by resolution.
The classification has been prepared by Internal Economy Commission and it is to be found in the Votes and Proceedings of the 11th March last, No. 36. The resolution for which I now ask the concurrence of the House is to be found at page 351 of the Votes and Proceedings. The task has been one of some delicacy, but I think it has been performed with as much care as possible and while I have heard some complaints they have been very few.
George Eulas Foster: Will the Prime Minister state the principle upon which and the persons by whom the classification was made?


Wilfrid Laurier: The Speaker and the clerk.


Mr FIELDING.: It was made largely by the Speaker and the clerk but acting later on with the Internal Economy Commission.


Mr FOSTEE.: There are a few points that I would like to take up before we go into committee on the resolution.


Wilfrid Laurier: I did not propose to go into committee unless my hon. friend desires it.


George Eulas Foster: I do not know how we are going to discuss it backward and forward unless we do.


Wilfrid Laurier: Very good.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier the House went into committee on the resolution.


George Eulas Foster: There are some general observations that I would like to make. In the first place I find that, taking them in their order, we have a sergeant-at-arms, Col-Smith, who has been, I think, since 1859, an employee under the government. The duties of his office are defined by rule 63 of the House of Commons and are, I suppose, just the same as his preceding duties were. The proposed salary of the sergeant-at-arms is $3,300 and the former salary is stated to

be $3,300. The reference note says that the former salary of $3,300 includes apartments valued at $800 and there are included also in the proposed salary apartments valued at $800, the valuation to be deducted each year from the salary; so that the cash salary of the sergeant-at-arms was $2,500 formerly and is $2,500 at the present time. It strikes one that the salary of the sergeant-at-arms; an officer who has had so long a service in the House and with the government and who has performed his duties uniformly well, might have been entitled to some increase in salary, especially as, for a long series of years, there has been almost practically no addition at all to his salary. Large additions are made in the cases of other officers of the House and one scarcely knows of any good reason why the oldest and one of the most efficient of the officers of the House has not had an increase of salary. This would have been mitigated to a certain extent if the sergeant-at-arms had been the recipient of increases in the past, but for a long series of years practically no increase has been made to his salary. As I understand it, the room accommodation which the sergeant-at-arms had before has been curtailed, and he is charged at the rate of $800 per annum for the rooms he now occupies. I do not think my right hon. friend desires to do any injustice to any officer of the House but I would like to know what reasons led to this?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am very sorry I cannot give any reason why these resolutions which I took charge of were made in this way or in that. As I understand it, the matter was dealt with by the clerk and afterwards by the committee on internal economy.


George Eulas Foster: Of which the right hon. gentleman is a member?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am not. It is difficult in a matter of this kind to lay down any fixed rule, but I believe the Sergeant-at-Arms is a very efficient officer, and for my part I would be glad to sanction anything that might be done for him. The Sergeant-at-Arms is an old officer, it is true, but I suppose in this House, as in the Scriptures, those who come at the first hour and the eleventh hour receive the same treatment. I am not aware that the Sergeant-at-Arms has not the same quarters now that he had before; I know that some years ago he very kindly gave one of his rooms to one of the members of the government and whether it was returned to him or not since the new wing has been built I do not know. However, that may be, those who prepared these resolutions came to the conclusion that the apartments were worth $800. As to that I have no knowledge and am not able to say whether the amount is too much or too little.


George Eulas Foster: 


George Eulas Foster: Somebody is responsible for the classification and the Prime Minister is introducing the resolution; the Clerk of the House has no status to give an explanation in the House but surely the Prime Minister ought not to rest content with saying that he does not know of any reason why this classification was made as it has been made. It must have been done for some reason or it must have been omitted for some reason, and it is the duty of the Prime Minister to give the reason.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand
there is no change.


George Eulas Foster: There is this change: That other officers in the House who have not been nearly so long in the service and, who have certainly not been more efficient* have been given large increases. The Prime Minister says it is haTd to lay down a general rule, but surely a thing like this ought to be fixed on some basis of consistency.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) probably does not realize that officers of the House of Commons were not in the inside service until the Civil Service Act came into force last year. Then, the Department of Justice gave it as their deliberate opinion, and it has been acted upon, that on the first of September lasf>
all outside employees and officers had to come under the classification at the salaries which they were enjoying at that time; they came into the sub-division and division which was indicated by their salaries on the first of September. I am not very familiar with the facts as regards the employees of the House of Commons, but I understand that on the 1st of September last the Sergeant-at-Arms was receiving $2,500 as salary and certain accomodation in the House which was reckoned as being valued at $800 a year. Under the ruling of the Departmeht of Justice, if only the salary of the Sergeant-at-Arms had been taken into account he would have had to be put into the class ranging from $2,100 to $2,800, but the Speaker, and the Clerk of the House, and the internal economy committee thought it would be unfair to do that, and they added the $800 a year the assured rental of his department, to the $2,500 and called the salary $3,300. In that way, on the 1st of September the Sergeant-at-Arms was enjoying a salary of $3,300 and under the ruling of the Department of Justice he came in the classification which ranged from $2,800 to $4,000. If the Sergeant-at-Arms or any other officer had been in a lower sub-division and the classification was so arranged that the officer should in the future be put in a higher sub-division, then his salary might be increased to the minimum of the sub-division in which he was placed. But if he comes into a

certain sub-division without having been promoted or raised from another sub-division he has to come in at the salary which he was enjoying on the 1st of September. I do not understand, how, under the law, it would be possible for the House at this present time to increase or change the salaries. Of course the House of Commons can at any time by a special vote in the estimates add to the salaries of its officers, but under a resolution of this kind and in this classification I do not think they can do more than transfer from the outside service to the inside service at the salary which the officer was enjoying on the first of September.


George Eulas Foster: Let us see how that works out. Mr. Laplante was clerk assistant of the Commons on the 1st of September 1908 and Mr. Laplante at that time was getting $2,800. Mr. Laplante goes into this classification at $3,500. If the minister's position is correct how is it they have been able to raise the salary in the case of the assistant clerk.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If that statement is correct I cannot understand it.


George Eulas Foster: Can the minister understand this other case:	Mr. Lucien Dube
was receiving a salary of $1,350 when the 1st day of September, 1908, was struck. lie is put in here with a proposed salary of $1,550. If that rule laid down by the Minister of Agriculture is the rule, how is it possible that this could have been done? Now, the House will recollect very well an attempt which was made here on the last day of last session by the Speaker and the Clerk, to raise salaries and make promotions without any legislative authority at all. And in their action in attempting to raise salaries without an appropriation they proposed to raise the salaries of the clerk assistant and some others. The House will remember that we discussed that question and that both the Speaker and the Minister of Finance, I think, decided that there was no parliamentary appropriation. The Speaker argued at first that there would be sufficient bits left over from nonpayment of the salaries as authorized by the House which, when all collected together would allow these promotions and these additions, but on further investigation I think he disabused himself of that idea because the matter came into this House and certainly we could only make these promotions and additions to salaries by first having the legislative authority, and there was no such authority. The conclusion which the House came to in the end was that this could only go as a recommendation and could not take effect. I am quite clear as to what took place at that time and also quite clear that the
impression then left and still prevailing was that the contention that these promotions and additions could be made without having direct legislative authority was receded from and we understood that nothing could be done until parliament at its next session had made the proper appropriations. Then, if it was conceived to be right the will of parliament could have its voice.
It is not a pleasant thing to discuss these matters in connection'with our own officers, but we have to do unpleasant things occasionally, and I for one propose frankly to discuss this matter. I am sorry it has to be but it is as well to do it here	and to do it frankly
as it is to discuss the salaries of outside departments whose members are not before you. In discussing this it is needless to say that I have no feeling for one or the other except on the simple ground of what I consider to be even justice and fair play all round.


William Pugsley: As a member of the Internal Economy Commission, I certainly proceeded upon the theory that, except in the case of officers whose salaries were increased by reason of their being put in a higher classification, all others had to go in upon the salary which they were receiving on the 1st of September last, and it was upon that view of the law that the committee acted with regard to the SeTgeant-at-Arms. I was informed that in computing the salary of the SeTgeant-at-Arms his apartments were valued at $800. Adding to that the $2,500 salary which he had been previously receiving made $3,300, and if my hon. friend will look at page 351 of the Votes and Proceedings of March 11, he will see that the former salary is placed at $3,300 and the proposed salary at $3,300. We thought we could not increase that; I think the law is imperative and that we had no power to increase it. Speaking for myself I am not at all prepared to say that if we had had the power my judgment might not have been in favour of increasing that salary but I simply proceeded on the theory that we were absolutely powerless.


Haughton Lennox: Could you not increase it by charging a lower rental, adding the rest to salary?


William Pugsley: That of course would be doing what probably we have no Tight to do if the apartments are worth that much. If they are worth less, of course we could deduct from the value of the apartments, but my information was that the apartments were fairly worth $800 a year.


Robert Laird Borden: What is intended by the expression, former salary and proposed salary?


William Pugsley: Former salary is the salary the officer enjoyed prior to the coming into force of the Civil Service Act. on the 1st of September.


Robert Laird Borden: I understood from the Minister of Agriculture that he considered that the former salary could not be increased.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend could not have understood one portion of the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture. The former salary could not be increased unless by reason of an officer being, by virtue of the classification, placed in a rank the minimum of which was higher than the salary which he was before receiving. In that case he would get the minimum salary, but in all other cases, where his existing salary was higher than the minimum of the class he was entering, he would go in at the salary he was formerly receiving and we could not increase that salary. The salary of the clerk assistant is given in the first column at $3,500 and the present salary is given at $3,500. Does my hon. friend say that the salary of the clerk assistant was less than $3,500 prior to the 1st of September?


George Eulas Foster: I say it was.


William Pugsley: I do not so understand it.


George Eulas Foster: My understanding is that on the 1st of September, 1908, the salary of the clerk assistant .was $2,800. I do not think there is the least doubt in the world about that. If it were not, why did the Speaker, on the last day of the last session, propose an increase of $700 and then abandon the indrease because there was no legislative appropriation?


William Pugsley: It was not abandoned. The salary was fixecU. before the close of the last session of parliament which, as my hon. friend knows, ended in July, at $3,500.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Up to that date what was it?


William Pugsley: $2,800 I understand. The point is that it was increased, whether rightly or wrongly, to $3,500 before the 1st of last September. It being $3,500 when the Civil Service Act came into operation, we necessarily put it at $3,500; we could not increase it, we could not make it $3,550, or $3,525. Neither did we feel that we could add one dollar to the salary of the sergeant-at-arms. But take the case of the next officer, J. R. E. Chapleau: his former salary was $2,500, but as he was placed in the first division, subdivision ' A,' the minimum salary attached to that class being $2,800 his salary immediately went up by operation of law to $2,800. We Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
could not then make it $2,825; we had to leave it at the minimum salary belonging to that class and my hon. friend will see that that is the principle which guided us all the way through. I repeat that so far as the salary of the Sergeant-at-Arms is concerned, the information given me was that the value of his apartments had been fixed at $800, they had stood at that for a number of years. That would be important later on when the Sergeant-at-Arms might apply for superannuation as the $800 would count as part of his remuneration in estimating his superannuation allowance. I understand that that was the Sergeant-at-Arms' own estimate of the value of his apartments. We found his salary to be $3,300 and we left it at that amount, feeling that we had no power to increase it.


George Eulas Foster: I will just give in detail what took place. We were in the last days of last session, I think, July 18, and were passing votes and getting ready for concurrence. It occurred to me to ask whether there were any increases other than some we had been talking of in the dedepartment, or promotions, or any changes made in the staff of the House. Then the Speaker said that there were some. I asked for particulars, and I found that there were 14 or 15 or 16 either additions to salaries or promotions which carried additions. I got the information, one by one, about increases and the like. Then what occurred? I am now quoting from * Hansard ':
Mr..FOSTER. Will the Speaker tell us out of what money he is going to pay for these increases?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: They will have to be voted.


George Eulas Foster: Is the Speaker making these appointments and these increases commencing with the beginning of this fiscal year, and waiting till next session for a vote to authorize them?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: That is the intention.


George Eulas Foster: Is that the usual way? It seems to me that we have been usually getting the votes first and making the appointments afterwards. May be under the new deputy we are going to adopt a different system.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: We think there will be enough money for the purpose.


George Eulas Foster: But the money was net appropriated for this.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It was appropriated for the general salaries of the House. In the meantime we put this on the minutes of the Board of Internal Economy as our recommendation to the government. Of course, the matter will have to be dealt with in the ordinary way.


George Eulas Foster: Have you included in these increases all the officials in connection with the House ?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I would not like to say we have included all. We have included quite a number but not all. Some of these cases have been standing a year or two, and others

have come up this session. In other cases the officials have not applied for an increase this year.
When we came to concurrence in the evening I took up the point again, and in the debate I am quite sure we came to the conclusion that these increases would have to wait until parliamentary appropriation was made. Mr. Speaker said that there was sufficient left over from the general salaries; but my hon. friend the Minister of Finance knows that it the House votes an amount for general salaries of the messengers and sessional clerks and it is not all utilized, the Speaker and the Internal Economy Committee have no right to add to the salaries of the permanent clerks and officials of the House and pay them out of this surplus. The one hold which the House of Commons has is that you must vote the money before paying it. You must first have the name of the person to be promoted and vote the amount necessary to provide for his promotion. There is no other way. We came to that conclusion, and parliament was prorogued with that understanding. There cannot be any doubt about it. If that be so, these increases should only be recommendations of the Internal Economy Committee which would not be given effect to until the votes were granted, which could not be done until this session. No votes had been granted dating back the increases to September, 1908, and therefore it was impossible to argue that they were operative on that date in the cases I have mentioned.


Mr. FIELDING.: Touching first the question of the allowance to the Sergeant-at-Arms for apartments, I have always understood that that was fixed, not only with the approval of that officer but at his desire, in order that some day, when he wished to retire, it might be included as part of his salary when estimating his superannuation allowance. My hon. friend will see the importance of this from the point of view of the Sergeant-at-Arms. That was done, if not by his wish, to his entire satisfaction. In July 1908 the Board of Internal Economy, in pursuance of its usual practice, reported that the salary of the deputy clerk should be $3,500 on the first of September last. The point raised by my hon. friend is a legal one as to which I shall not offer an opinion; but in the estimates of the current session, when bringing forward our supplementaries for the last fiscal year, a vote was taken to increase the salary of Mr. Laplante $700 from the first of April, 1908. Parliament has therefore voted the salary. It appears that parliament did not appropriate the salary until after the first of September, and on the precise effect of this I do not care to offer an opinion. Parliament was asked to provide the money and it did so. It
provided that the increase should take effect from the. 1st of April, 1908. That vote is in the supplementary estimates for the year ending 31st March, 1909. Parliament has by this appropriation, confirmed the action of the Internal Economy Committee. What Mr. Laplante's precise legal status was on the first oi September last, in the light of this discussion, may be a point of debate.


George Eulas Foster: On the same day, July 18, 1908, in concurrence on the item:
House of Commons-sessional clerks-additional, $15,600.
I pointed out that we had no authority at all to increase special salaries out of a general vote. Let me quote what I said:
I want to emphasize what I said this afternoon, that I do not see anything in the past practice of this parliament which authorizes increases in special salaries out of a general vote or what may be left over from a general vote. No department, because it has a general vote which it has not used up, can out of that vote go behind parliament and raise the salaries of a dozen or twenty clerks. The universal practice has been that before you can raise the salary of a clerk whose salary has been voted by this parliament, you mu9t come to parliament and get the money for doing that, and I do not see how it is possible, in the case of the House of Commons, any more than in the case of a department, to raise the salaries of a number of clerks without parliamentary authority, and to raise them from a period which anti-dates the time of the action. I am not saying this because I want to bar the increases to the officers of the House, but I am expressing a principle which, I think, is absolutely clear and definite, and I would be very sorry to see the House of Commons itself break one of the fundamental rules of parliament.
With his usual caution, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance said:
There seems to be some question as to the proper procedure in the matter. I am not sure that this is without precedent, though I am not sure that it is a wise practice to pay such increases out of general votes. I have not had the point brought before me before, and I will look into it. ' There is no desire to depart from sound rules in the matter.


George Eulas Foster: I do .not think there is, and I mention it in the same spirit in which the Finance Minister refers to it, I would be very sorry if there were.
That ended it. Now, let us come to the square dealing in the matter. At that moment, when this recommendation was made to the House on a previous recommendation by the Internal Economy Committee, there was no parliamentary authority for raising these salaries. We are all agreed upon that, and it is shown by the fact that this year the Finance Minister has come down with a supplementary vote for that purpose. Then it does not seem to me to be the square deal and to be putting the

thing on the old and well established rule, to come down, six or eight months after the recommendation has been made, to obtain parliamentary authority for this classification, and to say that on the first of September, 1908, Mr. Laplante, the assistant clerk for instance, was getting a salary of $3,500. He was getting at the rate of $2,800 a year on that date; he got his payment on that basis; he could not draw and did not draw a single dollar more; and he drew every dollar that was due to him at that date. Therefore this proceeding is not regular.


William Findlay Maclean: In other words, this record is not correct.


George Eulas Foster: This record, I contend to be wrong. With reference to Mr. Dube, the same remark applies. His salary at that date was not $1,350 a year. There was a recommendation that he be paid $1,350, but there was no parliamentary appropriation for it, and therefore he could not and did not get it. He was drawing that amount less the addition for which an appropriation has been made in the year 1909. But when you come to the matter of rooms, why is it that you allow Mr. Dube rooms without making any deduction at all from his salary on account of them, while in the case of the Sergeant-at-Arms, for his occupation of rooms he is paying a rental, which you deduct from his cash salary. As I understand, Mr. Dube has eight rooms at his disposal, for what reason I do not know. I do not know why any official of this House should have eight rooms at his disposal and pay nothing for them. The Sergeant-at-Arms has rooms for which he pays a rental of $800 a year. Why you should make a difference in these cases, I do not know. Mr. Laplante has rooms, for which no deduction is made, from his salary. We have to take these things into consideration. It does not seem to me that sufficient consideration has been given to them. I contend that the record is incorrect in the case of both Mr. Dube and Mr. Laplante, to this extent, that on the first of September, 1908, they were not in the possession of these salaries and they could not and did not draw them. Of course, if you are going to allow ex post facto legislation, you may take a vote nine years from now to bring up the salary of an officer, but I think that would not be a good rule to act upon.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend in his opening remarks asked what principle had been followed in this classification. I understand, from the discussion that has taken place, that those members of the government who are members of the Internal Economy Commission, and who with the officers of the House prepared these resolutions, understood that there


George Eulas Foster: could be no increases, that the law would not allow them to make them. In the case of Mr. Laplante, it is a question whether or not there was a legal increase. The Internal Economy Commission, in fixing his salary of $3,500, were guided by what they had before them-the resolution raising his salary to that figure. While that may have been the intention of the Internal Economy Commission, that intention was not carried into effect by legislation. That is a point to be discussed afterwards.


George Eulas Foster: Have we settled that point? I am not arguing to-day as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of these salaries. I am arguing as to the misapprehension under which they have been put in here. The Prime Minister sees that if the Internal Economy Committee, on some recommendation of the late Speaker and the clerk, had this year brought down an item to increase the salary of the Sergeant-at-Arms $400 or $500, it would have been exactly on a parity with the other two cases. What was the idea of those who made the recomendations in the first place that the Sergeant-at-Arms should have had an increase after his long service? We members of parliament, though we may want to be guided by a recommendation, must see; that justice is observed towards all our employees. The fact that a recommendation has been made of an increase for one| and not for another is no reason why we should perpetuate that injustice. My suggestion now is that the only proper way is to Tput all these men in at the salary they were actually getting on the first day of* September, 1908, which the Minister of Justice will, I think, tell you is the only thin^i you can do; and then let this House ojf Commons, under the rules and under the Civil Service Act, if it be necessary, take into account what advances or what pro-; motions should be made. I might as well' bring up another case or two. Here is the* case of the chief clerk of English journals. The chief clerk of French journals is an old officer, who came in in 1869, and had' his present place given to him, I think, in 1887. He is a good officer, so far as I! know, who does his duty thoroughly well; that is Mr. J. R. E. Chapleau. I am nofi finding any fault with reference to him. His old salary was $2,500; his present salary is $2,800, which puts him into the class where he will go on to $4,000. But alongside of him is another officer, Mr. A. G. D. Taylor, the chief clerk of English journals who has been in service of this country since 1849. Mr. Chapleau is the chief ccierk of the French journals and Mr. Taylor is chief clerk of English journals. One is just as important as the other; I am not making any comparison between them. But you have left Mr. Taylor, who

has been an officer of the Canadian parliament since 1849, and has done his work well and faithfully, and is now an old man, with not many more years before him. Why *was it that he was left at his old salary and given no increase, while the chief clerk of French journals and of Votes and Proceedings was moved -into a higher class, and given a fairly large increase, and put into a class where he would have an opportunity of going further? With reference to the increase to Mr. Chapleau, it does no-ti seem to _ be equitable treatment when you take it in comparison with others. There are many other cases open to a like objection, but these are the three or four chief ones that seem1 to me to require some explanation.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend will observe that the salary of Mr Chapleau is increased by $300, the salary of Mr. Bowles is increased by $300 also. Mr. Chapleau and Mr. Bowles are old and valuable servants, and excellent officers of the House. The same may be said of Mr Taylor, he is also an excellent officer, and for my part I would have voted for an increase to him. But the difficulty is: How are you to deal with these matters? I regreat- that Mr. Taylor was not given an increase of $300. When this matter was brought to my attention we tried to do the best we could, we tried to do justice in every case, and I think that has been done; at all events that has been our endeavour. My hon. friend said that in the salary of the Sergeant-at-Arms $800 is set down for the rent of the rooms. Nothing of the kind was done in the case of Mr. Dube, who receives an increase of $200, and I believe occupies several rooms. So far -as I know the chief messenger, Mr. Dube, and Mr. Carleton, always had those rooms. If the rent has not been included for salary, it is because Mr. Dube has not asked for it; whereas I am told by the Minister of Finance that the Sergeant-at-Arms himself wanted to have a simple increase of salnT" for reasons which I can appreciate and for very worthy reasons. But my hon. friend complains that an increase has been given to some which has not been given to others.


George Eulas Foster: Who have had longer service, or as long?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know the reasons which moved the Committee on Internal Economy in drawing up that schedule. I understand they wanted the service systematized. With regard to Mr. Laplante, I understand the criticism is not that he receives too much, but that the Sergeant-at-Arms does not receive enough.


George Eulas Foster: If you are going to make a comparison, we must consider the length
of service, and in that view I think Mr. Laplante's salary is too great. I think the general impression is that the salary of the Sergeant-at-Arms is not what it should have been, and that therefore there is an injustice. I am glad to see, too, that the Prime Minister agrees with me with respect to our old servant, Mr. Taylor. That seem to be a rather hard case.


Mr. SUTHERLAND.: If I were to exnress my personal opinion, after four years occupation of the position of Speaker, I would say that the position of Sergeant-at-Arms and of assistant clerk of the House, are not to be compared so far as work and responsibility are concerned. The position of deputy clerk requires a great amount of technical knowledge that the position of Sergeant-at-Arms does not at all require. In my judgment the position of assistant clerk should be paid higher, notwithstanding the fact that he is here supposed to be an officer of inferior rank to the Sergeant-at-Arms. I would express my opinion that the present salary of $3,300, including apartments, is ample, in view of the responsibility and the work which fall to the Sergeant-at-Arms. With respect to Mr. Taylor, there is this point which has not yet been put before the House, and which really had a great deal to do with the increase of Mr. Chapleau's salary and the conclusion not to increase Mr. Taylor's salary. Mr. Taylor is a very old and competent official of the House; but Mr. Chapleau, from his knowledge of the French language, combines the work of both Mr. Taylor and Mr. Bowles; he has far more work and far more responsibility than Mr. Taylor, and it was because of the combination of these two capacities in the case of Mr. Chapleau that the board increased his salary to $2,800 as the minimum of that class. I am informed that Mr. Chapleau has also work to do in French which another official of the House, Mr. Colwell, does in English; so he is really one of the hardest worked and most responsible officials of the House. Those are some of the reasons which led to the increase of $300.


George Eulas Foster: The Prime Minister has not yet stated what he proposes to do about this. I took it that he rather thought a different arrangement might have been made. I do not at all agree with the late Speaker (Mr._ Sutherland) in his estimation of the relative importance of the positions of Sergeant-at-Arms and assistant clerk; I do not at all agree with him in his view of the length of service, nor of the arduous nature of the service, nor as to the hours of service. I would be quite willing to go into a comparison of those points if it were necessary. The office of Sergeant-at-Arms is an old and honoured office in the British

parliament, and always lias been in out parliament; and it does not seem to me that the late Speaker would have stretched his conscience too iar if he had looked upon it a little in that light, and had given to this old and honoured officer, and a representative of an honourable position, the increase of salary to which I think he was entitled. The late Speaker looked after some of his own friends, and looked after them well. He gave them increases, and saw that they were put in places of responsibility; saw that their salaries were well advanced. He may have had a kindly feeling towards them.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: What does my hon. friend mean when he says I looked after some of my friends, and looked after them well?


George Eulas Foster: I mean to say that the late Speaker saw that some of his own friends got appointments.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: What does the hon. gentleman mean by saying some of my own friends?


George Eulas Foster: They were your friends, I suppose.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: All the officials were my friends. The hon. gentleman seems to be suggesting something further.


George Eulas Foster: I tell my hon. friend, who is not now Speaker, that I have now the right to defend myself against him. If he stated just now that I was trying to make an insinuation against him, I would ask him to take it back. I was making no insinuation.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: What did the hon. gentleman mean by suggesting that I was looking after my friends?


George Eulas Foster: Exactly what I said, and what every other member would understand. What I said was that the late Speaker took care of his own friends. So he did. I did not say that they were relatives of his, or blood relations, or anything of the kind. I meant what I said, and that is all.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not think the gentleman meant exactly what he said. He said that the late Speaker had been a little partial to some of his own friends.


George Eulas Foster: I will set that at rest at once. I had not the least idea of anything of that kind. I had before me the names of the gentlemen, and I knew that they were not kith and kin of the late Speaker. One of these is a Frenchman, and I do not think he can be any kith or kin of my hon. friend the late Speaker. I do not know what the other one is, but I had not the least idea that they were relations of the hon. gentleman.


George Eulas Foster: 


Wilfrid Laurier: Very good; I will stand corrected. My hon. friend did not mean as much as his language implied.
I think that the only thing we have to do on the present occasion, now that my hon. friend has appealed to me, is to carry this resolution. I shall always be ready to consider the claim of any one who comes to me with a grievance, although as the hon. gentleman knows, it is not in my province to look into these matters. All I can do is to sit sometimes as a court of appeal to listen to the grievances which are presented to me. I do not generally meddle with these things as they are not within my purview. If the resolution is adopted I will be very glad to hear any representations which my hon. friend may make if he thinks an injustice has been done to any body.


George Eulas Foster: I notice there are some increases and we might have these explained before we go farther. Mr. Dansereau, clerk of French journals, became clerk in 1901. He receives an increase of $100 and comes into the class which allows progress upwards to $2,100.


William Pugsley: $1,600 is the minimum of his class.


George Eulas Foster: That convenient minimum !


William Pugsley: He had to get that salary.


George Eulas Foster: They have to get them; they must get them! Then I find Mr. Paradis, translator, is increased from $1,500 to $1,600 and goes into the second division of subdivision 'A.' There are some appointments here that I have not been able to trace. One is that of Mr. A. G. Troop, secretary to law branch, and the other is that of Mr. F. X. R. Saucier, assistant clerk of French journals, Votes and Proceedings and Orders. There is an assistant clerk of French journals. Mr. Dansereau is the clerk of French journals, so that Mr. Chapleau has two clerks to assist him in the French journals department. Mr. Lalonde gets an increase from $800 to $900. There was no compulsion in that case.


William Pugsley: That puts him in the minimum of his class-$900 to $1,200.


George Eulas Foster: You might just as easily say that he was at the maximum of his class where a good many others were and where they remain. If a man is at the maximum of his class and does not get into the other class and he raises the question you say to him: 'We could not do it; the law would not allow it.' If he is at the maximum of his class and you want to raise him into the next class you give him $100 and raise him into the next class. It seems to be a good deal a matter of as you will, so you do.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Mr. Lalonde was promoted from being a messenger to a third class clerk and he is performing new and more important duties.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. George, steward of joint restaurant and Speaker's steward, gets $900 and residence. How many rooms has Mr. GeoTge?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Three or four. He has the old dining room and two rooms in the new wing.


George Eulas Foster: His duties are chiefly looking after the comfort of members of the House and Senate.


William Pugsley: There was no increase in his case.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What rent do you charge him?


George Eulas Foster: He is not charged any rent.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: This is a very cheap arrangement. He discharges his duties as steward of the new restaurant as well as the duties of Speaker's steward with the very slight advance of $100 and his quarters.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But he is doing it for his own profit.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: No, he is doing it1 as an officer of the House.


George Eulas Foster: As I understand it he does not receive anything beyond the salary he gets.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: No.


George Eulas Foster: What he does get extra are the rooms?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Yes, and he discharges additional duties.


George Eulas Foster: I do not now want to enter into the question of the restaurant at all, but I just desire to refer to one point. We give a salary to Mr. George for looking after the comfort of members in that way. As I understand, the restaurant is run) as a club and this parliament does not take any financial responsibility outside of the plant and the salary of the steward.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: That is all.


William Pugsley: I just wish to say a few words in regard to this classification. It may seem as if there was little work connected with the preparation of the classification, but I can assure the committee that it took a great deal of time. The Internal Economy Commission devoted a good deal of time to it and we also asked his honour the Speaker and the clerk of the House, who are attached to the committee, the Speaker being chairman of the
committee, to give all the time which was necessary to the consideration of the matter. I am sure that they did devote a great deal of thought to the question. Of course, the committee had primarily to consider the different officers connected with the House of Commons with regard to length of service, efficiency and the importance of the duties that they were called upon to dseharge. Having done that it was decided to arrange them in the different classes provided for in the Civil Servicel Act. The question as to the class in which the Sergeant-at-Arms should be placed came before us and after being carefully considered the committee decided that he should be placed in the first division of subdivision 'A' in which the salary will run to a maximum of $4,000. Well, then we had to consider what was the fair rental of his apartments and we found that it had been fixed at $800 and had remained at that for a number of years. That made his salary $3,300. We were powerless to increase it, to add one dollar to it. We put him in the very highest rank that we could, he being placed in the rank in which his salary will increase to $4,000, and we could not increase the amount under the law, no matter how desirous we might be to do so. As to the assistant clerk, we rightly or wrongly assumed that upon the report of the Internal Economy Commission presented last session and approved by the House, his salary was then fixed at $3,500 prior to the 1st of September, and that being so we had no power to either increase or reduce it. With regard to others it will be found they were all placed at the minimum salary attached to the class to which they were appointed, unless their then salaries were higher than the minimum. In the case of Mr. Taylor, the reason which actuated - us was that Mr. Chapleau has duties of a somewhat more extensive character than Mr. Taylor has. If I understand it, Mr. Bowles performs jointly with Mr. Taylor the duties which are performed alone by Mr. Chapleau. As to all the others it will be found that where the salaries they were then receiving were equal to or greater than the minimum salary attached to the class in which they were placed we make no increases, but where the salaries which they were previously receiving were less than the minimum salary of their class then, we, under the statute, gave them the minimum salary of the class in which they were appointed. The only other gentleman whose salary seems to call for remark is Mr. Dube who previously received $1,350 and who was placed by us at $1,550. Mr. Dube was in the occupation of a number of rooms, but owing to the building of the new wing his entrance was completely closed up so that he had to use the en-

trance which is used by the Sergeant-at-Arms, and some of his rooms were darkened and their usefulness impaired to a great extent. He had the use of those apartments as part of his compensation, and we thought that the value of these apartments was reduced to the amount of $200. Bringing our best judgment to bear on the matter we thought it not unreasonable to add $200 to Mr. Dube's salary. In all other respects there has been no change in the salaries since the 1st of September, except in those cases where, we made the increases under the law which provided that they should go to a certain class at the minimum salary of that class.


Haughton Lennox: The minister says that Mr. Dub6 was forced to use the same entrance as the Sergeant-at-Arms and for that reason certain consideration was given to him.


William Pugsley: And his rooms are darkened.


Haughton Lennox: Did the minister think that matter of the entrance was a serious inconvenience, or did he, in considering it, also take into consideration that the Sergeant-at-Arms had to enter by the same entrance as Mr. Dube.


Mr. TALBOT.: In order to meet the point so well taken by the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Sutherland), the hon. member from North Toronto discovered that Mr. Chapleau had the assistance of Mr. L. Dansereau and Mr. Saucier, but he omitted to mention that Mr. Bowles and Mr. Taylor have also the assistance of Mr. Dalton at a salary of $1,900, of Mr. H. P. Macdonell at a salary of $1,600, and Mr. Wilfrid Dub6 at a salary of $1,450.


George Eulas Foster: The Civil Service List of 1899 which I have here shows the comparison. The clerk at that time was getting $3,400 and had had a service of 31 years; the present clerk gets $5,000 and has a service of six years. The Sergeant-at-Arms was then getting $2,400 with a service of 40 years and he is now getting $2,500 with a service of 50 years. In ten years the Sergeant-at-Arms has only been advanced $100. The assistant clerk had a salary of $2,000 with two years' service and the assistant clerk now with 11 years' service has a salary of $3,500. The advance has been rapid in his case, whereas there practically has been no advance in all these years in the salary of the Sergeant-at-Arms. The point is that we have here-maybe falsification is too strong a term-but we have here what is a misrepresentation of the record. When we pass a resolution saying that on the 1st of September, 1908, certain officers had a salary that they did not have, I think Mr. PUGSLEY.
we should make the record conform to the actuality.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Mr. Laplante was practically on the 1st of September in receipt of the salary mentioned in this report, and consequently there is no alteration or falsification of the record. The Civil Service Act formerly did not apply to the officers of the House of Commons and the Internal Economy Commission was free to give any increase of salary it might decide upon. In July, 1908, the Internal Economy Commission decided to increase these salaries and consequently on the 1st of September these officers were in receipt of that salary. When Sir John Bourinot was clerk of the House and I was Speaker, I remember this matter being discussed several times and he always -claimed that once the Internal Economy Commission passed a resolution of that kind it was in force.


George Eulas Foster: Who contended that?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Sir John Bourinot. The Act creating the Board of Internal Economy states that the distribution of moneys voted by parliament is under the control of the committee, and as the Civil Service Act did not then apply to the officers of the House of Commons it may safely be contended that once the Internal Economy Commission had passed such a resolution it was virtually the law.


George Eulas Foster: Did Mr. Laplante draw this pay on the 1st of September, 1908?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know. I am informed that the money had to be voted and that the amount was there and was available, under the powers voted in the Internal Economy Commission. I think it had a right to pass this resolution, which came to the knowledge of the House and was considered as being the law at the time.


Robert Laird Borden: I would not concur in the view expressed by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, with all possible deference to his experience on the board and otherwise, in connection with these matters. All that we had before us last year was a recommendation which had not been acted upon up to the close of last session and was not acted upon until a vote was passed during the present session of parliament. If the Civil Service Act, 1908, had said that these officers were to come in upon the salary suggested or recommended by the Board of Internal Economy, the Minister of Marine's argument would have been unanswerable. But the Act does not say that, it says the officers are to come in on the salaries which they then received. Suppose the House had been in session in September 2, 1908, and had undertaken to pass a resolution of this kind, it is perfectly obvious

that these gentlemen could not have been put in at those salaries because they were not then enjoying br receiving them. It does not seem to me th&t ttifit condition of affairs is altered by the circumstances that we may have made an appropriation in some instances during this session. We are proposing now to pass a resolution which is not founded upon the facts as I understand them, and I think, as has been already said, that we are departing from the record when we put the resolution in this form. The former salary of this gentleman is not what was stated in column 1


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It had been increased by the Board of Internal Economy. The action of that board was not merely a recommendation, it was a resolution in this form:
Resolved that the salary of J. B. Laplante, assistant clerk, be increased to $3,500.
That resolution was passed July 14, 1908 and I maintain that with the powers invested in the Board of Internal Economy and with the money then at the disposal of that board, this salary was then increased and consequently on September 1 we must consider that Mr. Laplante was enjoying this salary of $3,500.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand the argument but do not concur in it. That resolution was undoubtedly passed. If nothing more had occurred, if the House had taken no action on that resolution by granting the necessary appropriation, Mr. La-plante's salary, or the salary of any gentleman mentioned in that resolution, would remain as it was before. In other words, the recommendation or resolution passed by the Board of Internal Economy, has no effect whatever until implemented by some action of parliament, and therefore, upon the ordinary acceptance of the words, I do not see how, within the meaning of the Civil Service Act, 1908, this gentleman could be said to have received that salary at that time.
With regard to the Sergeant-at-Arms, the member for Essex, the late Speaker (Mr. Sutherland) has referred to the nature and character of his services and to his status in this House. It must not be forgotten that the Sergeant-at-Arms, although he may not he required to possess knowledge of the rules of this House which are within the peculiar province of the clerk and the clerk assistant, who are supposed to assist the Speaker in that regard, has nevertheless a great deal of work to do and very important duties to perform which are not within the province of the two officers whom I have mentioned. He has a great deal of administrative work imposed upon him ; he is brought constantly into contact with the members of the House, he has the control of a very considerable staff and he must be a man of tact. He _ has 194
always been a man of standing, a man worthy of the service of the House of which he is one of the most important officials, and while I am not disposed to criticise the increases that have been made to any officers of the House, and thus what I say by way of illustration must not be regarded as any criticism of any officers of the House to whom I may allude, I would point out that in 1898 or 1899 the salaries of other important officers of this House were less than that of the Sergeant-at-Arms. For example the salary of the assistant clerk in 1898 was $2,000 or $2,200. The salary of the Sergeant-at-Arms at that time was $2,400 in addition to the rooms^ of which he enjoys the occupation during sessions. In other words, the salary of one officer was $2,200 and the salary of the other was $3,200. We see the salary of the Sergeant-at-Arms passing from $2,400 to $2,500 and that of another very worthy officer, the assistant clerk, passing from $2,000 to $3,500. I give this merely by way of illustration. I am sure the Prime Minister would not desire to take any such action in regard to _ this matter as would tend to impress itself upon the mind of an old, valued and respected officer of this House as designed to slight him or degrade him in any way. I would be inclined to think that the action now proposed might very well impress itself upon the mind of a man who I believe has been in the service of the House for about forty years as having been designed-no, I will not say that-as having some tendency to bring about that belief, not only in his own mind but in the minds of others.	,	,
For that reason I regret very much that sufficient consideration has not been given to what I consider the very legitimate claims of the position which the Sergeant-at-Arms has filled with a great deal of satisfaction and acceptance, with a great deal of tact and I am sure with every credit and honour not only to himself but to the House whose officer he is.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman contend that the Board of Internal Economy could have granted any increase to the Ser-geant-atxArms?


Robert Laird Borden: They could have done it exactly as they did in the case of the clerk assistant in the House, whom I again select simply for the purpose of illus-tation, because I am not quarrelling with his increase of salary as I have every reason to know he is a thoroughly capable officer. His status here rests, as I understand it, not upon the recommendation of the Board of Internal Economy but upon the fact that this parliament has voted an increase of $700 to take effect from April 1908. Exactly the same course could have been pursued with regard to the Sergeant-at-Arms, a fairly respectable sum could



have been inserted in the estimates of this year as an addition to his salary, and in that case he would have been, in my opinion, in exactly the same position, so far as the purposes of this resolution are concerned, as are any of the other officers whose claims I think must be based upon the appropriation made by this House and not upon any resolution passed by the Board of Internal Economy.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Before this resolution is approved of, I should like to say a word or two about these two officials, the assistant clerk of the House and the Sergeant-at-Arms. We are paying the assistant clerk $1,000 a year more than the Sergeant-at-Arms. I do not think that is fair. I am not saying that the assistant clerk is not earning the money, as I am not competent to judge, but I think that when he receives $1,000 more than the Sergeant-at-Arms, that excess is out of proportion. The clerk of the House has of course very great responsibility, but I do not quite agree with the ex-Speaker that the assistant clerk has so much responsibility. He has some but he has not all the responsibility of the clerk's work, and has the clerk over him who is really responsible. I agree with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition that a similar vote to that which was passed to increase the salary of the assistant clerk should have been passed to increase that of the Sergeant-at-Arms. The government ought at any rate to put through a vote to reduce the amount of rent charged the Sergeant-at-Arms. I do not see why you should charge him rent for quarters when you do not anybody else. The Finance Minister says that this is a benefit to that official because it will be computed in making up his superannuation allowance when he wishes to retire. But that is not what the people want. They want us to pay men according to the work they do rather than pay them more after they have given up work.


William Stevens Fielding: The question is whether the allowance for quarters, assuming it to be reasonable, is not just as good as a salary.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No, he could get all the benefit he enjoys away from the building for much less than 'the rent of $800 which you charge him. If you want him to live in the building, you ought to give him his quarters free, the same as you do other officials who have quarters here. Or at all events, you should pass a vote reducing his rent to $300 instead of $800, so that he would get $500 a year more than at present. It is hypocritical to say that you are paying him $3,500 salary when you are taking $800 for rent out of it.


Robert Laird Borden: 


William Stevens Fielding: Then you will be giving an officer $800 worth of property for $300.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why should you allow the Speaker to have rent free?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: That is entirely a different question.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: And you do not charge any rent to the head messenger, Mr. Dube.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Dube has lesser quarters. The Speaker must have quarters in this building because he has to perform certain duties which attach to the House itself. I would favour the idea, that with the exception of the Speaker,' no one should be provided with quarters in this building. There is little enough accommodation in it for the members. If the Sergeant-at-Arms approved of the suggestion, I would prefer giving him the $800 cash and asking him to move out of his quarters. If he would regard that proposition as an advantage, I would support it most cordially.


William Findlay Maclean: But the Sergeant-at-Arms is the jailor of parliament. His jail is within his quarters and the jailor must live within his jail. He could not perform the functions of his office and be custodian of the tower, if he were away from the building.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Before the new wing was built, I well recollect recommending to the former Minister of Public Works that if possible we should induce the Sergeant-at-Arms and Mr. Dube to give up their quarters and thereby have some 12 or 14 or 16 additional rooms for the accommodation of members. With these I thought we could get along some little time without the construction of the new wing. But I found great difficulty in inducing the Sergeant-at-Arms or Mr. Dube to place estimates on their quarters or to give them up, and I reluctantly abandoned the idea; but I thought then, as I do now, that it would be a great convenience if the rooms occupied by these officials were given up.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But these officials must have quarters handy to the chambers.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think if each of them had an office in the House, that would be ample for their purpose. As far as the Speaker is concerned, the situation is entirely different. He represents the House in important social functions and must have quarters in which to receive people.


Mr. J. HAGGART.: The fault lies in not following the principle which should underlie the appointments of all officers in

the departments and in the House. The first thing done by any department is to lay out what is called theoretical organization, showing how many clerks are required and their respective salaries. The duties in each case are prescribed and the amount of payment fixed. That is supposed to be done in every other department, but I do not know what is done here. We ought to have a theoretical organization giving the officers the required duties and the salaries they should be paid. We ought not to have an ex-Speaker coming to parliament and fixing the status of the different officers. We ought not to have him tell us that the deputy clerk is superior to the Sergeant-at-Arms and ought to have a higher salary. That is something we fix in this House. We have always fixed the standard of the Sergeant-at-Arms and the salary attached to that position. Why is it that the Board of Internal Economy raised the salary of a clerk? First of all, you ought to come to this House and show the necessity, in the interests of the country, of the increased salary and ask the appropriation for it, then afterwards make your promotion. First of all, there should be a recommendation showing the necessity of these officers and the salaries to be attached to them. Nothing of this has been done. The plan ought to be approved here, or if it does not come here it ought to go to the Governor General. And I venture to say that the appointments here belong to the Crown and are not vested in the House. To a certain extent, they belong to the Crown, and if the organization is to be approved of, it should be approved of by the Speaker of the House with the consent of the House itself. Let us fix the status of our own officers ourselves, and pay them according to the necessities of the service, not according to the accomplishments possessed by the gentlemen who happen to fill these offices as viewed by the Internal Economy Commission. What the service is worth to the country, pay that and pay no more. And let someone who is responsible have the approval of these salaries, and I think the approval of them ought to be with the House.


Mr. PERLEY.: Without discussing the salaries given to other officers, it seems to me that a very good case has been made out in favour of an increase of salary for the Sergeant-at-Arms after his long service. He is responsible for good order, both in this House of Commons and in its precincts, and has a great deal to do with the comfort of members in every way. He has to put up with many complaints, and I know that he has hard work to do. It is hard work requiring a great deal of tact and ability; and it seems to me that after fifty years of faithful service, he is entitled 194J
to be remembered in this increase. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) has made a strange argument. He says that Mr. Dub6 is entitled to $200 more because he has to use the same door as the Sergeant-at-Arms, and some of his rooms are darkened, but I understand that he has more rooms in proportion to the value of his service than the Sergeant-at-Arms has. But if the Internal Economy Committee wish to do justice and give fair play to this old officer of the House, they should have increased his salary $200 because he has to use the same door as Mr. Dube. The committee seem to have given increases wherever they wished, and when they did not wish to, they have found some excuse for not doing it. The Sergeant-at-Arms has held his place for many years, and I am sure we will agree that he has filled it with ability and dignity. The office he occupies is one old and honoured in the House of Commons in England and equally honoured here. I appeal to the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) on this subject. I know that it will be impossible to arrange this matter at the moment, but if the government wish to do it, it is the simplest thing in the world for them to give an increase such as ought to be given to the Sergeant-at-Arms. I appeal to the Prime Minister if he will not take it into his consideration and show fair play to this officer of the House who has been in the service of the House for fifty years and with whom no fault has been found.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


George Eulas Foster: It is very well to say ' Carried,' but how is it possible for us, when we are face to face with inaccuracies in the schedule, to declare the schedule true? We talk of the sense of injustice, and I can assure the Prime Minister that there will be, and can not help but be, a very deep sense of injustice with reference to this matter. It is in the House and will remain in the House until it is remedied. But, outside of that, how can we say that a thing is accurate when it is manifestly inaccurate? Here are three schedules manifestly inaccurate, and we are called upon to vote that they are accurate.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think that is quite correct. It seems to me that if there be the injustice to which the hon. member (Mr. Foster) refers, the only possible remedy would be by a further appropriation by parliament. With regard to the salary of the assistant clerk, whatever may have been said to his legal status on the 1st of September last, it is clear he is getting $3,500, because parliament made the appropriation. There can be nothing improper, therefore, in the present position. I do not see how the remedy, if there be one, can be applied in any way but by

an additional appropriation to any officer in whose case it has been shown there has been an injustice.


George Eulas Foster: But what do you make of the legal interpretation? Here is your Civil Service Act; we abide by that, and it is as explicit as it can be. The employee is transferred into the new out of the old at a salary he was receiving on the first day of September, 1908. Ask the Auditor General if he paid the increased salary on September 1, 1908, and I think he will tell you that he did not, that he could not, that there was no such salary authorized at that date. There is just a question of fact. The Civil Service Act rules, and you cannot say the officer was getting a certain salary if he was not.


William Stevens Fielding: That might be possible if we had been asking the Auditor General prior to the present session of parliament. But since that time-not discussing the wisdom or unwisdom of any of these acts- as a matter of fact we have, during the present session, met my hon. friend's point by passing an appropriation which distinctly declares that an additional $700 should be appropriated from 1st April, 1908, for the clerk assistant. So far as the assistant clerk is concerned, if there has been any legal defect on September 1 last, we have by our action in the present session, cured it.


George Eulas Foster: But we have not cured the schedule of its inaccuracies.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Shall the motion carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


George Eulas Foster: Lost.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not concur in these observations with regard to comparisons between official and official. All officers of the House are good officers. The work of all is not of the same nature. The work of the clerk is very different from that of the Sergeant-at-Arms. I would not be willing to say that one is more important than the other. But when an officer performs his duty to the House we cannot ask more. My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) will understand that, at the present time, we can do nothing but confirm this report, and, for my part, I do not think that any sense of injustice should rest with anybody on account of it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Could not the Prime Minister see his way to get that rent reduced? That would be a solution of the difficulty. .


Wilfrid Laurier: Not at this time.
Resolution reported and agreed to.
House in committee to consider the following proposed resolutions:


William Stevens Fielding: That the organization and..classification of the officers, clerks and employees of the Library of Parliament, submitted to the House on the 11th day of March, be approved and confirmed, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours therewith. -Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
That the organization and classification of the officers and clerks of the distribution office of the Department of the Printing of Parliament, submitted to the House on the 11th day of March, be approved and confirmed, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honoues therewith. -Sir Wilfrid Laurier.


Wilfrid Laurier: These resolutions are the work of the -Toint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I understand the increased salaries provided for here are to date back to the month of September. I would like to call the attention of the Postmaster General to the desirability of meting out the same treatment to the Civil Service employees of the post office at Montreal. We have, under the report and the resolution introduced by my hon. friend, a change in their salaries, and I think it would be fair, in view of what we are doing here for the employees of the internal service, that we should date back the increases which have been provided by the minister to the same time. I think that would be fair and just to those employees. I do not see why we should treat them differently from those that are here at Ottawa. I would recommend the hon. gentleman to take that suggestion into consideration.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: I will take it into consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Wilfrid Laurier: [DOT]
That the organization and classification of the officers and clerks of the distribution office of the Department of the Printing of Parliament, submitted to the House on the 11th day of March, be approved and confirmed, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and resolutions concurred in.

Wilfrid Laurier: That the House do concur in the report and recommendations of the special committee appointed to consider and report upon cert.'.in proposed amendments to the rules of the House as to private Bills, presented to the House upon Thursday, 6th May.
He said:	The purport of the report is
that the rules which now apply to fees on Bills originating in the House of Commons

shall also apply to Bills originating in the Senate. We had some concrete cases before us a few days ago. Rule 88 provides for a scale of fees to be paid on Bills originating in the House of Commons, and this report provides that the same scale of fees shall apply to Bills originating in the Senate. The rule has also been amended in some particulars, but it is chiefly as to the drafting. A special committee was appointed to consider the recommendation contained in the fourth report of the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals, and Telegraph Lines, and that committee, through the hon member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) as chairman, presented the following report:
In the opinion of your committee it is desirable that the additional charges provided for in rule 88 shall apply to private Bills originating in the Senate as fully as to private Bills originating in the House of Commons. They therefore recommend that subsections 4, 5 and 6 of rule 88 be redrafted to read as follows:-
In view of the preamble, it is important to compare subsections 4, 5, and 6 with the several sections of the report. The present subsection to rule 4 is this:
When a Bill is for the purpose of increasing the capital stock of a company, the additional charge shall be according to the above tariff, but shall be charged upon the amount of the increase only.
The proposed amendment is as follows:
When a Bill increases the capital stock of an existing company, the additional charge shall be according to the foregoing tariff upon the amount of the increase only.
Practically the same thing, but the language is more concise. Subsection 5 of the present rule reads as follows:
When a Bill is for the purpose of increasing the borowing powers of a company without an increase in the capital stock, the additional charge shall be $300.
The proposed amendment is in this language :
When a Bill increases or involves an increase in the borrowing powers of a company without any increase in the capital stock, the additional charge shall be $300.
Similar but in better language, it is to the same effect. Subsection 6 of the present rule reads as follow^:
If any change in the amount of the proposed capital stock of a company, or of any increase thereto, be made at any stage of a Bill, the said Bill shall not be advanced the next stage until a certificate has been filed with the proper officer to the effect that the payment of the salaries consequent upon such change has been duly made.
Tlie new draft is much the same, it is in these words:
If any increase in the amount of the proposed capital stock or borrowing powers of a company be made at any stage of a Bill, such Bill shall not be advanced to the next stage until the charges consequent upon such change have been paid.
The report of the special committee also goes on to recommend:
Your committee also recommend that subsection 7 he amended by adding thereto the following words :	' And where power is
taken in a Bill to increase at any time the amount of the capital stock, the additional charge shall be levied on the maximum amount of such proposed increase which shall be stated in the Bill.
Subsection 7 of the present rule reads thus:
In this rule the term ' proposed capital stock ' includes any increase thereto provided in the Bill.
A change is also recommended in subsection 8 of the present rule, which reads as follows:
The additional charges provided for in section 3 of this rule shall also apply to private Bills originating in the Senate.
The committee report :
Your committee also recommend that the word ' subsection ' be substituted for the of subsection 8 of rule 88, be struck out, that the word ' paragraphs' be substituted for the word ' subsections ' in line 8, and the word ' subsection' be sulfetituted for the word 'section ' in line 9 of the said subsection.
Rule 87 now reads as follows :
Petitions for Private Bills shall only be received by the House within the first six weeks of the session, and every private Bill shall be presented to the House within two weeks after the petition therefor has been favourably reported upon by the examiner or by the Committee on Standing Orders.
That rule is amended as follows :
Your committee also recommend that rule 87 he amended by inserting the words ' if presented' after the word ' House ' on line 2.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. AYLESWORTH moved:: That the House, on to-morrow, go into Committee of the Whole on the following proposed resolution:-
Resolved, that in the opinion of this House it is expedient to provide for the payment to one additional county court judge and one additional district court judge in the province of Ontario, and to one additional district court judge in the province of Alberta, each $2,500 per annum during the first three years of service, and after three years of service each $3,000 per annum.

He said: I beg to state that His Excellency the Governor General recommends to the consideration of this House the appropriation proposed in the resolution.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called:
Haughton Lennox: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) when he proposes to deal with the Railway Act which has been standing for a long time on the Order Paper.


Wilfrid Laurier: It will be the first order to-morrow morning-.


FOREIGN SHIPS IN COASTING TRADE.
Adam Brown Crosby: I would like to ask the government if they would lay on the table of the House the Minutes of Council with regard to the privilege granted to foreign ships in Canadian coastal waters.


William Stevens Fielding: I have an impression that these orders were moved for at an earlier stage and that they have already been placed before the House. I am not certain but that is my impression.


Adam Brown Crosby: If not, will they be laid on the table.


William Stevens Fielding: We will consider that;. I have no objection.


GOVERNMENT HARBOUR AND PIERS ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 89) to amend the Government Harbour and Piers Act.-Mr. Brodeur.
On section 1, lease of wharfs and breakwaters.
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That subsection 1 of section 1 be eliminated and that the following be inserted instead of it:-
16. If the minister deems it desirable to lease to any provincial government, municipal council, harbour commission, shipping company, or railway company any wharf, pier or breakwater under the control of the minister, tenders by public advertisement for such lease shall be invited by the minister for a term not exceeding three years, and the Governor in Council may thereupon lease such wharf, pier or breakwater upon such terms and conditions as are agreed on: Provided that nothing in this section shall interfere with the public use of such wharf, pier or breakwater; and provided further that the lessee of such wharf, pier or breakwater shall not charge wharfage tolls or dues in excess of the tolls and dues established under the authority of this Act by the regulations for the government of breakwaters, piers or


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: wharfs in Canada as approved from time to time by the Governor in Council.
Section as amended, agreed to.
On subsection 2, yearly rental in lieu of bolls.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will we have a report at the end of each year in the report of the department as to the arrangements that have been arrived at under that clause?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is no provision made in the Bill in regard to that, but I do not see any objection to it. In the report of the minister reference will be made to these arrangements.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think it would be very desirable that we should have, under a special head every year, a report as to the arrangements made during the year.
Mr. BRODEUR;. I will see that a report of these arrangements is contained in the report of the minister.


George Eulas Foster: Is it not better that it shall be statutory, and that the report shall be laid before the House each year?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have no objection. We will add a clause to that effect.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It is moved that there be added the following as subsection 3:
The minister 9hall submit within one month after the meeting of parliament a statement of the leases and the conditions thereof made under the provisions of this Act.


Mr. JAMESON.: I would like to ask the minister whether this Bill proposes to relate to the public wharfs and breakwaters in Nova Scotia, more particularly to those in the county of Digby?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think so. When these wharfs are transferred to the department they will come under the provisions of this Act because the Act refers to all harbours, piers and breakwaters.


Clarence Jameson: It seems to me from my knowledge of local affairs that if we pass this Bill without giving the people of the country previous knowledge of its provisions, and especially those interested in the use of these breakwaters and wharfs, a great deal of dissatisfaction may be caused. The breakwaters and wharfs in the county of Digby are largely used by fishermen and traders, and certain of them are used by steamers plying along the coasts of St. Mary's bay and the Bay of Fundy. If it were permitted that any of the steamship companies should secure the control of these wharfs or breakwaters it might inflict great hardship on the fishermen who now use them for the purpose of landing in all kinds of weather, and

without which privilege it would be impossible for them to prosecute their hazardous industry. If anything of that kind should occur this legislation would create a most intolerable state of affairs, and even if this amendment were adopted a new and disturbing condition would1 be introduced. At present the parties are on an equal footing before the wharfinger, who arbitrates between them, but if the control of the wharfs were secured by a company the wharfinger would be obliged to arbitrate not between the parties of equal standing, but between the lessee who had control of the wharf and the fishermen who would be looked upon as outsiders. Along the coast of western Nova Scotia, and particularly in the Bay of Fundy and St. Mary's bay there is a great rise and fall of the tide, and often it is impossible to land at these structures except within a very circumscribed space, which if it were monopolized by the corporation controlling the wharf would debar the fishermen and others from using them as landing places. At present these wharfs or breakwaters are used by fishermen without any charge whatever, and if under this law side wharfage fees were to be charged it would result in a great handicap being placed on the fishermen who are now barely able to make a living in the prosecution of their calling. These breakwaters were erected chiefly to aid the fishermen, and to curtail their use of them now would be a very serious thing indeed. As to the upkeep of these wharfs, I do not think it is reasonable to suppose that the lessee would relieve the department of that expense and maintain them as they should be maintained. The chances are that the lessees would allow the wharfs to deteriorate and the government eventually would either have to rebuild them or to leave them in a state of decay. I would respectfully submit that the minister should consider the advisability of staying the passage of this Bill-particularly so much of it as refers to the wharfs now almost exclusively used by fishermen,-until they should have an opportunity to be heard. I think the rights of the fishermen in these breakwaters should be very carefully considered before any step is taken which might prove a serious disadvantage to a very large proportion of the working people of western Nova Scotia.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is not the intention of the department to collect any fees from the fishermen who use these wharfs and breakwaters for shelter, and as a matter of fact we have never done so.


Clarence Jameson: There is another feature. Take as an example the government pier at Digby. The government obtains an annual revenue of $2,500 from that pier or almost one-half the total revenue received from the minor public works of that kind in Nova Scotia. Is it in contemplation of the government that such a public work would be turned over to the company or corporation? The Dominion Atlantic Railway Company now uses that pier to a large extent. The pier is being extended and its facilities increased and a company operating a steamship line between an American port and the maritime provinces has, I am informed, been awaiting these increased facilities to put on a direct line of steamships which would be of great advantage to western Nova Scotia. If such a public work as that were turned over to any corporation it would be detrimental to the general commercial interests of my province.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have already announced that it was the intention of the department to lease only those wharfs to which only one line of steamers is plying, the object being that these wharfs should be kept up by the company which is most interested in them. But, where there is competition it is not the intention of the department to lease the wharfs.


Clarence Jameson: There is no competition there now, but I understand, as I have stated, that within a year or two there may be competition and we should provide for such a case as that.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The amendment provides for such a case, because the lease cannot be for more than three years.


Robert Laird Borden: In cases where fishermen at present use these public wharfs free of charge, I hope the minister in making any arrangement under this proposed law will see to it that their rights in that respect are not interfered with. It would be a very unfortunate thing if any doubt or misapprehension should arise in regard to it because the fishermen could never pay such tolls.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have not heretofore collected any fees from the fishermen, and it is not our intention to depart from that rule.


Mr. DANIEL.: I do not understand what wharfs are under the control of the minister's department, and what under the control of the Department of Public Works. These wharfs that have been mentioned, in small places, that are mostly attended by fishermen, are on the Atlantic coast. Then we have up the St. John river quite a number of wharfs that are used by the steamers and vessels plying on the river. Would the minister state under whose control the wharfs on the sea-coast and on the

St. John river are, or are some of these under his control and some under the control of the Minister of Public Works?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think the wharfs on the St. John river are in a different position although I have not any definite information on the matter. These wharfs have not been transferred to my department, they are still under the Department of Public Works, but I understand that these wharfs are under two authorities; they are built by the provincial government with a contribution by this government. I do not know whether the owners of these wharfs are the provincial or the Dominion authorities. The wharfs covered by this have been transferred to my department.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Does the minister take any power with regard to these wharfs I have mentioned?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, only the wharfs under the power of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


John Waterhouse Daniel: So far as I know there is only one wharf on the St. John river under the control of the Minister of Marine, that is the Oromocto wharf. This will empower him to charge side and top wharfage there, I presume?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have not the Oromocto wharf among the -list of wharfs in New Brunswick.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Those on the minister's list seem to be all on the coast. Will the passing of this Act have any effect on the charges to be made on the wharfs of the St. John river?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not think so because those wharfs have not been transferred to our department. So long as they are not I cannot do anything in regard to them, because this law is only concerning wharfs which have been transferred to my department.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The minister is astray in regard to the Oromocto wharf. I think jhe sent down a scale of tolls last year to be exacted there.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That must be under the Public Works Department because it is not on my list here.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: That is probably in the same position as the wharfs on the St. Lawrence river where the tolls -are collected by the Public Works Department.


Mr. TURGEON.: Am I to understand that in the event of a wharf used by deep sea and other fishermen being transferred to a contractor, a clause will be inserted in the lease by which the contractor would Mr. DANIEL.
be compelled to grant the same exemption from wharfage dues to these fishermen as they are now granted by the government?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, we have never collected any wharfage dues in the case of these breakwaters used by fishermen, and I will see that such a clause is inserted in the lease. I am very glad my hon. friend called my attention to this and will take care that these fishermen are protected.


Clarence Jameson: Mr. Chairman I must urge a respectful protest against the enactment of this legislation during this session. It should stand over until another session, in order that the people more particularly interested may have an opportunity of considering it and informing their representatives in parliament of their views and wishes. The chief argument for transferring these wharfs and dealing with them in the way proposed by this legislation seems to be that it will reduce the cost to the government of their maintenance. As a matter of fact, the cost of maintaining these wharfs is very much increased by the practice of appointing two or three overseers to look after two or three labourers. The Auditor General's Reports show that the expenditure of public moneys is thus very much increased. I jnake this formal protest. I can do no more and would do no less. I think the matter should stand over until another session.
At six o'clock the Committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Since six o'clock I have been looking into this measure and I find that it does not relate at all to the principal harbours in Canada, so that there is no necessity of my making the remarks I intended. Further, on reading over ' Hansard ' of Friday last, I find that the minister said it is not the intention of increase the rates charged, but quite the reverse. If it be the intention of the government to lower the rates, I have no objection to it.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


THE NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BRODEUR moved the third reading of Bill (No. 152) to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
James Conmee: I desire to move that the Bill be not now read the third time, but be referred back to the Committee of the Whole with power to amend the same by adding the following subsections. Before reading these subsections I may say that they are taken from the Bill which stands in my
name foi a second reading on the OrdeT Paper, but which cannot now be reached.
I stated in introducing that Bill that it was not my intention to press it


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Is the hon. gentleman moving a Bill which stands in his name on the Order Paper?


James Conmee: I am moving amendments similar to it. I said it was not my intention to press the amendments, but I wish to discuss the principle of the Bill, if I may bo permitted.


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. gentleman is out of order. If we want to reach prorogation next week, I must, insist on his adjourning his observations until next session.


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

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 17) respecting Immigration.-Mr. Oliver.
Mr. EUGENE PAQUET (LTslet).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, the government has again set to work to find out the social solution of the problem of immigration, by asking parliament to amend the legislation concerning immigration.
We want here desirable immigrants, physically and mentally sound, in order to till our fertile lands scattered with such profusion throughout our different provinces, and also to develop our agricultural industry, our lumbering industry and our mineral wealth.
On the other hand, we wish to eliminate that emigration which does not contribute to the material and moral progress of the Canadian people.
The Bill introduced by the Hon. the Minister of the Interior is not perfect, but it is certainly a progressive measure and makes for social peace.
The measure will prove a useful one if it is properly applied and if immigrants are chosen in such a manner as to meet the requirements of a young and prosperous people, proud of the fact that they are taking thier place among the nations.
Our immigration legislation must be much more severe than it has been in the past, if we desire t-o be in a position to make a good choice of future citizens, to diminish crime and to protect our homes.
Last year the Lieutenant-Governor of the province of Quebec sounded a warning note in an address to the members, of the legislature. He said: ' The increase in crime in certain sections- of this province, and particularly in those sections frequented by immigrants, has been the subject of much anxious attention on the part of my government, and we are firmly resolved that no effort will be spared to secure the absolute safety of persons and property.'
Some weeks ago, Hon. Judge Lavergne said in Montreal:
Never have we witnessed up to the present time such an epidemic of house-breaking and of robbery.
Thieves operate not only at night but in broad daylight in the public streets and in our houses, any time or place is the same to them.	.
It is more than time for the protection of society that these malefactors should be placed out of harm's way or at least discouraged in their criminal work. Those therefore who are convicted will be punished in such a manner as to deter others.
On March 9, the Rt, Hon. the Premier submitted the annual report of the Northwest Mounted Police, for the year 1908.
According to this report, crime in the Northwest has assumed alarming proportions. There were 7,624 arrests and 6,377 convictions, a proportion of 84 per cent, and the convictions were more numerous by 692 than the preceding year.	'
It seems, therefore, urgent to alter our legislation, making it more severe for the purpose of protecting the property of the people.
Let us examine some new sections of the new Bill.
I approve of section 3;- it contains very severe measures for the exclusion of immigrants suffering from contagious diseases or from other diseases of a dangerous nature. Those who are suffering from serious physical or moral disabilities cannot be admitted. The rule of exclusion is most . severe as regards criminals and all those who cannot become useful citizens in their adopted country.
But 1 am rather doubtful as to the principle adopted in tire subsection immediately following:
Immigrants whose passage to Canada has been paid wholly or in part by any charitable organization, or out of public moneys, unless it is shown that the authority in writing of the superintendent of immigration or in case of persons coming from Europe, the authority in writing of the assistant superintendent of immigration for Canada, in London, has been obtained for the landing in Canada of such persons, and that such authority has been acted upon within a period of sixty days thereafter.
What security is given us by the Deputy Superintendent of Canadian Immigration in London? Will charitable associations be obliged to attend seriously to the placing and to the welfare of immigrants?
Such philanthropic institutions are attempting to do good work among the outcasts whom they endeavour to reclaim physically, morally and socially.

I fully appreciate their zeal, charity and devotion; their directors and members have made the most praiseworthy sacrifices in the name of religious and humanitarian principles, of Christian charity and of human dignity. They have penetrated deep into the ranks of the destitute in large cities, among the degenerate and the criminal classes, seeking to purify their hearts and brighten their lives.
Sir Clement Cook, chairman of the Central Emigration Board, recently sent an important ^ communication to the London ' Times.' He paints therein a glowing picture of Canada which is, according to him, the very Eden for emigrants from the British Isles. He declares himself opposed to the system of bounties and believes that charitable associations have not sent any undesirable emigrants to Canada.
Such is not the opinion of all economists.
Very often have persons been sent to Canada who could be nothing but burdens on the state, persons in no wise adapted tc the conditions obtaining in this country, and who would never have been able to succeed here even under the most favourable circumstances.
Have not those charitable institutions frequently shipped to Canada immigrants whose^ past life, especially during their minority, had not been without disgrace ?
I am not suspicious of the written authority of the Deputy Superintendent of Canadian immigration at London. Should not charitable associations be held responsible for the emigrants they (recommend and ship to Canada ?
It seems to me that the minister should be very careful with respect to emigrants sent to Canada by charitable associations.
I particularh' desire to call his attention to section 4 :
The minister may issue a written permit authorizing any person to enter Canada without being subject to the provisions of this Act.
Parliament here grants the minister vegy broad discretionary powers. In certain exceptional circumstances, he should perhaps enjoy such power, but parliament should be informed as to the classes of emigrants to be admitted under the operation of this section.
Should not parliament require the minister to mention in his annual report the names of those persons who are not submitted to the operation of the present measure.
Let us pass on to section 37.
Regulations made by the Governor in Council under this Act may provide as a condition to permission to enter Canada that immigrants shall possess money to a prescribed minimum amount, which amount may vary according to the race, occupation or destination Mr. PAQUET.
of such immigrant, and otherwise according to the circumstances.
This section enables us to send back all emigrants who may become a burden upon tlie public. I hope that the Governor in Council will apply this legislation with wisdom and humanity. The main point is to accept desirable immigrants and to refuse those who are not so. According to the reports of medical inspectors, the restrictions imposed last year have helped to diminish the number of undesirable immigrants.
Section 30 concerning medical inspection is perhaps the most important of all:
Medical officers appointed under this Act shall make a physical and mental examination of all immigrants and passengers seeking to land in Canada from any ship or vessel, except in the case of Canadian citizens. Such examination shall be made in accordance with and subject to regulations prescribed by the superintendent of immigration under the direction or with the approval of the minister.
Last year, during the memorable debate on bounties, I said:	"The medical examination is becoming more and more serious, at least at Quebec. I am in a position to state that the medical inspection bureau for immigrants at Quebec is not far inferior to any of those that are to be found at American ports." I still believe that this is true, but I find also that our neighbours are becoming more and more severe in their medical examination, if I may judge by the reports of medical examiners, and we must of necessity follow their example. Otherwise we will be receiving those emigrants which they have refused.
It appears to me important to call the attention of the House to the report of the last Labour Congress from which I will read an extract:
Last year's large immigration has seriously affected the conditions of the Canadian labour market. The first duty of our government should be to protect the interests of Canadian citizens. Let the population be less numerous but contented, instead of numerous, discontented and poor. But our governments appear anxious to increase our population at whatever cost and our legislators seem to consider as of no account the protests of labour associations.
We call the attention of the delegation to the report of our parliamentary representative and to that of Mr. Trotter, upon his European mission. The question of immigration is therein fully discussed. The report of Dr. Bruce Smith, inspector of hospitals and charitable institutions, is also of interest to us. inasmuch as he complains of the defective system of inspection of immigrants on their arrival in Canada. Mr. S. A. Armstrong, inspec-

tor of prisons, writes in the same strain, stating that ' many people of the least commendable type are allowed to settle in Canada.'
The importance of seilous medical inspection is evident if we are to obtain the proper kind of immigrants.
I hope the government will understand that it is absolutely necessary to increase the number of medical examiners at Quebec.
During the fiscal year 1907-8,	138,932
immigrants underwent medical inspection at Quebec. The work was performed by three physicians under the able direction of Dr. PagA Each physician had to inspect 46,300 immigrants. If the work were equally spread over every month of the year, I might not consider it necessary to mention the matter, but this gigantic task is crowded into a few months only. According to the report of the Civil Service Commissioners (page 44) Dr. Pag6 declared that as many as 5,000 immigrants had been inspected in a single day. Such a declaration is extremely serious. These physicians are moreover obliged to attend patients lying in hospital. They are obliged to devote hours to the study of certain diseases in patients classed as doubtful on first inspection. Medical inspection should be made more severe, especially when, as at the present time, the United States authorities are issuing the most drastic instructions to their medical inspectors.
Our medical inspectors soon learn to work quickly and to detect aimost instantly the physical deficiencies of immigrants.
In the United States, the law requires that the medical examiner should have a few years professional practice. We should follow in their footsteps.
Let us go over the instructions given to our medical inspectors by the Department of the Interior. They are instructed, and rightly so, to do their work with the greatest care. The field is a wide one. Let us go rapidy over it. Is there any physical defect:	ataxy, paralysis, deviation of the
spine, tuberculosis of the bones? Are there traces of degeneracy, rachitis, tuberculosis, syphilis, strabism, diseased lips or throat? Hypertrophy of the neck glands? Is speech defective? The skin, eyes, heart and respiratory organs should be examined with the greatest care. Is the immgirant tainted with insanity or with some disease of the nervous system? Are there signs of epilepsy? Is the disease from which the immigrant suffers chronic or acute? Would he be likely to improve under treatment?
Such are the instructions given to our medical inspectors. Now, may I inquire, are doctors expected to size up the mental and physical condition of an immigrant in
the space of a few minutes, even in ordinary cases? Are they expected to make sure in the space of a few minutes whether the immigrant suffers or not from some affection of the brain, or the nervous system, the eye, the heart or the lungs? The medical examination should last fifteen or twenty minutes, if we are to have really positive data.
I have perused with interest the instructions given to medical examiners contained in this handbook. They are in accordance with scientific requirements, but our medical examiners have seldom enough time at their disposal to carry them out. There are to-day four medical examiners in the port of Quebec. Very often in the course of ten hours they have to examine from
2,000	to 2,500 immigrants. The train is waiting to take them west. The doctors have barely two or three minutes at their disposal to put each one of them through.
The new regulations require that immigrants sent to Canada by charitable organizations subsidized by the state, should undergo a thorough medical examination. The certificate to be filled by the medical examiner should be in this shape. The previous history of the family and of the immigrant himself as regards health should be given. I attach great importance to that part of the examination which relates to the heart and to the lungs. Auscultation and percussion of the heart and lungs are required. All important organs are to be examined in thoroughly scientific fashion. These rules are not too exacting from the scientific point of view. But we are not to-day in a position to carry out such instructions. The government should reorganize the system of medical inspection, if the results sought for are to be obtained. A painstaking medical man cannot be expected to carry out such an examination in less than twenty minutes.
Immigrants sent to Canada by charitable associations are recruited largely in the densely populated centres of the British isles. They live in surroundings favourable to the development of tuberculosis. Hence the necessity of making a thorough examination as to the condition of the lungs. Dr. Page, in his evidence before the Civil Service Commission, stated: * A certain number of immigrants affected with tuberculosis might escape our attention. It is a disease difficult to diagnose at its outset, and there is not sufficient time at our disposal to allow us making the required examination.
In 1904 and 1908, at the meeting of the Canadian association for the prevention of tuberculosis, Dr. Page made a strong impression on the minds of the people and especially of the medical profession by his study of tuberculosis from the standpoint

oi immigration. At the very time we are taking energetic means towards preventing the spread of tuberculosis, we should be particularly careful about admitting into this country immigrants tainted with that disease previous to landing in Canada. The members of the association appointed a committee for the purpose of having a conference on the subject with the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver). He gave the members of the committee a hearty reception and promised to take the strongest measures with a view to keeping away immigrants tainted with tuberculosis. That explains, I suppose, the further requirement of auscultation and percussion of the lungs included in the certificate. If the medical examiners are given enough time to carry out the instructions thus given, few tuberculous immigrants will slip through. But to obtain that result, it will be necessary for us to increase the number of medical examiners. L repeat it, medical inspection on the other side of the line is getting to be stricter all the time, and we should show even greater severity here, since we aTe selecting immigrants who are to be the progenitors of a great people. [DOT]
The new Act provides wisely for the deportation of undesirable immigrants within three years of their landing in Canada. The inspector of jails foT the province of Ontario, in his report for 1907, requests that regulations for the deportation of undesirables be made stricter. Since March 31, 1908, we spent $28,000 towards deporting pch undesirables. That means the turning away of poor immigrants whose hearts are broken by sorrow, whose hopes are crushed, just at the time when they expected to enjoy comfort and liberty on Canadian soil. The sad necessity of deporting undesirables would in a large measure be done away with, by providing for medical inspection across the seas. Dr. Bryce, on April 25, 1906, stated that such medical inspection was undeniably of advantage to the Canadian people.
On September 24, 1906, United States citizens well posted on imimgration matters assembled in New York. Mr. P. Hall stated:
We require larger appropriations for medical inspection. We already have medical officers in Italy and Japan, I think that svs-tem should be extended.
At page 242 of the volume Immigration, Mr. Hall writes, as follows: ' Since August 21, 1903, United States physicians at Kobe, Nagasaki, and Yokohama, Japan, and at Hong Kong and Shanghai, China, have been instructed to examine immigrants on their way to the United States,' The United States have also medical examiners at Naples, Palermo and in Canada.


Eugène Paquet: I request that the government should, as an experiment, send a few medical examiners to the large European ports, whence the greater number of immigrants embark for Canada. Theoretically Dr. Bryce seems to favour the idea of a medical examination at the port of embarkation. However, he contends in his report, dated May 14, 1906, that it is a very difficult matter to carry on a system of medical examination in countries across the seas. Of course, immigrants arrive a few hours only before the departure of the steamship; but that condition of things might be altered. Fear is expressed that international difficulties might arise. I am satisfied that our Canadian officials could easily arrange for such a service through British officials. That is a question of scientific and humanitarian interest, and of international bearing, the settlement of which we should strive to bring about.
The ideal system would consist in a medical examination performed on board ship by a Canadian physician appointed and paid by the Department of the Interior. He would be permitted to take the necessary time to make an examination of a thoroughly scientific character. Such a system of inspection would be costly, but would ensure results. We do not want degenerates to build up our nation. Such a system of inspection would tend materially to cut down the expenditure entailed by the deporting of undesirable immigrants. Men whose opinion carry weight attach great importance to a system of medical examination by the physicians in the service of the navigation companies. At the inquiry carried on by the Civil Service Commission, it was shown that those physicians have not always been sufficiently careful. Cases of contagious diseases have been discovered on the ships entering the port of Quebec. The steamship is then required to return to Grosse Isle to be disinfected. According to the evidence of Dr. Page, immigrants undergo only a cursory examination on leaving Europe. However, the following figures are evidence of undeniable progress:
Immigrants. Detained.
1905	
83,000	1,3001906	
112,000	1,0001907	over 112,000	500
Steamship companies take greater interest in the physical and moral condition of the immigrants, realizing that they will be called upon to deport all undesirables. Physicians appointed by these companies show a greater zeal in the fulfilment of their duties.
We have made constant progress since 1904 as regards the medical inspection and treatment of immigrants, detained in hospitals. We should not halt on the road to

greater progress. I foresee for my country the brightest prospects, the most brilliant future. I have the greatest faith in our natural resources, in the energy and the character of the Canadian people. In order to fulfil these expectations, let us adopt the most rational methods in the selection of our immigrants. Let us vote the necessary amounts to organize on the best footing our medical system of inspection; let us give to.our medical inspectors the required help; let us build isolation hospitals; let us receive in becoming and proper fashion those who are admitted into the great Canadian family circle. These immigrants, if they are properly selected, and dealt with will love Canada, our laws, our instutitions, and will help in the development of our agriculture, our commerce and our industries
From the point of view of immigration and hygiene, the quarantine service is in close touch with that of tire medical inspection of immigrants. Why should they be kept separate? Dr. Page, in his evidence before the Civil Service Commission, made the following statement:
If the quarantine service and that for medical inspection in the port of Quebec were placed under the control of a single minister, difficulties would be avoided. We could work harmoniously in the interest of health.
Dr. Montizambert, director general of Public Health, spoke as follows:
I lm members of the Canadian Association and the officers of the Public Health Service have earnestly urged upon the government the necessity of gathering under the control of one minister all the subjects which relate to public sanitation. The sick inmates of our disinfecting station are under the control of the Department of Agriculture.
At the present time the sick sailors are under the control of the Minister of Marine; the sick immigrants are under the control of the Minister of the Interior; the sick Indians are under the control of the Indian Department. The analysis of food and drugs is under the Department of Inland Revenue. Such conditions are anomalous.
The increase in the number of our immigrants requires the erection in our seaports and disinfecting stations, of new buildings, of isolating sheds properly fitted up, with a view to scientific requirements.
This new legislation contains provisions which are strict enough to prevent the landing of undesirable immigrants. It also provides that undesirable immigrants shall be sent back at the expense of the transportation companies. Subsection 3 of section 33 binds the transportation companies to further obligations:
3. Any transportation company or person knowingly and wilfully landing, or assisting to land, or attempting to land, in Canada,
any prohibited immigrant or any person whose entry into Canada has been forbidden under this Act, shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable, on conviction, to a fine of not more than five hundred dollars and not less than fifty dollars for each prohibited immigrant or other person so landed in Canada, or whose landing in Canada was so attempted.
. The United States adopted that legislation in 1907, and the medical inspectors of the great republic declare that the penalties imposed upon transportation companies with regard to undesirable immigrants are the most efficient means to keep the latter away from the country. Allow me to make a few suggestions. Whoever intends to settle in our country should he the holder of a certificate stating that he has committed no crime involving moral turpitude. This certificate might be issued by a magistrate, by the clerk of a court of justice, or by a clergyman. Let us insert a similar text into our legislation and we shall have at our disposal a further means of keeping away bad immigrants.
I desire to make another suggestion. In 1907, the United States government instituted, under section 39 of the law of immigration, a commission composed of three senators appointed by the Speaker of *he Senate, of three members of Congress appointed by the Speaker of the Congress, and of three commissioners chosen by the President of the United States.
Most far-reaching powers are vested upon these Commissioners. They may visit the various countries in Europe; they may hunt up all the necessary information in order to enlighten the legislators of the great Republic, with regard to this great question of immigration.
The President of the United States may convene International Congresses to study this problem. It is true we have a committee on Agriculture and Colonization, but the agricultural question absorbs the most valuable part of the time of our legislators.
The government would be accomplishing a fruitful and progressive work should they appoint a special committee or commissioners with power to investigate the question of Asiatic immigration, the method of recruiting immigrants, of medical inspection, of deportation of undesirables, of the distribution of immigrants and the assimilation of those who come to settle in Canada.
Under section 40 of the United States Legislation with regard to immigration, there exists an Intelligence Office, part of the duty of which is to organize the distribution of immigrants.
No doubt our immigration agents, our colonization societies and philanthropic in-

stitutions should point out to our immigrants the districts and localities where they may settle and prosper. But the Dominion government should establish a central intelligence office and office for the distribution of immigrants, which would serve to guide in their work our agents and national societies. This would be systematic work.
The authorities should make the most noble efforts in order to direct in the right path an influx of sound immigration. Immigrants must not overcrowd the labour market in large cities and manufacturing centres. One of our countrymen thus wrote:
Let us not under the specious pretence of creating new parishes or of developing those already in existence, blindly lead settlers towards points where they will probably find it hard to make a living and where they will have great difficulty to bring up their children and to provide them with a home in the future.
We canot compare our commercial conditions with those of our mighty neighbors. Let us admit that they have made constant efforts to socially solve the problem of immigration. We may take a leaf out of their book of experience; we may draw inspiration from our own history and from our traditions, to elaborate a law worthy of a great people.
Parliament- is giving great powers to the Governor in Council and to the Minister of the Interior.
Let me read section 89 :
89. The Governor in Council may establish and maintain immigration offices at such places within and outside of Canada as from time to time seems proper.
Our immigration offices are drawing at. tent ion.	Immigration agents, here and
abroad, are the representatives of Canada. They must do honour to Canada by their activity, their zeal, their prudence and their knowledge. These delegates from departments must be well informed on our resources and our economical conditions. Some of our offices in the United States are not organized in an efficient manner. The heads of these offices are not furnished with the necessary elements to make their work effective.
Parliament should instruct the hon minister to publish in his annual report the returns from immigration agents. For the last two years, the returns from our immigration agents in the United States and the reports of colonization societies, have not been inserted in the official publications delivered to the representatives of the people. I demand from the government and parliament, a legislation worthy of a people growing up among nations. I desire a law which would be strict, though Mr. PAQUET.
human, and draw its inspiration from the pinciples of Chistianity.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I deeply regret the campaign of disparagement pursued by a few writers in Belgium. Our institutions, our immigration agents and our officers, who receive the immigrant at his arrival in the country, are one and all most wantonly slandered. Immigration agents may have done wrong ; they may not have understood the loftiness of their missionbut no one has the right to sling mud at faithful officers, alive to the greatness of their duties. Such a campaign is calculated to deter (desirable immigrants from coming to our shores. The government should adopt methods, the effect of which would be the disappearance of the prejudices that seen to prevail in Belgium against Canada.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: Take the agency at Biddeford, Maine, where Mr. J. B. Carbonneau is the agent. In his report of the 31st- March, 1908, he states that he issued 405 certificates, representing 135 families, with $48,000 worth of effects. During the last five years from 1903 to 1908, during the continuance of the policy I have described, there were brought into the country 26,547, showing nine per cent of the total immigration coming from the States. The total immigration from the States through the various agencies amounted to 239,775. Now let me deal with the United States immigration. I think the agents appointed by this government have carried on a very successful immigration propaganda, particularly for the western provinces. The House may be anxious to know that the Department of the Interior, since 1896, have appointed the following immigration agents for the States: Benj. Davis, Great Falls, Montana; Thomas Duncan, Syracuse, New York; E. T. Holmes, St. Paul, Minnesota; Geo. A. Hall, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania; W. V. Bennett, Omaha, Nebraska; Chas. Pilling, Grand Forks, North Dakota; Thos. Hetherington, Boston, Massachusetts; H. M. Williams, Toledo, Ohio; J.
M.	McLaehlan, Watertown, New York; Jas.
N.	Grieve, Spokane, Washington; M. V. Mclnnes, Detroit, Michigan; T. O. Currie, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; C. J. Broughton, Chicago, Illinois; W. H. Rogers, Indianapolis, Indiana; J. S. Crawford, Kansas City, Missouri.
So I do not think that anybody in this House will complain of negligence on the part of the Department of the Interior in promoting repatriation from the States, either into the old provinces or into the new. As I have already stated, 239,775 came from the States from 1901 to 1907. Now for 1908, 11 agencies out of those I have already mentioned, brought 28,676 persons who settled in Canada. Seven of those agencies reported 1,168 carloads of moveables, and five agencies reported moveables imported of the value of $5,735,355. This is an example of the work which has been done through these agencies during the last year. The Ottawa Immigration Aid Society during last year brought in 683 immigrants, scattered as follows: 470 in New Ontario, 229 in New Quebec, and 37 in the west. I understand that some of my hon. friends on the other side of the House complain that the province of Quebec has not been getting her fair share, but they must admit that the province of Quebec got her fair share of the immigration brought in by the Ottawa Society. Through the Grand Falls agency, 1,756 immigrants were brought in, with 32 carloads of settlers' effects, valued at $2,688,335. These people settled in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan. The Detroit agency


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: sent in 3,521 immigrants, with effects valued at $1,777,000. The Boston agency sent in 744 immigrants, with effects valued at $432,620, representing an average value of $558.94 for each immigrant. I might cite similar statistics for nearly all the agencies I have mentioned. Thus we find that the volume of immigration coming into Canada is enriching the country, both by an increase of population and by an enormous amount of capital.
In the year 1907 the Department of the Interior spent $1,095,600 on immigration purposes. What was the result? There were 58,320 immigrants brought in from the United States alone, with an approximate value in settlers' effects of $58,778,496, as compared with a total value Brought in by immigrants from Europe and the British Isles of $7,585,651. These figures show that the money spent by this government for immigration purposes is really an investment bearing compound interest, and of great benefit to this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, having dealt with repatriation work from the United States let us consider what has been done with respect to European immigration;. The official report of the Department of the Interior for 1907-8 shows that during the nine months from the 1st of July, 1906, to the 31st of March, 1907, the immigrants arriving at ocean ports amounted to 124,667, whilst during the last five years of the late Conservative government the number of immigrants arriving from Europe at ocean ports amounted altogether to only 113,000. Therefore these figures show that during the period of nine months I have mentioned, there were 11,000 more immigrants arriving in Canada by ocean ports than during five years of the late Conservative government. During the twelve months ended March 31, 1907, we received European immigrants to the number of 204,157. To what cause is that great influx of immigration due? I am sure that the committee will agree with me when I say that that great influx is due to the work of the agents appointed by this government in France and Belgium, to the distribution of immigration literature, to educational work, to the good will of the local press, to lectures delivered and to the splendid exhibits of agricultural products made at the Liege and other exhibitions While I am speaking of agriculture with reference to immigration [DOT] let me remind the committee that the Department of Agriculture, from 1896 to 1907, spent $1,568,140 for Canadian exhibits abroad. This has done much to assist the Department of Interior in bringing desirable immigrants to this country. A complaint had been made by some hon. members on the other side of the House-I do not say to-night-but a few months before this parliament met and, I think, in a debate at the beginning of this

session, that the government did not sufficiently encourage French and Belgian immigration. That complaint was made by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier and also by the hon. member for L'lslet. We should not ignore the efforts made by this government to establish commercial relations between Canada and France. The negotiation and ratification of the French treaty and the subsidizing of the Franco-Canadian line should do much to bring about an increased immigration'-. I do not think we should restrict ourselves to the efforts of immigration agents who are paid by the Department of the Interior to devote themselves especially to the work of promoting immigration. All these efforts of the government to promote better relations with France will contribute to the same end and will assist in creating a movement of immigration from Trance to Canada. I think that our efforts so far have been fairly successful. Hon. gentlemen opposite should not forget that the question of promoting immigration from France to Canada up to the year 1896 was practically ignored. We had, before 1896, Mr. Fabre whom everybody honours and respects, but to-day we have Mr. Wiallard, Mr. Geoffrion, Mr. Cyr, Mr. Foursin, Mr. Brutinel, Mr. Montpetit, and Mr. Vauriot.
This government have thought fit to appoint these prominent men to promote immigration from France to our country. While speaking of immigration from France I should also mention the work of Mr. DeCoeli, our Belgian immigration agent. From 1897 to 1907 the number of French and Belgian immigrants who came to this country was 14,207. Let hon. gentlemen opposite tell us the number of immigrants brought from France and Belgium before 1896, as the result of the work of their own immigration agents. I do not believe they are able to take up the immigration reports and show any such result. Taking into consideration the proportion of emigration going from France to other countries, except to her colonies, we have received a good share of the French emigration from 1897 to 1907. The reports speak also of emigration from the British Isles. There were a few immigration agents before 1896 in England, Scotland or Ireland, but since 1897 we have had the advantage of the work of Mr. Jury at Liverpool, Mr';. J. Obed Smith at London, Mr. Mitchell at Birmingham, Mr. Webster at Belfast, Mr. Murray in South Wales and Mr. O'Kelly at Dublin. The reports of these gentlemen for the year ended March 31, 1908, demonstrate the enormous amount of work done by the Department of Interior to promote the interests of Canada and to bring to our shores a large number of desirable immigrants. It has been 195
stated that there was discrimination against immigration from Belgium. Let us look at the record with regard to immigration from that country. I think that Canada is well represented in Belgium by Mr. DeCoeli and I think that we will all endorse the compliments which have been paid to this gentleman by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier and the hon. member for L'lslet. What does Mr;. DeCoeli say with regard to immigration from Belgium? At page 84 of the report of the Department of Interior we find the following under date of Antwerp, Belgium, March 31, 1908.
I have followed up the introduction in our common and superior schools of the teaching of the geography of Canada. I had the honour to make mention of my endeavours to that effect in my report of 1905, when I stated that twenty-two schools were giving lessons on Canada; in 1906 this number increased to 505, and during this year I am pleased to state that in 1,875 more schools, forming the grand total of 2,380, the geography of Canada is taught.
That is the work of a man appointed by this government.
Every one of these schools has the large wall map of Canada in its classes, and a certain number of atlases and other pamphlets have been forwarded to them for free distribution. Special attention has been paid to provide also the schools of adults with the above.
It continues:
I think it my duty to remark that I was greatly encouraged in this distribution by the school inspectors of the different districts and by other educational authorities, and also that neither map nor pamphlets were fm-warded except on demand and on special promise that the map should be used in the school and the pamphlets distributed gratuitously. Besides this, I loaned a good many Canadian views to be used for lectures.
I am quite sure that a more effective propaganda could not be made, and I expect the best results in the near future.
During the winter season I have given twenty lectures, generally in the localities where a certain movement of emigration was noticeable.
That is the report of Mr. DeCoeli, and I do not see any evidence of discrimination against Canada in regard to immigration in what he says there. Nor have we any evidence of local discrimination, except statements which have been made before the legislature in Quebec by one man who was brought here and who was forced to go back. We have our agents in Belgium, France and Great Britain who are making Canada known as it was never known before.	.
In every speech which was delivered by my opponents in the county of Two Mountains the government were accused of having brought undesirable immigrants and


Eugène Paquet: Do you think that the medical inspection in the United States is complete and perfect?


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I have quoted the words of my hon. friend from L'Islet to the effect that our medical inspection is in no way inferior to the United States system, and as our friends on the opposite side are very fond of holding up the United States system as far superior to that of Canada, the House may draw its own conclusions. I do not think I can offer stronger evidence in favour

of the care exercised by the government in this regard than to take the words of my hon. friend from L'Islet in connection with the high praise which his friends give to the United States system of medical inspection of immigrants. Now, let me cite articles 28, 29 and 30 of the bill with regard to the medical inspection of passengers:
28.	The master shall furnish to the immigration officer in charge at the port of entry a hill of health, certified by the medical officer of the vessel, such bill of health being in the form and containing such information as is required from time to time under this Act.
29.	The immigration officer in charge, whenever he deems proper, may direct the medical officer, before any passengers leave the vessel, to go on board and inspect such vessel, and examine and take extracts from the list of passengers or manifest, and from the bill of health.
30.	Medical officers appointed under this Act shall make a physical and mental examination of all immigrants and passengers seeking to land in Canada from any ship or vessel, except in the case of Canadian citizens. Such examination shall be made in accordance with and subject to regulations prescribed by the superintendent of immigration under the direction or with the approval of the minister.
Explanatory note.-It is considered advisable that the examination to be made by medical officers under this Bill shall not be rigidly prescribed in the Bill itself, but shall bo made in accordance with rules and regulations to be prescribed, and which may be altered or suspended as deemed advisable on account of the class of immigrants, the time of the year, the prevalence of epidemics, the health conditions in the port of embarkation, Ac.
Now, my hon. friend from L'Islet has made several suggestions with regard to the medical inspection of passengers; some of his suggestions are excellent and I do not quarrel with them, but I would point out that the essence of those very suggestions are contained in this Bill. By article 33, subsection 3, a penalty is imposed upon any transportation company bringing into Canada an undesirable immigrant. Hon. gentlemen opposite formerly compared our laws with the American laws which provided for a penalty of $100 on the captain of a boat bringing to the shore of the United States an undesirable or sick or proscribed immigrant. The language of this Bill is modelled on the American Act, and it imposes a penalty of $500 for each prohibited immigrant or other person landed on any transportation company or person knowingly landing or assisting to land or attempting to land in Canada such prohibited immigrant. Referring from subsection 3 of paragraph 33 to article 3 of the Bill we find that the prohibited immigrants are persons mentally or physically defective, diseased persons, criminals, prostitutes, and pimps, procurers, and charity immi-195}
grants. The suggestions made by my hon. friend may be good, and I am sure that the government will give them due consideration, but everything of this kind cannot be put in such a Bill as this; some things which might apply to one class of immigrants may not apply to immigrants from other countries, so that some latitude must be left to those charged with the administration of immigration matters. Many of these matters can be more satisfactorily dealt 'with by departmental rules and regulations which may be passed according to circumstances and to the needs of the moment.
The government has been accused of permitting the importation of criminals from England. During the last election Canada was represented as a dumping ground for the criminals from the old country, a sort of Isle aux Sables where criminals from the old country were brought instead of being sent to the penitentiaries of England. To demonstrate that these representations are quite unfounded, and that the government have energetically and consistently endeavoured to prevent such immigration of criminals, let me quote from Lord Strathcona's report of 1907. He is here stating what he had done in order to carry out the instructions received from the Dominion government in respect to this matter. He says:
The exercice of the restrictive powers provided for during the present session of the Dominion parliament will no doubt prevent the emigration of as many ' undesirables ' as was the case last year and will doubtless ensure a better type of immigrant.
Thus the government had given instructions and were preventing the immigration of such undesirables.
So far as I am able to judge, official and public sentiment in this country realizes that the action of the Dominion government in taking measures to prevent indiscriminate immigration was justified by the conditions which have developed. Nevertheless it may be expected that a large number of persons who may not be able to comply to the letter with the regulations that have been devised will, in consequence of the industrial position here and on the continent desire to emigrate to Canada. A great number of these persons although engaged in towns and cities have had some experience of farm life, and in cases where the probability is that they may become good farmers or efficient farm labourers, the regulations will, no doubt, with advantage be administered in a generous manner. Cases have repeatedly transpired in which recorders, chairmen of sessions and others, have postponed passing judgment on transgressors against the law, on the condition of their being sent to Canada.
This is the answer from the report of the High Commissioner to the position taken before the country by hon. gentlemen opposite. He continues:

I have drawn the attention of those concerned to these cases, stating the strong objection which was felt by the people and the government of Canada in respect to them, and at my request wide publicity was given to the matter in the press, and it was hoped that as a consequence such practices would cease.
Correspondence in the same report bears out this statement. I shall read extracts from a letter signed 'Strathcona' dated June 28, 1907:
The Under-Secretary of State,
Colonial Office, S.W.
Sir,-I beg to state, for the information of the Earl of Elgin, that from time to time the Canadian government has had brought to its notice that, on occasion magistrates and others in this country have agreed, on the representation of interested persons, to defer passing judgment on transgressors against the law, on condition of their being sent to Canada. In these circumstances, the Canadian government greatly desires that, if possible, some notification of its views on the subject may be conveyed to magistrates and others concerned, in order definitely to put a stop to the sending to Canada of persons convicted of crime.
What does that show? That in the fall of 1908, when hon. gentlemen opposite were representing that the government were encouraging the immigration of criminals and encouraging the magistrates of England to send transgressors against the law to Canada, the government of Canada had issued proper rules and instructions to prevent the immigration of people of that class. In April, 1908, Lord Strathcona wrote to the Lord Mayor of London, as follows:
My attention has been drawn to the inclosed extract from the Montreal ' Herald ' of the 8th of March, relative to a youth who appears to have been charged at the Mansion House with theft, and to have been discharged on the understanding that he would go to Canada and I have been asked to take official action with regard thereto. I feel however that it will be sufficient if I point out informally that the people and government of Canada strongly resent the sending to the Dominion of any person who has shown criminal tendencies. Indeed powers exist under the Canadian law for deporting such persons and these are rigidly put into force.
. That is the stand that was taken by this government at a time when these criminals were supposed to be sent to Canada from England with the permission of this government. It has also been stated that diseased and immoral and prostitute immigrants have been encouraged to land on the shores of Canada. That has been stated, not perhaps in this House but all through the country during the last general election. In answer to this let me quote what Dr. Bryce, the Chief Medical Inspector of the Interior Department, says in his report of 1908, at page 137. After having in-Mr. ETHIER.
serted several tables in regard to immigration, he says:
Such, as summed up in the several tables, is the story of the largest immigration to Canada, viewed from the medical standpoint, which has taken place during any year in her history. It was the culmination of a remarkable influx of people to Canada from other countries, which, comparatively, has never had its parallel even in the history of the United States. Since April of the census year 1900 to April 1, 1908, the immigrant arrivals destined to Canada have numbered 1,066,684, as compared with 6,667,732 to June 30, i907, to the United States; or to the census population of 5,371,315 has been added almost exactly one-fifth, and but one-eleventh to the 76,303,387 census population of the United States. Thus within these short years one person has had to be found a place for beside every other five workers in Canada, and until the financial stress of last winter, work in abundance has been found for all, as the absence of any notable increase in the inmates of charitable institutions up till then has shown. But if we are to judge by comparative statistics, the machinery for eliminating the undesirables has been so effective that in no class will it be found that even a proportionate number per 1,000 of defectives has been allowed admission to Canada. What nationalities have had the larger number of failures to make good has been shown, and now that the measure of the work of prevention requiring to be done has been fully gauged and experience in methods of working has increased we have a right to conclude, judging from the past, that, whatever number of immigrants may in future years come to Canada, while a welcome will be extended to all who are in earnest to make Canada their home and add to her strength and wealth, yet at the same time an equally positive refusal to allow any to make Canada the scene whether of their ineffectiveness, follies or crimes will be shown.


P. H. BRYCE,
[Stage Direction]
Chief Medical Officer.
In view of statements of that kind coming from men who have had years of experience and whose statements are based on facts, all these charges made against the government, and which no doubt are made for political purposes, can have but little weight. After giving you the testimony of Lord Strathcona and of Mr. Bryce, let me quote from the annual report of the Commissioner General of Immigration of the United States for the fiscal year ending June. 30, 1908. In that report we will find what our American neighbours think of the rules and regulations governing immigration into this country. These opinions I am about to quote are from officials of the American government who, my hon. friend from 1'Islet (Mr. Paquet) tells us, are superior to ours. What do they think of our policy of immigration? On page 142 you will find the following in the report of the Commissioners General of Immigration :

Immigration through and from Canada to the United States for the fiscal year just ended presents many interesting phases, some of which I feel our department can afford to contemplate with genuine satisfaction. It is interesting to note that while immigration to the United States through other avenues of entrance shows a remarkable falling off, yet the addition to our population by the Canadian route shows an incre'ase of more than 20 per cent over any preceding year. The unmistakable earnestness of protest appearing in leading Canadian journals, and from the speech of Canadian citizens in general, I believe it is safe to conclude that Canada has drawn the line at immigration stimulated by charitable or benevolent institutions, and shall hereafter rigorously insist that the immigrant who would make himself a home north of the 45th parallel, must be of the independent, self-reliant, self-maintaining class which after all is the only immigrant whose migration to a new country should be encouraged.
As applied to immigration to Canada, and from Canada to the United States, the recent industrial depression seems bound to prove a blessing, for it has undoubtedly aroused our Canadian neighbours to a fuller realization of the worthlessness of assisted immigration, a lesson long since brought home to our own government.
In a previous communication to the bureau on the subject now in hand, I had occasion to remark that ' so long as the Dominion Immigration Act authorizes hospital treatment for aliens who may be diseased, so long will the Canadian route be patronized by those doubtful of their ability to pass the scrutiny of medical officers at United States ports.' As the result of disclosures made at Halifax during the past year, it was learned that through connections touching Marseilles, Liverpool, and Halifax, unscrupulous persons, noncitizens in Canada or our own country, were engaged in an unlawful undertaking involving the migration of diseased and otherwise unfit aliens from southern Europe to the United States, such immigrants becoming the prey of the designing through the assurance that hospital treatment was always obtainable upon arrival in Canada.
The offenders were promptly dealt with by the courts at Liverpool and Halifax, and resulting in still greater benefit to the service was the issuance of an order by the Dominion authorities to the effect that in future hospital treatment will be allowed only in cases considered especially meritorious, and that in all ordinary cases where mental or physical unfitness is certified by the medical officers deportation must ensue forthwith.
With strict adherence to the above order, thu9 compelling more careful medical inspection before embarkation, the result must necessarily be to the advantage of both Canada and the United States, and it is confidently believed that another year's record will show justification for this contention.
These are the statements of American authorities regarding rules and regulations for the prevention of undesirable immigration, which are put in force by our Department of the Interior. They apply not only to immigrants to Canada, but even
to people who land in Canada en route to the United States. I think I have given a fairly good resume of the work of the Minister of the Interior regarding immigration. The hon. minister certainly deserves our congratulations.
To show what are the requirements of Canada in regard to immigration let me quote the words of Mr. Flummerfelt in his letter of February 5, in which he eays:
They consist in wisely using our natural resources and judiciously seeking additions to our population, thereby encouraging a further advancement towards freedom, justice, popular education, a strong, well defined British-Canadian sentiment.
It is in order to comply with these requirements that this Bill has been introduced. Our hon. friends opposite have made comparisons between our rules and regulations and those of the United States government. Well, perhaps in early years there was ground for unfavourable criticism, but since July, 1904, our immigration policy has been equal, if not superior to that of the United States. After the resolutions passed in February, 1904, which were sanctioned by the American commission with reference to transportation companies carrying immigrants through Canada to the United States, the statistics show that, during the years 1905, 1906 and 1907, one immigrant out of 321 has been rejected by the United States. And in Canada the proportion is one out of 293. When we study the figures of the total immigration we find that the proportion is in our favour and that our system appears to be better than the other. And, as stated by the hon. member for l'Islet (Mr. Paquet) it is quite equal, if not superior to the American system. The present Act, as I have already stated, covers the needs of the moment. It is in accordance with the views and aspirations of the country. It meets the problems of the present and should be adopted. In conclusion, let me quote the remarks made in a recent pamphlet by Mr. Robertson, of Revelstoke, B.C., who, speaking of the actual situation of our country, and dealing with the immigration question, says:
The future is full of promise. Our trade relations with the mother country are on the preferential basis, and our trade relations with the United States are harmonious on the basis of mutual protection. From these countries we look for the increasing population that is to direct and dominate the national life of this great Dominion. There are signs that our great statesman
[Stage Direction]
Referring to Sir Wilfrid Laurier,
-will not "sacrifice the highest interests of this country to the ignoble and the mean. And though to-day Canada has probably the most serious problem of immigration and assimili-ation in the world, and though at first sight
[Stage Direction]
the burden seems oppressive, still with loyal British hearts and strong Canadian hands we hopefully take up the burden and respond to the call to make this country a home of peace, a land of promise, a nation of righteousness.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: I sincerely regret the action of my hon. friend from Two Mountains (Mr. Ethier) this evening. I think that action is to be deplored. We came here this evening with the full intention of workihg throughout the details of this Bill, helping to make it as perfect as possible, because it is a step forward which had become absolutely essential and necessary. And I, for my part, having expressed my views often in this House on the subject of immigration, thought it better to abstain from making any general observations-. On the other hand, my hon. friend from l'Islet (Mr. Paquet) under the circumstances which took place when the Bill was read a second time, had not then made the admirable speech which he has made this evening, a speech absolutely free from any political import whatever, and he took occasion, on one of the first clauses of the Bill, to give to this committee the benefit of serious study and particularly the result of his examination of immigration questions from a medical standpoint. I have no hesitation in saying, for I have given some study to this subject, my hon. friend has treated this subject immigration questions from a medical standpoint. And my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) will admit at once that there was not a shadow of any political feeling in what my hon. friend from L'Islet uttered here to-night. He stated what he thought as to the best method of inspecting immigrants medically. My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior himself will admit that there is room there for improvement;-he does admit it since he provides for it in this new measure. But what do we find? When we are about to enter a study of the Bill, my hon. friend from Two Mountains, primed by somebody -I say that to my hon. friend the minister because I have my suspicions,-for it was known that the hon. member for L'Islet was going to make some observations, and the hon. member for Two Mountains was primed to make a political harangue which he has done without any necessity, without-


Mr. OLIVER.: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) allow me?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Certainly.


Frank Oliver: I wish to say that, so far as I am concerned, the honj. member for Two Mountains (Mr. Ethier) was not primed by me. And I think the evidence before the committee is that he did not need to be primed by anybody.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not agree with the ' latter part of what has been said by the hon. minister. I do not say that the minister himself primed my hon. friend from Two Mountains, because I am willing to admit that since he came into the conduct of his department there has been a change, a change from a frightful state of things that existed before. I am willing to admit that. But I did think, in the innocence of my heart, that, perhaps, as the hon. minister is not familiar with the French language, knowing that the hon. doctor (Mr. Paquet) had some observations to make, he had confided the refutation of those observations to the hon. member from the province of Quebec. As to the utterances of the hon. member for Two Mountains,! surely the members of this House who have followed the question of immigration with any degree of attention since a few years must know that they are of a character that ought not to commend them to this committee. With all the praise which my hon. friend from Two Mountains has bestowed on the past state of affairs, how can he commend this Bill which is an absolute revolution, an improvement upon that state of affairs? No. We have been interrupted; and, if there is delay in the work, which work we were entirely prepared to second the minister in carrying forward this evening, the fault is due to my hon. friend for Two Mountains. And I will say this also, that I think I interpret as fairly as does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ethier) the opinion of the province of Quebec,-and we hold strong views on that province with respect to immigration. Nothing which my hon. friend (Mr. Ethier) has said this evening will find an echo in the opinion which we entertain in the province of Quebec. Remember I do not say we are entirely right, I do not say we do not, in some respects, go too far, and especially I do not say that we are not prepared to respect the opinion of representatives from other parts of the country who hold different views from our own. But I say that what we have heard to-night from the hon. member for Two Mountains is not the opinion of his compatriots and mine in the province of Quebec. We do not say, as my hon. friend has said to-night, that immigration is necessary. He would not go into the province of Quebec and utter that sentiment, because we do not hold that view. We are glad to receive into this country immigrants of a good kind. We are delighted to see them. And we believe also that we should make our country known abroad. But we of the province of Quebec do not believe in bonusing immigrants. That is a matter which is often referred to in our political meetings, and everybody in the province of Quebec knows that the idea of paying so much a head

for immigration irrespective of the qualities, mor^l and physical, of the immigrants is not at all a view which we entertain. We hold, in the province of Quebec, and I think these views are shared to-day rightly throughout other provinces-that the time has arrived for us to carefully examine every immigrant, to make sure that we are receiving the best kind, and not to proceed in the indiscriminate and destructive way in which we have proceeded in the past and which has led the government and the Minister of the Interior to bring before this House the present measure which I commended when it came up for its second reading, and which my hon. friend from Two Mountains has spent a great deal of time to-night in lifting up as if we were endeavouring to knock it down.
That is not the view we entertain, we want to improve it. I say therefore that my hon. friend has not echoed faithfully the feelings of his own province on this measure. He made a brief comment upon the remarks of my hon. friend from L'lslet (Mr. Pacquet), remarks which were the result of careful study. My hon. friend from L'lslet is a medical practitioner of much study, and has looked carefully into the medical aspect of the immigration question. The hon. member for Two Mountains remarks that only $124,000 were spent on immigration during the years which preceded the advent of this government to power. And he says: ' We have spent millions since, therefore we have done better than you.' Now I ask any member of this House who has followed the proceedings of the immigration committee and the discussions here during the past years, who have read the report of the inspectors of prisons and asylums of the various provinces, whether that is a fair statement of the case. It is true that in the year before 1896 the country spent $124,000, but I would ask the hon. gentleman if he is aware that in that very year Sir Richard * Cartwright moved that that small sum, relatively speaking, should be reduced by $50,000? We have spent since 1896 yearly increasing sums of money up to 1904, absolutely without discrimination. The hon. gentleman admitted himself that up to 1904 there was no such examination as we have provided since, and which we are now endeavoring to improve. Millions were spent yearly, spent indiscriminately, and a large number of immigrants came to this country who were objectionable. In the report of the United States immigration Commission of 1905, the members of this committee will find the statement that in consequence of that condition of affairs they had made serious representations to this government. Why? Because there were poured into the United States from Canada a number of people whom we admitted
here, and whom they were obliged to refuse at the border, and it had become necessary for them to establish posts of examination along the frontier and to exclude those immigrants. At one place they refused 600 immigrants because they were affected with trachoma. They say in that report that they made representations to this government, if we are to quote from the authorities of our neighbours, of such a nature that this government finally came to the conclusion that it was necessary to take some measures to protect ourselves against this indiscriminate immigration.
We have never on this side of the House treated this question as a political question, I have never treated it in that sense. My hon. friend from Lennox (Mr. Wilson) has taken a great deal of interest in this matter, my hon. friend from L'lslet and others have interested themselves in this matter, and they have never treated it as a political question, never viewed it as the hon. member for Two Mountains has viewed it to-night. We wish the conditions of immigration to be improved. We have pointed out to the House the great dangers that existed previous to 1904, and some that still exist, and that have necessitated this legislation. But we never made it a party question. Why does my hon. friend do so this evening? Does he consider that we were treating immigration as a party question when we denounced the dealings of the North Atlantic Trading Company, a company organized by Mr. Preston and his friends and relatives? when we stated in this House that this country had paid nearly $500,000 to that company, and we could get no account from them? Were we wrong because we complained of the conduct of Mr. Preston, who came here from England and refused to tell us where that money had gone, and insmted those who examined him in the committee? . Is that giving a political aspect to the question?


Mr. MACDONALD.: Does my hon. friend seriously pretend to say at this late day that anything incorrect was ever shown in regard to the payment of moneys to the North Atlantic Trading Company, and that this country did not get value for it?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend must be joking to put such a question to me.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: My hon. friend is romancing.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I ana not romancing when I say that we asked Mr. Preston in the committee, he being the organizer of this company, and knowing every man interested in it, to whom this money had been paid, and he told my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule), * You may be a good watchdog, but you will not get an

answer to that question.' When we brought the matter up in the House the leader of the government and his supporters maintained that emploee of this country in that attitude, and we have never known to this day to whom that money was paid.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: The question I asked of my hon. friend was whether he was in a position to say that there was ever any evidence given to that committee, or before this House, to show that one dollar was paid to the North Atlantic Trading Company in bonuses for immigrants who did not come to this country, and for which this country did not get value?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Why, unquestionably. We had evidence of that kind in every way. We used to pav to that company a certain amount for advertising, and we never got any satisfactory evidence of that advertising. We paid bonuses for children born on the ocean, we paid bonuses for them as farm labourers, at the rate of $5 each. But the fundamental and important question was this; when we ask that man, an employee of the people, who knows where this money is gone, to tell us what he knows, have we not a right to get an answer from him?


William Stevens Fielding: Is it fair to hold Mr. Preston responsible for that, when the ministry accepted the responsibility for the regulations which were disclosed? Is it fair to attack Mr. Preston for it?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not attack Mr. Preston, although I must confess that I have not much confidence in that gentleman. But I blame the government for it. I say that when we, who were here on behalf of the people of Canada, insisted upon our right to obtain that information, we were not playing a political role, we were claiming the right's which we, as representatives of the people, were entitled to. Even then I say that I never viewed the action we were taking here as political action in the sense that the member for Two Mountains spoke of it this evening. It is impossible to hear such a statement as we have heard to-night by the member for Two Mountains without feeling that he has made a very hastv examination of the question himself, that he knows very little about it, that he has imported into the discussion of this measure a political element which we on this side of the House were desirous of getting rid of. I hold that this question of immigration, like some others, should be viewed from a national standpoint, and ought to be treated by this House without such appeals as the hon. member for Two Mountains has made this evening.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: to provide for these people, many of whom are quite incapable of earning a living here. Several of them have, when landed in this country, been afflicted with chronic diseases which could not pass unobserved if a proper inspection had been made. It is a mistake to think that the inspection can be made satisfactorily in the hurry and bustle of landing on this side of the Atlantic. The inspection to be successful should be made before embarking in the old country.
There is another page and a half to the same effect which I need not trouble the House to read. I say without fear of contradiction that what is pointed out in this -report with regard to Ontario exists in precisely the same degree in the province of Quebec, and I believe our magistrates in the city of Montreal will confirm every word I have cited in this report. It was made one of the principal arguments against me in my election campaign that I uttered certain words in this parliament which meant that I was opposed to immigration, and a number of printed circulars were distributed through my county in an attempt to sustain that contention. Well, Sir, I do not believe that we have in this country the population which the Minister of Finance recently stated, and, whether that be so or not I may say that we are in favour of immigrants of a proper sort coming to Canada but, for the sake of the undesirable immigrants as well as for our own we are opposed to the system which has existed for the past few years and which this Bill is an attempt to correct. Does my hon. friend from Two Mountains (Mr. Ethier) pretend that because I denounced the contract with the North Atlantic Trading Company I am opposed to proper immigration? Does he not know that that contract was rescinded by the present Minister of the Interior the moment he came into office, thus admitting that it was a bad contract? Does the hon. gentleman pretend there was not a mistake made when that contract was entered into? Surely not, because the facts of the case and the acts of his own government prove that we were right in our contention. Now, as to discrimination against immigration from France and Belgium, there is no doubt in the world that we made a contract with the North Atlantic Trading Company which excluded France and Belgium, and even at the present moment, I do not believe we are making proper efforts in either of these countries. Do my hon. friends from the province of Quebec think that our immigration agents in France and Belgium at the present moment are doing a profitable work? Is it not true that Mr. Wiallard, who is I believe our chief agent in France is in disagreement with the other agents? Do my hon. friends from the province of Quebec state that Mr. Geoffrion who was sent over to France to promote immigration to this country is doing the proper work in the proper way. I receive letters from Mr. MONK.
France and I meet people from France, and they complain bitterly of the manner in which our immigration system in France is managed. Certain it is that in our contract with the Trading Company we omitted France and Belgium for reasons which were no doubt best known to Mr. Preston. The Belgians make excellent immigrants, and let me give some statistics to show the very meagre extent of the immigration from that country, notwithstanding the large expenditure we are making. In 1901-2 we received 130 immigrants from Belgium; in 1902-3, 303; in 1903-4, 858; in 1905-6, 1,106; in 1907-8,1,214. It was said by my hon. friend (Mr. Ethier) that Mr. De Coeli is doing very admirable work in Belgium, but we made a large expenditure in that country, and while the United States have not spent one cent they received im-migants from Belgium between 1891 and 1900 amounting to 18,167; from 1901 to 1905, 16,884 Belgians came to the United States; in 1906, 5,097; in 1907, 6,326; in 1908, 4,162. I am told by my hon. friend from L'Islet that it is possible to establish that over
25,000	Belgians leave their country every year. Therefore, I ask, is there any foundation for the statement made by my hon. friend (Mr. Ethier) that the expenditure we make on immigration in Belgium is producing excellent results, and in the second place could we not with the same expenditure, get more of these 25,000 Belgians to leave Belgium every year? I think the statement made by my hon. friend (Mr. Ethier) is a rash one. The United States spend not one single cent for advertising their country, and I believe that we should not do more than such advertising as comes incidentally through exhibitions and the like. I think the direct system of advertising for immigrants to come here and offering bonuses, is not a. good one. My hon. friend (Mr. Ethier) has stated that we found fault with the medical inspection, but perhaps he did not attend a meeting of the Immigration Committee last year when it was proved by Dr. Bryce himself that the medical inspectors passed four immigrants a minute. I do not think any sane man will say that that is sufficient inspection. The House knows that we spent last year in the vicinity of $25,000 for the purpose of deporting a number of immigrants who had already landed in this country and had passed the medical inspection. In these circumstances I do not think it rash to say that the medical inspection is inefficient. We had valuable evidence from the Superintendent of Immigration which I think we should discuss at the proper time in the study of this Bill. I asked Mr. Scott, who seemed to have given the subject much study, whether he saw any objection to the examination of immigrants on the other side of the Atlantic. He said he did not see any objection and that a scheme was

actually under consideration by the government to make the doctor of the ship an examining physician. Why is this? Because the statement made by my hon. friend that the medical inspection is perfect is not correct, the government hav* themselves found it is not sufficient, and they are studying some plan by which a more thorough inspection, medical and otherwise, can be made of the incoming immigrants. In that connection I expressed the idea, founded on the statement of Mr. Scott, that if at all possible, we should provide for the examination of the immigrants on the other side. Deportation has given rise to so much sorrow, so much trouble, so much difficulty, so much harm to our own country that we should endeavour by every possible means to avoid it, and I think we can do that by an examination on the other side and by exacting from immigrants what we exact from any man who arrives in this country if he wishes to be introduced into our society or to have dealings with us commercially, letters and recommendations, something which I think would be easily susceptible of realization. In France, Belgium and all European countries every man has a book with him containing a certificate of what we require here, a statement of what he has done all his life. That 'livret' which he carries with him would be amply sufficient on his arrival heTe. British immigrants might bring with them some documents of a similar character coming from towns or parishes or the immigrants could be provided through the instrumentality of the booking agent with a medical certificate and particularly with moral certificates. I am sorry to have taken up the time of the committee, but I believe that after the remarks of my hon. friend from Two Mountains and the tone he has attempted to impart to the discussion, some statement was necessary. I believe that this Bill is an improvement. My hon. friend from L'Islet (Mr. Paquet) would like a perfect Bill, an ideal Bill, and I believe that there is room for great progress even upon the present legislation. Before many years, before many months even, I believe we will be persuaded that we have to amend and improve this Bill and to guard this country more jealously against the invasion of undesirable immigrants. My hon. friend has referred triumphantly to Oriental immigration. I think the answer to his remarks in regard to that may be found in the statement made here by members from the province of British Columbia and by the general sentiment which exists in that province. But has my hon. friend given any reflection to this side of Oriental immigration?
I am informed that Orientals coming here cannot become legally absolutely naturalized British subjects. For instance, a Japanese coming here would be prepared, when the time came, to go through the formality of endorsation. He would then be entitled to the same rights as every one of us, but he does that as a formality, he cannot, according to the dictates of his conscience and according to the principles which he holds dearest to his heart, change his allegiance. Is that a desirable kind of immigration for this country? Taken from that point of view only I think not, and although we are desirous of assisting my hon. friend as much as we possibly can in the details of this Bill, those details require to be examined and to be modified in certain respects. It is not by any means perfect legislation, and I venture to predict that at the very next session it will be necessary to bring in further improvements.
I was prepared to suggest improvements to the particular sections as they came before us, but I deemed it my duty in the face of what took place this afternoon, after the speech made by the hon. member for Two Mountains (Mr. Ethier) in answer to the very mild words, which had no political portend, of the hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Paquet) to say what I have said.


Mr. BICKERDIKE.: I quite agree with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that the Bill is a very good Bill, but I also agree with him in saying that some of it might be improved a little. My hon. friend the minister in his zeal to keep out any undesirables has absolutely made an immigrant of myself and a great many more of the citizens of this country. In fact he includes the whole cattle trade as immigrants. I do not think the minister intended to carry it quite so far. A passenger is defined as follows in the Bill:
The term ' passenger ' shall he held to include a workaway, or person who works for his passage, and shall also include a cattle man or a person engaged in tending cattle on ship board.
I respectfully enter my protest against that clause. We do not feel like losing our citizenship if we go over with our cattle on board a ship. We are all right going over but the moment we put our foot on a ship coming back we lose our Canadian citizenship and become immigrants. Against that I most certainly protest. The cattlemen, the live stock exporters have met and passed a resolution asking the minister to drop that clause. The shipping federation have also met and passed resolutions protesting against it. The

principal reason advanced by the cattlemen is that the men who are hired to attend cattle on ships are engaged as sailors, they are signed on by the representatives at Montreal of the Marine Department and really come under the jurisdiction of the captain and officers of the ship. The minister says that these men in returning to Canada must be treated as immigrants. The shipping federation have sent this petition to me asking me to present it to the House and with your permission I shall read it:
1.	A Bill has been introduced in your
honourable House, intituled:	' An Act respecting Immigration,' and by section 2, clause K of the Act, cattle attendants are included within the scope of the Bill. Without admitting or disputing for the purposes of this _ petition, the general proposals contained in this Bill, your petitioners respectfully, but very strongly urge that it should not apply to the sea service as proposed.
2.	The main reasons for this contention are as follows:-
(a) As the law stands at present all cattle attendants have to be duly approved of by the cattle inspector, who is an official of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
The petition then cites the different clauses.
Shippers are required to notify the inspector at least twelve hours before the sailing of the ship of the name of the foreman to be in charge of their shipment and of the names of the attendants and must furnish the inspector with satisfactory evidence of their sobriety, experience, ability and general good conduct and every such foreman and cattle attendant shall sign the ship's articles of agreement before the ship clears on her intended voyage, and be subject to the authority of the master.
The cattlemen think that that is quite sufficient. They cannot understand why a Canadian citizen, because he happens to be a cattle man or a live stock exporter, the moment he starts on the home voyage should no longer be treated as a Canadian citizen but as an ordinary immigrant. Take the Speaker of the legislature of Ontario., who is one of the largest cattle exporters in Canada; on his trip across to England he would be a Canadian citizen all right, but the moment he has started to come back he would be an immigrant.


Mr. WILBERT McINTYRE.: Does it not exclude the Canadian citizens? They do not come under this Bill?


Robert Bickerdike: If my hon. friend will look again he will find they do. If they were excepted, the shippers' federation and the cattlemen would not be protesting against this measure.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The interpretation clause covers that. It excepts Canadian citizens.


Robert Bickerdike: 


Robert Bickerdike: Whether he be a Canadian citizen or not, if he is a cattleman he is an immigrant. If there be one cattleman on a ship coming this way, he is treated as an immigrant, and that steamier has to stop at the immigration wharf at Quebec and put him off. Is that fair to the steamship trade? We have quite enough drawbacks in the St. Lawrence river without having one more. Let me point out the number of places where a steamer has to stop. The mail steamers stop at Father Point for a pilot, they land their mails at Rimouski, where they are given a clearance. They must proceed direct to the immigration wharf at Quebec if they have immigrants on board. If there be any sickness, the vessel has to stop at Grosse Isle. The government seems to be not quite satisfied with making a steamer run all those gauntlets but wants to cause it one more stoppage. Would not think it is fair to ask these vessels to stop in order to have cattlemen examined. We do not think trade should be interfered with to that extent. Why single out the cattleman and say that he is to be treated as an immigrant? Why not apply the same rule to the men who go over in charge of horses or apples or cheese? Both the shipping federation and the cattlemen have waited on the minister and protested against this discrimination, but still I see this clause in the Bill. As a cattleman I protest against it; it is an insult to the cattle trade. And if the minister insists on it, I shall vote against the clause.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The discussion has been rather too broad. The speeches made have been really arguments on the principle of the Bill, which should have been made on its second reading. All the points- can come up from time to time as each clause is read, and I would ask the committee to take the Bill clause by clause.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I merely want to point out that I think clause 'H,' read in conjunction with clause 'K,' distinctly admits cattlemen as Canadian citizens.


Robert Bickerdike: According to clause 'K,' a passenger shall be held to include a work-a-way or a peson who works for his passage and also cattlemen.


Frank Oliver: Section-2 is the interpretation section. It defines the meanings of the different important words which are used in the Bill. Subsection 'K' is the subsection to which the hon. member for Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) alludes, and it contains the definition of the word 'passenger.' It does not say anything about what is to be done or not with the passenger. It merely defines what a passenger is and it includes men who, although they have

signed as members of the crew, are only working their passage, and on reaching Canada are discharged from the vessel. The Bill treats these people as passengers and not as members of the crew. For all purposes connected with immigration, they are passengers, and that is the whole purpose of this section. It does not deal with them in any way but merely defines them. However, I wish to say that, on consultation with representatives of the steamship lines it -was decided to change the wording of the Bill, and I have an amendment to offer. They objected that there is no such term used nowadays as 'work-a-way.' A person who works his passage signs as a member of the crew, subject to the ship's discipline, but is discharged on reaching our side of the water. I would therefore propose to make the following amendment to subsection 'K':	Strike out from the
word 'work-a-way' to the end of the subsection and substitute the following:
A person who has been engaged in tending cattle or doing other work on an outbound voyage from Canada and who is being returned to Canada under his contract, and shall also include a person who was signed on as a member of the ship's crew and who is discharged at any port of entry in Canada.
These words, I think, make more clear the intent, which is to define what should constitute a passenger distinct from a member of the crew. That is the whole purpose of the subsection, and I am sure the committee will agree that it is not only desirable but necessary that this definition should *be made if we are to have a close enforcement of the Act.


Robert Laird Borden: I agree with the member for St. Lawrence, Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) as to the inexpediency of putting any difficulty in the way of these men returning to Canada. It would not seem to me that under section 3 there is any difficulty in the way, provided these men are Canadian citizens. Am I correct in that?


Frank Oliver: Yes. We absolutely debar ourselves under the Act from prohibiting under any circumstances the landing of a Canadian citizen in Canada. The expression ' Canadian citizen ' is defined in subsection (g). It includes a person born in Canada who is not an alien, or a British subject domiciled at least for three years in Canada who has not subsequently lost Canadian domicile, or a person naturalized under the laws of Canada who has not subsequently became an alien or lost Canadian domicile.


Mr. AMES.: If for example, a Canadian citizen abroad should contract tuberculosis there would be no objection to that Canadian citizen coming back?


Frank Oliver: None. We have divested ourselves of the power to prevent him returning.


Robert Bickerdike: What seems to strike our people as peculiar is that the minister should pick out the cattlemen. They are generally looked upon as intelligent men. But I think the minister must have the American idea. We had a fine steamer called the ' Erin ' lost on the Scilly islands in which a large number of people were lost, as well as stock. And one of the American newspapers stated the following day in large headlines, ' Perished forty-two souls and sixteen cattlemen.'


William Stevens Fielding: I think the hon. member (Mr. Bickerdike) must have been told the story of the disaster in Nova Scotia waters which was announced as ' Loss of six precious souls and two men from ' Gas-pereau.'


Robert Bickerdike: Does the amendment mean that the cattleman is to be treated as an immigrant?


Frank Oliver: He is merely being defined as a ' passenger.' The line is being drawn between the man who is a member of the crew and the man who is not a member of the crew. He is either a member of the crew or he is a passenger. There are these two classes of people who might be considered under some circumstances to be one or the other, but the Act defines them as passengers and not as members of the crew -that is all.


Robert Bickerdike: I must say I cannot understand the object the minister has in taking away the privileges of any members of the crew. Is there any good reason for it? I do not see why we should interfere with an existing trade unless there is some good reason for it. Has it been abused? These men are signed on, are inspected, and come under the authority of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. It does seem strange, unless there is good reason for it, that the minister should make a selection of the cattleman for this change. A man may go in charge of cheese and his brother go in charge of cattle. The cattleman, it seems to me, becomes an immigrant, whereas the other may come back anyway. If there is any good reason for the change, the livestock shippers will not object, but if there is no reason, why make it? Why humiliate the cattlemen in this way?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: As I understand it, the cattleman, if he is a Canadian, has an absolute right, under section 8, to enter the country. He is not an immigrant, and cannot be an immigrant. Whatever may be his position on the ship, he cannot be considered an immigrant if he is a Canadian citizen. He is among the excepted classes and has an absolute right to enter the country, just as the consul or other governmental representative, officers of His Majesty's regular forces and others. The only reason I can see why it was necessary

to say something about the cattlemen, is because, in another part of the Bill, the expression 'passenger' is defined. There may be some reason for that in the interpretation clause. And it seems from that disposition in the section that sometimes the cattleman having gone over as a cattleman comes back as one of the crew, or fills the position of cattleman and one of the crew and therefore not to be considered a passenger.


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not see any harm in a cattleman signing as one of the crew if he is a passenger-because his engagement is an exceptional one-for purposes of discipline or some other purpose which will appear as we go through the Bill. One thing is absolutely certain, and that is that the Canadian cattleman has a right to enter the country.


Mr. LAKE.: In the explanatory notes which have been drawn up, I suppose, by the minister's officers, there is given an explanation of the point under discussion. I do not know whether that has been read by the hon. member for St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike). It says:
Paragraph (i). -At present persons classed as cattlemen who attend to cattle on voyage from Canada to Europe are given free passage back to Canada. They do not work on the return voyage and are in effect passengers, but being usually an unruly lot of men

Which is rather insulting to the cattlemen, I think.
-are signed on as members of the crew so that the captain may have better control over them.
That is the explanation given by the minister in connection with this class of men. It is very insulting, I think.


Robert Bickerdike: I think a little bit insulting.


Frank Oliver: It is certainly intended that these people, not being members of the crew, shall be subject to regulation and restraint as passengers. I submit to the committee that, if we are to have an intelligent knowledge of our administration, we must define what a passenger is and what a member of the crew is, and that it is right and proper that a man who is not a member of the crew should be considered a passenger and subject to whatever liabilities a passenger is subject to. It would be entirely improper that any man or set of men should be allowed to escape the responsibilities of either crew or passenger by being neither one nor the other or by being something of both. The purpose of this provision is that not only cattlemen, but, by the amendment I have Mr. MONK.
offered, any man who comes under these circumstances and is discharged on arriving in Canada is to be considered, for the purposes of this Act, a passenger and not a sailor.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the difference in the legislation applying to the respective classes? My hon. friend from St. Lawrence division (Mr. Bickerdike) would prefer to have them come under the regulations of the Act as members of the crew, the minister thinks they should come under the regulations of the Act as passengers. What is the practical difference?


Frank Oliver: As members of the crew they do not come within the provisions of the Immigration Act at all. As members of the crew they are part of the vessel, they do not land in Canada, that is, officially, and of course we have nothing to do with th em. But as these people do land in Canada and become residents here, then we have to do with them. We have to account to the people of Canada for all who are landed in Canada. We ask parliament to give us the authority which will enable us to deal with these classes of people who come into Canada, and as they become residents of Canada we become responsible for seeing that they are proper residents. If they are members of the crew we have nothing to do with them. If they are passengers we have to do with them. We wish to define those who, under some circumstances, might be held to be members of the crew, and those who are passengers and subject to the regulations respecting passengers.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the position of members of the crew who are paid off and discharged from the vessel by the company?


Frank Oliver: They are in the same position.


Robert Laird Borden: If these men are signed on as members of the crew on the other side and are discharged from the company's employ, they are to be treated in the same way as if they were registered as passengers, there is practically no difference.


Frank Oliver: There is no difference whatever.


Mri. SINCLAIR.: Must a man submit to a medical examination every time he arrives in Canada when he comes across free as a cattleman? When John Smith, who is not a Canadian subject, makes a business of crossing the Atlantic as cattleman, and arrives on a. certain ship and is treated as an immigrant, goes through a medical

examination and goes back on the next trip, when he arrives in this country again after three or four weeks, does he have to submit to another examination? If that is the meaning of the clause, why is it done? Why do we put shippers to all the trouble of having their sailors, who act as regular cattlemen, subjected to an examination every time they arrive at a Canadian port? Once they have undergone a medical examination at a Canadian port, it seems that should be sufficient, and that thereafter they may arrive as often as they please without the medical examination.


Frank Oliver: This Bill has been drafted with the view of meetipg the conditions which have grown up in Canada, and to satisfy public opinion with regard thereto. The provisions have been drawn with that object in view. The purpose is to place in the hands of the Department of the Interior the power to exclude undesirable immigrants, undesirable passengers if you please. It is not the intent of the Bill, nor of the department in administering the Act, to hamper the trade of Canada. My hon. friend who suggests the likelihood of the Department of the Interior tying up a cattle boat for the purpose of putting the men on board through a medical examination, is of course only suggesting an absurdity in the administration.


Robert Bickerdike: That is the law.
Mr,. OLIVER. It would be the law, and as I had occasion to say to the gentlemen whom he and I had an interview with, this is simply a matter where either the cattlemen will have to trust the government to administer the law in the best interests of the country, or we will have to trust them to act independently of the law and of public opinion, and we do not feel like doing it.


Robert Bickerdike: It was done up to now: Have you suffered?


Frank Oliver: That is the opinion of the country as it has come to me, the country requires restrictions to be imposed that have not been imposed hitherto.


Robert Bickerdike: On cattlemen?


Frank Oliver: On passengers. We require care to be exercised that has not hitherto been exercised, and by this Bill we are asking parliament to empower us to do what we have not hitherto been able to do in the way of restricting undesirable immigration to this country.


Robert Bickerdike: I have stated the objection of the cattle trade to this Bill. Now here is an objection I have just received from Montreal from the steamship men, it is a memo from the Shipping Federation. The object is this, that the Bill gives the minister a power that they do not wish him to have by the law. They are willing to trust the minister, but they do not always trust the officials to that extent. This is what they say:
Cargo vessels stop for pilot at Father Point, and again at Grasse Isle quarantine station, and if cattle attendants are designated as immigrants, cargo vessels will be required to stop at the immigration wharf at Quebec.
Now, we do not want them to be stopped unless there is good reason for it. The trade of the St. Lawrence is hampered enough during six or seven months of the year when navigation is open, and why make them stop at an extra port? The minister has not given any good reason for that yet.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: He says that they are an unruly lot.


Robert Bickerdike: I do not think they are any more unruly as a whole than newspaper men or members of the Cabinet.


Frank Oliver: What I said was that the government, or the Department of the Interior, had no intention to stop cattle boats for the purpose of stopping the returning cattlemen, but we wish to have this provision in the law so that in case such a thing might occur as that returning cattle boats might be made a vehicle for introducing undesirable immigrants into Canada who would otherwise be stopped we shall have the privilege and the right of stopping these boats and requiring these returning cattlemen to pass inspection.


Robert Bickerdike: Will every boat have to stop?


Frank Oliver: No, unless we say so. The provision will enable us to compel a boat to stop if we see fit and either the cattlemen will have to trust us or we will have to trust the cattlemen. I put it up to this committee as to which is the safer to be trusted in the interest of satisfactory immigration into this country. If the government is to be held responsible for the proper restriction of immigration the government must be given power to properly restrict that immigration, and parliament cannot in reason leave an open door through which undesirables can freely come and then hold the government responsible because they have come through that door. I am free to say to the committee that in this Bill, as in the existing Act, there are many points in regard to which the decision and judgment of the department have to be accepted or else a hardship will be done. There are many

such points and there can be no effective administration of restrictive legislation under any other circumstances. Extraordinary powers have to be given if you are going to have effective restriction. These powers must be exercised with judgment and discretion. Otherwise people would be inconvenienced and trade would be hampered. But it is to be assumed that the government, which is responsible to the people for the good management of their affairs, will use every reasonable discretion and will only exercise arbitrary powers when the circumstances render their exercise necessary.


Robert Bickerdike: The minister has not given one good reason yet why that change .should be made. At the present time this matter is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. We get along all right and there is no trouble at all. The men are signed on by one of the representatives of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. When these men go on board they' are put on by the shipping master, they sign the articles and everything works well. Now, the Minister of the Interior wants to take power to make the steamers stop at one more port. If there was any good reason for it, if there was a single case which the minister could point to in which there has been ah abuse of the present system, I would withdraw my opposition. But as this is some fad of one of his subordinates I object to it. If he shows some good reason why that change should be made and why the jurisdiction should be taken from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries I will withdraw my opposition, but in the absence of that reason I will have to oppose it. I will have to vote against it, and this is the first time that I have ever had occasion to vote against a government measure.


Robert Laird Borden: You have had better chances than this. I might make a suggestion to the minister. If you merely say that crews discharged in this country will be considered as passengers will not you include everything that is necessary without making any invidious reference to the cattlemen?


Frank Oliver: No. These men are not, as I understand, signed on as members of the crew coming back. They are under contract to go and to come, but aTe not signed as members of the crew. They do not work their way coming back. It is other people who work their passage back and who are signed as members of the crew. Therefore we have to make provision for the two classes-those who come back on contracts entered into on this side of the wateT and those who come across and work their way.


Frank Oliver: 


Robert Laird Borden: I was misled by the explanatory note which declared that they are signed on as members of the crew.


Frank Oliver: That the cattlemen are?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The cattlemen go before the shipping masters and sign the articles.


Frank Oliver: As members of the crew?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, as cattlemen, they go before the shipping master. There must be some mistake in the note.


John Howard Sinclair: I think that under the shipping laws a ship is bound to bring them back to Canada. If a man goes abroad as a sailor the law will require the owner of the ship to return him to this country. My objection to the clause is that you make him a passenger every time he comes back. There might be some reason for making him a passenger the first time. The man who works his passage across the first time ought to be considered as a passenger, because he must submit himself to examination, but I can see no good reason for his being subjected to an examination every time he comes across. My hon. friend from Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) tells me that there are men who make a regular business of going across in cattle ships and returning time after time to Montreal. These men are not in the same position as men who arrive for the first time.


Herbert Brown Ames: I think there are a great many who take employment on a cattle ship as a convenience to get across.


Robert Bickerdike: Does the hon. gentleman see any objection to a poor man making a convenience of a cattle boat in order to get back to England?


Herbert Brown Ames: That is not what I said.


Robert Bickerdike: Let us hear what you have to say.


Herbert Brown Ames: I have said what I have t.i say.	*


Frank Oliver: If the cattleman is signed on as a member of the crew then the suggestion of the leader of the opposition will be acceptable. If he is not signed on as a member of the' crew-and I would rather imagine that he is not-do I understand my hon. friend the Minister of Marine to say mat he is?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have just* read the note and I think it does not correctly describe the procedure. I will give my hon. friend all the information with regard to the procedure. My information is that the men go before the cattle inspector and then go before the shipping master and sign with the shipping master.


Frank Oliver: They sign as members of the crew?
Mr.'BRODEUR. As cattlemen.


Robert Bickerdike: They sign the articles of the ship as cattlemen.	[DOT]


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I will get the information because I think there is a mistake in the explanatory note.


Frank Oliver: Assuming the statement of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to be correct it would be satisfactory to strike out the words of the amendment down to the place where the words 'a person' occur, and it would then read:
A person who was signed on as a member of a ship s crew and who is discharged at any port of entry in Canada.


Robert Bickerdike: There would be no objection to that.


Frank Oliver: Well, then I move that in place of this amendment.


Robert Bickerdike: Do I understand that they are to be treated the same as sailors who are discharged on this side?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It is moved tnat:
The words ' a work a-way or ' in line 3 page 3, and all of lines 4, 5, 6 and 7 be struck out and the following inserted:	'A person
who was signed on as a member of a ship's crew and who is discharged at any port of entry in Canada.
Section, as amended, agreed to.


Robert Laird Borden: In clause 2 is there any other change from the existing law to which attention ought to be directed?


Frank Oliver: This is a very serious change from the existing law and I hope my hon. friend is not under any other impression. The principle is not changed, but the provisions are increased in number and amongst many new features is the definition of a Canadian citizen.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Under clause 2 the immigration agent has considerable powers and responsibilities and an immigration agent is defined to be, among other things, an officer who may act as such without formal appointment. The expression 'without formal appointment' is very broad.


Frank Oliver: It is.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The powers we give immigration agents require so much judgment and discretion that the definition ought not to be so broad. I suppose this son of Mr. BE VISED
Carbonneau would under this be an immigration agent, but if he is a minor living with his father I do not think it is quite right to give him such power. There ought to be a formal appointment.


Frank Oliver: I presume that Mr. Car-bonneau would be a formal appointee. At all events, this is intended to be used in case of a sudden emergency when there would be no possibility of giving a formal authorization. The provisions of this Bill are essentially provisions intended for the selection or exclusion of immigrants, and while the Bill may be called an immigration Bill it is really an Act respecting immigration, and is rather an Immigrant Exclusion Bill than a Bill to promote immigration. It is in view of the necessity that arises under many different circumstances for the exercise of authority in regard to exclusion that this provision has been made so wide.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I quite agree with the minister as to the character of this legislation, and while I do not insist on the objection it seems to me that it is difficult to imagine an emergency in which the agent could not get a "formal appointment. Some immigration agents of late have been appointed in a very loose manner by word of mouth even, and it seem to me we ought to be careful in giving such appointees this very great authority.


Frank Oliver: The wide power of appointment is intended to cover such cases as may arise at any time along the international boundary where the trains have to be dealt with and where people having been stopped on the train may see fit to leave the railway for some distance and come by road. We desire to have the law in such shape that any authority will be sufficient to make action taken under these circumstances legal.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not wish to delay the Bill in any way, but my hon. friend from Ste. Anne's (Mr. Doherty) calls my attention to the novel manner in which you define 'domicile' in this clause. There is a general understanding as to what domicile really is, and why we should adopt a special definition in this Bill is hard to understand.


Frank Oliver: Is this definition of 'domicile' different from the generally accepted meaning of the word 'domicile' except so far as the proviso is concerned?


Mr. DOHERTY.: I think it is susceptible certainly of being interpreted in a sense different from what is usually understood and what the general law would understand to be a domicile. For instance you have it declared here that domicile means


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
the place in which a person has his present permanent home, or in which he resides. As a matter of ordinary law, there is a very substantial distinction between the place where a man resides and the place where he has his domicile. A man may reside in Canada, he may come out here leaving his family and home and his principal establishment hi some other country. Nevertheless he may reside in Canada for six months or a year. Residence implies the actual matter of fact of being or living in the country; domicile, in the ordinary interpretation, means the actual matter of fact of residence in the country with the intention of making it one's permanent principal establishment. Here, it is true, when you are dealing with a person who is returning you do say something about intention of making Canada his present permanent place of abode. I notice in the explanatory note it is stated that this is based on the dictum of viceChancellor Kindersley:
I would venture to suggest that the definition of an acquired domicile might stand thus: ' That place is properly the domicile of a person in which he has voluntarily fixed the habitation of himself and his family, not for a mere special and temporary purpose but with a present intention of making it his permanent home, unless and until something which is unexpected, or the happening of which is uncertain, shall occur to induce him to adopt some other permanent home.'
It docs not seem to me that it carries out the dictum.
Frank Oliver: A comma in the second line, after the word 'returns' would perhaps give the meaning.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then you have his domicile made because he intends to make it his present permanent abode. There seems to me to be a contradiction between present and permanent. The law ordinarily looks on the place of a man's domicile not so much as what would be called his present abode as to whether he intends to make it his principal establishment. There is, in the ordinary authorities on private international law, a pretty clear definition of what does constitute a domicile. Confusion might be created by making a particular domicile for the purpose of this Act which would be different from what the ordinary law would look upon as a man's domicile.


Frank Oliver: I am aware of the difficulties in connection with the definition of domicile and it was with a full appreciation of these difficulties that this Act was framed. Yet it was thought that as the Act comes into contact with the common people it was only right and fair that there should be on the face of the Act a Mr. DOHERTY.
definition of this word domicile, which in the administration of the Act is so very important. If this is not the generally accepted definition of domicile then of course it should be. It is not with any intention of causing a difference, it is because we have made an error in giving a definition other than we intended. We desire to give the generally accepted definition of the word domicile.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think the minister will get nearer the general definition if he omits the word, present. I do not grasp what is meant by a man's present permanent abode. Permanent means something that is to go on in the future, and inserting the word present, makes it mean a home that he means to be permanent for the present.
Mr,. OLIVER. That is a difficulty which exists especially with people who are emigrants, who are moving about. My present permanent abode is Ottawa, but if you asked me if that was my permanent abode I would say certainly not.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If it be not intended to cover what the man looks upon as his permanent abode then you are making a special definition of domicile for the purposes of this Act. It is not very easy to give a perfectly adequate definition of domicile. But owing to this difficulty should we not leave it to the operation of the general law rather than make it possible that a man who by the common law will be domiciled in one place may by this Act have his domicile in another.
Mr,. OLIVER. I appreciate the difficulty, but on the other hand it seems to me there is a difficulty in giving a definition of this word, which is not a word in common or ordinary use, and in regard to which the ordinary public have very indefinite ideas. Even if we are not absolutely right, as it would seem to be impossible to be absolutely right on account of the somewhat indefinite limits of the meaning of this word domicile, it still seems to me we are achieving a good purpose.
Mr,. DOHERTY. Perhaps if the minister used the form of expression used lower down in dealing with the change of domicile, 'the place where he has the present intention of making his permanent abode' it would be more clear than the form here used. I think the ordinary idea of the law is that in order that a man may have a domicile he should have actual residence and actual intention, at the time at all events, of making it his permanent abode.


Frank Oliver: It is perhaps just as Well not to undertake to make an alteration at

the moment, but if the hon. gentleman would consent I would have an amendment prepared which would meet his suggestion and be able to present it at the next meeting of the committee. I would move that this subclause be allowed to stand.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is a disposition in section 2 which provides that a British subject, to become a Canadian citizen under this Act, must have been domiciled for at least three years in Canada. That seems to me to be rather a long period of residence to require of a British subject who has arrived in Canada and passed all the necessary examinations. Why should we require him to stay three years before he is considered a Canadian citizen?


Frank Oliver: We have made the limit of time for deportation three years, and we do not want to give Canadian citizenship before those three years are up, because Canadian citizenship absolutely prohibits deportation.


Mr. HERRON.: As the minister has agreed to let clause 2 stand over


Frank Oliver: Only subsection (e).


John Herron: I would like him to consider paragraph (j) and see if he could not alter its wording a little. I think it casts reflection on a very creditable class of men and might be worded in some other way. I do not think that the term 'unruly class' is applicable to the men engaged in that business, generally speaking.


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman is referring to paragraph (i) in the explanatory notes. But that is not part of the Bill at all, and is merely there for explanation.
On section 3,


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think we would make better progress if the committee would now rise. We have to meet at eleven o'clock to-morrow and it is now very late.


Frank Oliver: I have a little amendment I would like to offer to subsection (e) of section 3. After the words ' prostitution ' in the second line, insert the words ' or for other immoral purposes.'


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have an amendment to section 3.


Mr. URIAH WILSON.: I would suggest that in subsection (a) of section 3, 'persons afflicted with tuberculosis ' should be added. That is in the American law. It is a dangerous and a contagious disease.


Frank Oliver: 
Uriah Wilson: While it may be difficult to diagnose in its early stages, it is not lateT. Persons who come to our northern climate to be cured, we might by another clause give power to admit; but persons in advanced stages of the disease should be excluded.


Frank Oliver: If we include tuberculosis in the subsection, it would be very difficult to draw the line, and I do not think that any system of supervision could adequately deal with it.


George Taylor: Might I suggest the advisability of referring this Bill to a select committee composed of the hon. minister, and Messrs. Monk, Brodeur, Sinclair, McIntyre (Strathcona), Bickerdike, Wilson (Lennox), Lake, and let them deal with this Bill to-morrow. That would facilitate the close of the session very materially. This Bill is a large one and it will take two or three days to put it through if it be discussed in this way. But these gentlemen could get together and whip it into shape with very little discussion.


Frank Oliver: There would be no difficulty in the committee my hon. friend has mentioned putting the Bill into shape, but would they be able to whip the House into shape?


George Taylor: I think the House would accept their verdict.


Frank Oliver: If the hon. gentlemen's friends will agree, I think the suggestion is a good one, but I am a little afraid that the Bill would be subject to still some criticism because it is of such a character that there must be many varying opinions regarding many of its provisions.


George Taylor: It is very late in the session to deal with such a large bill.


Frank Oliver: It was the first Bill on the Order Paper.


George Taylor: You should have gone on with it.


Frank Oliver: Well, I have been always in the hands of the House.
Mr, MONK. I think there is something in the suggestions of my hon. friend, in view of the position we are in in relation to the end of the session. I am afraid he will take up considerable time with the

Bill. The Bill has for its object to extend restrictions, as the minister has stated. Many details of it can be disposed of easily. But I think it is a great pity that the Bill was not brought on sooner. It is a condition that has existed ever since I came into this House that important measures are brought in only afteT prorogation has been determined upon. But I desire that the Bill should be gone on with, and I think we can put it in shape with a small committee.


David Henderson: I do not like the reference of a Bill like this to a small committee. The discussion in the House is a great educator to the members of the House. We do not all follow a Bill of this kind as closely as my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) or my hon. friend from Lennox (Mr. Uriah Wilson) who has given it special study. For my part, I prefer hearing the discussion in order to get acquainted with the character of the Bill. I may give my special attention to some other measure, while other hon. members devote their attention to this, and I want to get the benefit of their researches and the benefit also of whatever the minister has to say. 1 believe that is the feeling of many hon. members. I am not one of those willing always to accept the dictum or opinion of other hon. members without giving some consideration to the matter. The first minister informed me to-night that prorogation will take place not later than the 19th. It does not make any difference whether we are to spend another half day on this Bill or not, because prorogation i3 going to take place at that time.


George Taylor: While there is a great deal in what my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) has said, yet, when the sub-committee brings in its report-, if he wishes to ask a question a member of the committee will be able to satisfy him in a moment or two why a certain decision was arrived at, while the discussion across the floor of the House may take an hour or two.


William Stevens Fielding: I suggest that the hon. member for Halton be put on the committee.


David Henderson: I am afraid the minister's experience of putting me on a subcommittee is not very satisfactory.


William Stevens Fielding: In the case the hon. member refers to, if he did not attend the sub-committee, I take it that it was because he had confidence in me.


David Henderson: No doubt, and there were other matters coming on in the House Mr. MONK.
that I felt it my duty to attend to. We are not like birds, we cannot be in two places at the same time always.


George Taylor: A few more names might be added to the sub-committee.


Frank Oliver: I think it would be a disadvantage to have a large committee. The House will be sitting, and as the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) has said, members desire to be in the House and know what is going on.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: A motion of that kind would need to be put with the Speaker in the Chair. ,


William Stevens Fielding: We could report progress and make the motion afterwards.


Clarence Jameson: I think this Bill is of such an important character to the whole country, that the representatives of the people generally should have the privilege of hearing the discussion and of participating in it. It seems to me that this is a matter which should not be referred to a small committee, but which should be threshed out in the House. The further welfare of the country is vitally concerned in this Bill. The measure is lengthy as well as important. It would be better that it should stand over for another year rather that it should be dealt with in a sub-committee, and, perhaps, hurriedly pushed through the House as a result of their report. I confess that I cannot consider favourably the suggestion of my hon. friend.


Herbert Brown Ames: I share the feelings of the hon. member for Digby in this respect. It is Monday night, and twelve o'clock. Not many, members are here now, but I hardly think that that can be taken as a fair index of the interest that may be expected to be displayed in this Bill. Some of us have read the measure through, and some are looking forward to the full discussion from an educational point of view. There are many members absent, who, I think, will be disappointed if they have not an opportunity of hearing the explanation given by the minister on the various clauses as the Bill goes through.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I appreciate the desire expressed by our friends. It was only a suggestion, and the moment members express the desire that the usual course be followed,
I think their suggestion should be adopted. We have done considerable work on the Bill, and to-morrow we might get here early and by making short speeches confined only to


William Stevens Fielding: Another Bill has priority to-morrow, the Bill to amend the Railway Act.


George Taylor: The sub-committee could be working on the Bill, and, when the measure comes before the Committee of the Whole, the members of the sub-committee by their explanations, will facilitate the discussion. If the minister is satisfied with the names of the committee, I think it would be better in view of the other important and large Bills that we have, and in view of the desire to close on the 19th, to leave it to a committee.


Uriah Wilson: I would much prefer that the discussion should take place in the House. I think everybody is anxious to hear the discussion., This is one of the most important Bills of the sesssion, affecting not only ourselves, but it will affect our children and our grandchildren, and deserves the most careful attention this House can give it.


George Taylor: Perhaps the minister will let it lie over until next session.


Frank Oliver: I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to progress reported.
ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.	'
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Can the hon. gentleman give us some information of what Bills will be taken up to-morrow? It would help us a great deal to know the exact programme.


William Stevens Fielding: There are one or two Bills in the name of the Minister of Justice that may be taken up, one of which I think is a Bill to amend the Criminal Code. There is a Bill standing in my own name to amend the Annuities Act, a Bill from the Senate, which we will take up if if time permits. We would like to be free to take up any other Bill on the Order Paper. In the evening it is proposed to move the House into Committee of Supply to enable the Minister of the Interior to deal with his estimates, as he will be obliged to be absent for several days, and it is for the convenience of the Interior business that we will ask the House to go into Supply. No doubt there are some gentlemen who desire to use the first motion for Supply for the purpose of discussing some public questions but I hope they will not do so to-morrow evening, but permit the House to go into committee for the purpose of dealing with the estimates of the Minister of the Interior.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.10 a.m. (Tuesday).
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 11, 1909.