Mr. A. H. CLARKE (Essex) moved:: That -the 11th, 12th and 14th reports of the Public Accounts Committee be concurred in.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: The 12th report is something more than formal; perhaps this had better stand as a notice.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I will confine the motion to the 11th and 14th reports.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.



MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 154) respecting the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal.-Mr. Brodeur.
On section 1,
Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: The port of Montreal is that section of the river St. Lawrence extending from Montreal to Port Neuf, and it was originally so defined for the purpose *of construction. All the improvements on the St. Lawrence, as well as the rules of the road and the pilotage authority, were under the control of the Montreal Harbour Uommissioners. Some years ago the Shipping Act was amended to vest the pilotage authority in the Department of Marine, but the Montreal Harbour Commissioners Act was not amended to conform with that and this section proposes to do so. The rules of the road between Montreal and Port Neuf will also be controlled by the Marine Department in future, as they are in all other places in Canada.


Mr. EMMERSON.: I wish to call the attention of the minister to a question that has arisen between the Harbour Commission of Montreal and the lessees of certain lands lying along the Lachine canal. The leases to these lands were granted many years ago. Their western boundary was the canal itself and their eastern boundary the harbour of Montreal. For a long time there was some dispute with respect to the eastern boundary. As long ago as 1873 a conventional line was established, I think by order in council. That conventional line was recognized for years, and from time to time was made the subject matter of orders in council. Recently difficulties have arisen between the lessees and the Department of Public Works.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The Department of Railways and Canals.


Mr. FIELDING.: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think some of the leases were made when Railways and Canals were under the control of the Public Works Department. In 1903 and 1904 there was some dispute with reference to these boundaries, and it will be found that even as late as that date the rights of the lessees to this conventional line were recognized by orders in council. It is claimed by the Harbour Commission that that line should not be the line. Originally the line was irregular, following the windings of _ the stream, but in order to prevent any misapprehension with respect to it and to the changing shores of the stream, the conventional line was established. The commissioners have brought suit against the lessees with respect to the matter, and it would seem to me that if the lessees or their assignees have or have had rights which have been recognized in the past, they should be Tecognized to-day, and there should be no legislation which would change their status in any degree. It occurred to me that possibly this section might in some way affect the status of these lessees, and I think the Department of Marine and Fisheries, in succession to the Department of Public Works, should stand by the action of the department in years gone by, and is in justice and in equity bound to recognize their rights. It seems to me most _ unfair that these parties should be brought' into court after so many years, and after the several departments of the government have treated this conventional line as one that was established for all time, and one that was not to be subject to the whim or the caprice of any commission. I am sorry the Minister of Railways is not in his place at the moment, as his department is particularly interested in the matter. It is a question which I think the Department of Railways and Canals and the Department Marine and Fisheries should jointly take into consideration, and deal with the subject without the assistance of the courts.


Mr. DOHERTY.: It seems to me that this question would rather arise under the next section of the Bill, which defines the limits of the harbour, not under this section, which defines the port. As the hon. member has brought the matter up, I may say that I have had occasion to see the records in the pending litigation, and it certainly does seem to present a case for the consideration of the government. The action of the Harbour Commission is against persons with whom that board made a contract establishing the boundaries of these lots, a contract which I believe was authorized at the time, and was subsequently ratified, by order in council. The position which the Harbour Commissioners now take in attacking the boundary line so established, does seem to me to be one which it

ought to be possible for the government to avoid. This boundary line was established by a deed which is unquestionably valid unless it be set aside on the ground that by it some portion of the ground which formed the harbour was lost to the Harbour Commissioners. The commission take the ground that the piece of land in question, being public property, was not susceptible of being alienated, and therefore that the conventional line fixed for the boundary was illegally fixed. It does seem to me that these parties, who contracted with the Harbour Commissioners, are entitled to stand on the title the)* got. Moreover if I mistake not, that title was passed thirty or forty years ago and they have possessed the property in conformity with it ever since; so that if the matter were one between individuals, they would have a prescriptive right to it. The Harbour Commissioners in addition to repudiating their own contract in order to get rid of this boundary, are reduced to take the position that no prescription can stand against the Crown, ot that the property being public cannot be acquired by prescription. The position is made doubly hard by the fact that in some cases the parties with whom the convention establishing the boundary was made have since sold their property. The present litigation is between the Harbour Commissioners and the present owners; and the people who were the owners at the time of the fixing of the boundary find themselves called in to guarantee and protect their purchasers against the consequences of this action. I have nothing to say as to how far the position taken by the Harbour Commissioners may be legally well taken, but assuming that it is, it seems to me to be a case of considerable hardship on the holders of these properties, who in good faith entered into this arrangement with the Harbour Commission, an arrangement which was at the time ratified by order in council and which has ever since been acted upon. One can readily understand the confusion into which things are going to be thrown if that convention is upset. The gentlemen who entered into the convention with the Harbour Commissioners, actuallv held the property adjoining, between which and the harbour the line was drawn, deriving their title from the government of Canada; and they were entitled to a warranty of the government of Canada to the peaceful possession of their property. The situation is that these people who hold title to their property from the government of Canada, with whom in good faith they entered into a convention to establish the boundaries of that property, now find themselves, by the action of one of the departments of the government, sought to be deprived of that property. It does seem to me to be a case in which 208
the different departments of the government ought to get together and see if it is not proper to Tefrain from disturbing the rights of these people. As I understand, the very narrow ground on which the Harbour Commission is acting is that the government, when it passed the order in council ratifying the conventional line, did a thing which by law it had not a right to do. The case is certainly one deserving of the consideration of the government.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I shall be very glad to bring to the attention of the Harbour Com-misioners of Montreal the statements just made by my hon. friend from Westmoreland and the hon. member for St. Anne's. This matter was never brought before me, because it is a question of internal management, with which we of course never interfere. Of course, neither this section nor the third section refers to the question of the boundaries. We have accepted the boundaries as they were. The Harbour Commission of Montreal is a very old organization, extending as far back I think as the thirties. The boundaries of the harbour were determined by an Act passed 50 ojr 60 years ago, and our intention is not to change the old boundaries; but we are providing in this Bill to extend the jurisdiction of the Harbour Commissioners from Longue Pointe Church to the extreme end of the island.


Charles Joseph Doherty: You extend the boundaries up and down the river, not between the river and the properties along the river.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We do not touch at all the old boundaries of the harbour. From Verdun to Longue Pointe they will be just as they are to-day; but we propose to extend the boundaries from Longue Pointe to the extreme end of the island, so that the question raised by my hon. friend from Westmoreland will not be affected by this legislation. It simply provides that the jurisdiction which the Harbour Commission exercises, extending from Montreal to Portneuf, shall pass to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, so far as pilotage, the rules of the road and public works are concerned. Since the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has become the pilotage authority, instead of the Harbour Commission, there is no more reason why the rules (of the road should be made by the Harbour Commission for that section of the river, and they are hereafter to be under the control of the minister. With regard to the matter which has been brought to the attention of the House by my hon. friends, I must admit that I am not very familiar with the details of it. I do not think it has been



brought formally before me, but I -have heard some discussion by the former Harbour Commission and probably by the existing Board on that point. If I remember rightly, it is claimed that there has been an encroachment upon part of the property which was under the control of the Harbour Commission. Whether this has been done by leases issued by the department here or not, I am not sure.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand that whatever encroachment there has been is in conformity with the deed of the Harbour Commission by which the boundary line was agreed upon. Now the Commissioners come, forty or fifty years afterwards, and say: ' That line did not mark the real limit of the harbour; we gave you by it a bit of the harbour, which we could not legally do, because it was public property, and therefore what we did and what the Governor in Council ratified was null and void,' the resulting situation being that these people, if they had dealt with any private individual, would unquestionably have an absolute valid title to their property both under their deed _ and by prescription, but that they are to be ousted because they have been dealing with the Crown.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think that the rentals were made first with one of the departments, whether with the Public Works Department or the Railways and Canals I do not know; and that there was after that, or at the same time, an agreement made with the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal. But, as I understand it, the Harbour Commissioners claim that this agreement has not been lived up to by these lessees.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The contention of the Harbour Commissioners, as I understand it, is:	Inasmuch as the line was not on
the exact line of the harbour, the effect was to give these lessees property which is part of the harbour, and, as we could not alienate any part of the harbour, the deed did* not convey it, and though you have had possession all this time, you could not prescribe it, because we are the Crown.
I do not know whether there may be other difficulties as to details.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The canal branch, when it was under control of the Department of Public Works, issued certain leases to several lessees respectively, the boundary of the leased property being the western boundary of the harbour of Montreal. Now, under the Act-and if reference is made to it it will be seen that this is correct-the western boundary of the harbour of Montreal followed the western


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: bank or shore of the river St. Lawrence. And, as it practically worked out, when these lessees came to take possession of their property, a question arose as to exactly where the western shore or bank of the river St. Lawrence was. In order to obviate any difficulty and to set at rest all questions as to where that proper western boundary of the harbour of Montreal was, a conventional line was established in the interest of the department as well of the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal. That conventional line, thus established, was distinctly recognized by order in council on one occasion at least, I think in 1873, and it has been lived up to on the part of the commssioners of the harbour of Montreal and the Department of Railways and Canals respectively, and all subsequent leases issued by the Department of Railways and Canals were based upon that conventional established line. Now, the question arises: The commissioners gave assent to that conventional line


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: With certain conditions attached.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think there were no conditions, because the line was made a fixed line.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: But the hon. member (Mr. Emmerson) will see this also in the papers. There was to be an outlet from the works of the Harbour Commissioners to the street-Mill street, I think. But that Las not been lived up to by the lessees; they have not kept the outlet. And, as a result, the harbour commissioners to-day have no outlet from their property in that section, and the lessees will not carry out their part of the agreement.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That raises an entirely different question. But the question to which I wish to draw the attention of the committee is that that line was established by order in council and that the assent of the Governor in Council was given to the action of the Harbour Commissioners.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Now, the harbour commissioners say: * The western line of our harbour followed the western line of the River St. Lawrence, and this conventional line does not follow, on the contrary in some respects it encroaches upon the River St. Lawrence, our harbour; and so, our deed, while it was done in good faith, while it was done in the interest of all parties involved at that time, was one we had no power to make, for we could not alienate the property of the Crown.' They admit that they gave assent, but they say that because they had not authority to do it
they repudiate the conventional line and plead the right of prescription in the Crown, and say that these lessees have no vested rights up to that conventional line. Now, the original lessees, perhaps, are not in existence. But their assignees are in existence, and for years, certainly since 1873 down to the present moment, all parties have acted as respects this property upon the basis of that conventional line being the true line which the government of this country recognized and established. The government itself has, by order in council, time and again since 1873 recognized this conventional line. It seems to me that it would be a breach of faith on the part of the government to permit, even though the law would enable any of the departments to do it, to permit any of the departments to deviate one hair's breadth from the conventional line established in 1873. I am simply calling the attention of the minister to this, with the hope that he, as representing the harbour of Montreal and the rights connected therewith, and his colleagues in the government, especially the Minister of Railways and Canals as representing the canal interest, will look into this matter, consider these original leases referred to in the order in council, and see whether that conventional line was established, whether it has been acted upon


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: And whether the agreement has been carried out by the two parties.


Henry Robert Emmerson: And to have the matter settled, for the reason that every property thus situated has a cloud upon its title. There is not one of these lessees, or an assignee of any of the original lessees, but what is .now in a perilous condition as respects his holdings under these leases. He cannot alienate, he cannot dispose of them, he has not the free use and enjoyment of his property, and all because one department in the government says to the other department: ' We have no right to do this, and therefore it is wrong.' Now, I do not think it would be contended by my hon. friend that the action thus taken in 1873 was wrong. It may not have been legally carried out, there may not have been the authority of parliament in strict legal exactness for making the western boundary of the harbour of Montreal follow th,e western shores of the River St. Lawrence and consequently that wherever to-day that western shore is to be found the western boundary should be followed. But it will not be -said that because a certain line was established, such line should not now be recognized, as it was by the government in 1873 and has since been recognized down to the present time.
208i


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: On that point I may be permitted to say a word or two. I do not think that the Harbour Commissioners are desirous of repudiating the agreement which was then made. There was an agreement made by which the boundary of the harbour of Montreal was extended a little to the east in order to give to these people a larger quantity of land, but at the same time those people were obliged to give to the Harbour Commissioners an outlet, and they do not carry out their part of the agreement. They do not give that outlet-if I remember the circumstances of the case. I speak subject to correction. There was an agreement made, and these lessees will not carry out the agreement, they will not give an outlet *to the BaTbour Commissioners, and the Harbour Commissioners say: 'If you will not live up to the agreement, give us our property as it was before.' That is the basis of the action which has been taken. So I think we must consider the two sides of the case. It is all very well to say that the Harbour Commissioners should carry out this agreement. At the same time^ the lessees should give the Harbour Commissioners what they have promised to give, and that is the question that is now before the courts.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The nature of the action, so far as I am acquainted with it, does not rest on the complaint that the lessee in a particular case has not carried out his obligation. Whether there are any one or more of them that are not doing it, I do not know. But this action is purely and simply on the ground that the department was never authorized by parliament, and that even the Governor in Council had no power to ratify the contract. And to show what a difference it makes whether the action be one of that kind, which is a simple repudiation of the contract, or an action such as the minister speaks of, I would like to point out to him what happens in a particular case. The particular action is brought against a purchaser from the original lessee who made the boundary contract. If that action against that purchaser were on the ground that he, succeeding to the obligation of the lessee under the -boundary deed was not fulfilling the conditions of the deed, of course there would be no question of his having an action in warranty against the man who sold, because it would be his own failure to fulfil his obligation would be complained of. In the case I speak of, that is not complained of at all. But the position is that the action of the government gives to this second person who bought from his auteur with whom the government contracted the right to compel that auteur to warrant him against the government's action. Whereas were the action what the minister describes it as being, then that vendor or auteur would not have any such obligation

>to warrant his purchaser against a suit based on the latter's default. The minister will see what a material difference it makes in that case which position is taken. Under the position as taken actually by the Crown, the person who is going to suffer is the original owner who contracted with the Crown, because he is bound to protect his purchaser from the Crown's repudiation of his own title. If, on the other hand, the position taken by the Harbour Commissioners were that the nresent holders of that property are not carrying out their obligations, and that the commissioners want the contract, which was perfectly valid, either carried out or annulled merely because the present holders do not fulfil their obligations, then the Crown or the commissioners and the present holders might fight it out. It seems to me an injustice to the man who originally contracted with the Crown.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I only wish to add a word. I am not familiar with any of the *conditions of the original lease, at the time *of the issuance of the original lease, at which time this conventional line was established. But I do know that since then, under the Department of Railways and Canals in 1884, and in 1885, if not later, certain leases were granted, the eastern boundary of which holdings was to extend to this conventional line, and that the subsequent leases were not issued upon any conditions perhaps similar to those in the original lease. I think that will be found to be the case. But these parties who got their lease with this line thus established, are to-day brought into court in an action the object of which is to repudiate entirely the conventional line established in 1873. Now it would not be just or right, it would not be fair that the government of Canada should permit these men to suffer because forsooth the original lessee of another property failed to fulfil his conditions.


Mr. GEOFFRION.: So far as I can remember the question raised by the hon. member for Westmoreland, I think there was a conventional line established by agreement between the parties. But now the difficulty in connection with the case in court, if I remember right, on the part of the commissioners, is that the lessees have not lived up to the contention properly.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Is that in all cases?


Victor Geoffrion: In most of the cases; I think it is in all cases. When the convention was made conditions were imposed by the commissioners and it is those conditions which have not been fulfilled by the lessees which are now the subject of contention in court. The point taken by my hon. friend from Montreal, St. Anne, Mr. DOHERTY.
(Mr. Doherty) is right. I think it is also contended on the part of the parties that there was no power to lease.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In the case that I spoke of they ask for nothing more than a judgment declaring that the harbour commissioners could not make that deed and that it does not bind tbem. There is nothing about conditions.


Victor Geoffrion: That may be one of the allegations; I do not remember exactly now. But one of the allegations was that the conditions imposed when the agreement was made was not fulfilled and, therefore, even if the leases were granted according to the convention, the cases will he considered and judgment will be rendered according to the convention.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Why are they brought in the court at all?


Victor Geoffrion: These cases have been standing a long while.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Their object is to declare that the convention does not govern. Their position is that you could not make that agreement, and they want the court to declare that the agreement is without effect.


Victor Geoffrion: Their position is that the contention of the Harbour Commissioners is wrong?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That it is wrong.


Victor Geoffrion: Well, the case is still standing and will be judged according to the convention.


Victor Geoffrion: According to the law and if my hon. friend is right judgment will be rendered accordingly. But this clause simply


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It does not affect that question at all, we do not touch that.


Victor Geoffrion: It simply says that the old board will be re-established and extended.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I quite understand that the clause does not affect that boundary line between the proprietors behind the water lots.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The only question that has been raised is as to whether tbe action of the Harbour Commissioners in taking these proceedings against the lessees is proper or not. Since the discussion was begun I have received the papers, but unfortunately I cannot lay my hand on the contract. The matter has been referred to my department and to the Department of Justice and there is a resume of the case given by Mr. Newcombe in which he says:
It would appear from the papers and from verbal explanations made by Mr. Seath, the secretary of the Harbour Commissioners,

657ft
that the Crown gave what are in effect perpetual leases to various persons of hydraulic lots on Mill street in connection with the water-powers created by the Lachine canal. In some cases these lots were very shallow and on the 26th December 1873, the Harbour Commissioners made an agreement with all the proprietors except two, in which it was recited that doubts had arisen as to whether the various lessees did not encroach upon the rights of the Harbour Commissioners by running their lots further into the river than they had a right to do and that to put an end to the said doubts the Harbour Commissioners had had a map or plan prepared by their engineer showing where the rear line of the said lots should run, which was annexed to the agreement and duly signed.
It then goes on further to recite that the Harbour Commissioners contemplated making certain improvements in the harbour at the rear of the lots bv building a wharf along the whole length thereof and otherwise improving the harbour, and at a meeting held at their office it was agreed that the boundary line between the Harbour Commissioners' property and the various lessees should in future be a line marked ' A ' on the plan and the Harbour Commissioners gave up to the various lessees ' all right or claim they may have to the land lying between Mill street and the said division line so marked ' A,' the lessees, on their part, transferring to the Harbour Commissioners certain pieces of land for the purpose of making roads between Mill street and the wharf to be built in rear of the lots. This agreement was ' acquiesced ' in by order in council dated the 8th October, 1878.
Now the lessees will not deliver the property they agreed to deliver. Then Mr. Ncwcombe adds:
It would therefore appear to be very desirable to effect a settlement of the case if this can be done, and I understand from Mr. Seath that the Harbour Commissioners might be satisfied if the lessees would make arrangements to give the roads that they undertook to give under the agreement of 1873 and a strip of land for railway tracks.
The agreement was made in 1873. The commissioners are willing to live up to that agreement, but the others will not live up to it. Let them give the land they promised, and I am satisfied that the commissioners will be willing not to disturb them. If they want the Harbour Commissioners to carry out the agreement they themselves should carry out their agreement. It is all very well to say: ' Give us a piece of land along the river front but we will not give you the outlets that we promised to give you.' Let the lessees carry out their part of the agreement.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Will the minister say that the action will be "reduced to the demand that they fulfil their obligations and that the contract be annulled on that point? If the minister will do that he will clear the whole situation and remove the grounds of complaint.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have always understood from the Harbour Commissioners that they were willing to leave the harbour front as it is to-day provided the others would carry out their agreement. If they are willing to give the Harbour Commissioners the streets that they promised to give, I think the Harbour Commissioners will be willing to leave the river front as it is.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would like to impress upon the committee the fact that the action brought is not for the purpose of compelling these parties to carry out the conditions of the lease, but for the purpose of absolutely annulling the lease on the ground that the Harbour Commissioners had not the right, by authority of parliament, to give a lease of that portion of land. It seems to me that the attitude of the Harbour Commissioners is one that cannot be justified for the reason that the subsequent leases were all granted, that the government recognized this conventional line and the government should not permit the Harbour Commissioners to say, in a fit of anger, perhaps, or something else :
* You have not done this and we will absolutely have this conventional line annulled.'


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is of the greatest importance.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There can be no complaint of any action brought to compel these parties to fulfil the conditions, but it does not seem to be fair on the part of the government now to be bringing ajre action to cancel the lease.	[DOT]


Charles Joseph Doherty: This is a case of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. Because there are some men who are not carrying out the conditions of the lease it is proposed to punish all. I do not know the fact, but if the present form of action will deprive the man who did carry out the conditions of the right to his land under the lease you will do an injustice. As a means of compelling possibly one or two proprietors who do not want to carry out the conditions to carry them out you will deprive all the other proprietors of the benefit of the line. The undoubted position which the government takes is that ' that line does not bind me with regard to anybody whether he carries out the conditions or not.'


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is not the government, it is the Harbour Commission.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That may be, but apparently the Harbour Commissioners claim to be the Crown because it is said no prescription can run against them, and I suppose the Crown and the government are more or less identified. The action itself 'is not a pure and simple action to have the deed as something that once did

exist, set aside for non-fulfilment of conditions. It 'is quite another thing, an action to have it declared that the deed never bound the commissioners at all, that, ab initio it was absolutely beyond their powers, and that therefore that line did not exist, with the result in this particular case that parties who are not now in possession of the lands find themselves called in to warrant the title of new people, who, if the minister's position is correct, are the people who are violating their obligations. If the action raised the question of a violation of the obligation then these people would be entitled to say: ' We have n >
warrant to give you if you do not fulfil your obligation.' But, as the government chooses not to say that there has been a violation of the conditions, hut rather that the title is void, ab initio, then the previous holders, the vendors, have to come in to defend this man who, according to the government's now position is the man who is violating the obligation.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: But, if the action is taken for the purpose of having this man carry out that agreement that would be a question for the courts to decide.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, between the warrantee and the warrantor. If this be the action of course there would be absolutely no discussion with regard to it, and I have not a word to say against the government in enforcing any obligation that may exist.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I suppose that the lawyers who advised the Harbour Commissioners found that this sort of action was better than the other.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Exactly, sometimes when one has a case which he does not expect to succeed on, he tries another.


Henry Robert Emmerson: What about those who have fulfilled their conditions?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Precisely, you punish indiscriminately those who fulfilled the conditions' and those who did not.


Victor Geoffrion: I think we had better discuss the clause before the House.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Very well; I have no doubt I have so impressed the minister that he will see the justice of my contention.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The clause says:
From the said north point of the island of Montreal to a point opposite the church of the parish of Longue Point, the boundary shall follow the west boundary of the River St. Lawrence along high water mark and including the beach thereof.
If these words are to remain in the Bill they would absolutely do away with any conventional line and wipe out your orders Mr. DOHERTY.
in council and all the recognition that the government has given from time to time to this conventional line and upon which they have issued leases. If this legislation goes through and the facts are as I surmise, then there is no need for litigation.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Our intention is not to affect pending litigation between these lessees and the Harbour Commissioners. If the hon. gentleman has any doubt we might put in a clause to that effect.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I should like to have a clause inserted to that effect.


Victor Geoffrion: The rights of the parties will not be affected. How could this clause affect the rights of the parties making contracts according to conventions which existed between them?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I should think the clause would affect these rights because here we have the statute declaring precisely where the boundary of the harbour of Montreal is to be. The convention in this case has no other purpose than to define the boundary of the harbour of Montreal at this particular place, and if by law we define it as being somewhere else of course the convention would be absolutely wiped out.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There may be something in the point raised. I would not like to take advantage of this Act to interfere with pending legislation and we can insert a clause declaring that it shall not.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no doubt that there is no intention to affect proceedings pending.


Henry Robert Emmerson: You are doing away with the conventional line which seems to me to be unfair and to be going back upon everything that successive governments have done for many years, and I think there should be a recognition of the conventional line in this clause.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If my hon. friend can get the lessees to live up to their agreement I will try and induce the Harbour Commissioners to do the same thing.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I quite agree that these parties must live up to their agreements, but I do not think the department should in any pique do away with what has been established for 40 years or more because as is alleged some parties have not lived up to their agreement. Make them live up to it. My recollection is however that that was not the point raised when the matter of several of these properties was brought to my attention as Minister of Railways.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We will insert the words:	' Provided nothing in this Act
shall affect pending cases.'


Henry Robert Emmerson: And insert also the words:	' Provided nothing herein shall
affect the conventional line established.'


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am not going to declare that the Harbour Commissioners are guilty in that respect when others do not live up to their agreements.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If the government of the country has for 40 years recognized that conventional line surely legislation of this character should also recognize it, and while you are extending the bounds of your harbour you should not be guilty of a breach of faith with any of these parties.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It would not be fair
to say to the Harbour Commissioners :
' You must live up to this agreement ' without at the same time forcing the others to live up to their agreement. The question, is before the courts and I am inserting a clause saying that this legislation will not affect pending cases.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not want the minister to do anything whereby the les-sees will be relieved of any of the conditions of their leases. The retention of the conventional line which has been recog-nied for forty years will not have this effect.


Victor Geoffrion: Even though there was a conventional line, it does not follow that the government are going to continue the same limits of the harbour of Montreal forever. We may be obliged in twenty years hence to extend its limits again.


Henry Robert Emmerson: You can at any time extend the bounds of the harbour by the right of eminent domain; but in doing so you should recognize the rights of individuals. It was certainly in the interest of the department to have that conventional line established, it has worked well all these years, and I appeal to the minister not to suddenly wipe it out and thus destroy the rights of these people.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend loses sight of a very important point. Here are two parties to an agreement, one of whom was to give a portion of property on the river front, and the other was to give streets and lanes for communication between the river front and the city of Montreal. There is litigation. It is contended that the lessees who were going to supply these streets and lanes did not carry out their part of the agreement, and the commission say to them: ' If you want the contract to be lived up to, give us the streets, as we have given you a portion of our property; if you do not give us the streets,
give us hack our property.' I do not think it would be fair for us to force one party to live up to the agreement without forcing the other party. I admit that there is something in the point raised by my hon. friend, and therefore we provide that this statute shall not affect in any way the rights of the parties.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not take exception to anything the minister says with respect to these parties carrying out their obligation; but that is an entirely different question. This is a question, not between the Harbour Commissioners and the lessees, but between the government and the Harbour Commissioners. The Crown can compel the lessees to fulfil every condition contained in their leases, and I have no word to say against any such action. But the litigation is not for that purpose. I know that there is no question with respect to some of the assignees of the lessees fulfilling the conditions of their leases, whatever there may be with respect to others; but if you allow this action to annihilate the conventional line to go on, you will do an injustice to parties who have lived up to the conditions of their leases from the beginning down to the present time.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Not by this legislation. It will not affect in any shape or form the rights of these parties.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I certainly think it will, because the leases under which they hold recognize a conventional line, and by this legislation you are going to wipe out their eastern boundary and cloud their title-a clear violation of the original contract and a breach of faith towards them.


Mr. RIVET.: Do I understand that the hon. gentleman is opposed to the extension of the harbour of Montreal?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: Well, can he suggest any other way than the way provided by this legislation whereby the new boundaries may be defined?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, I can.


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: The amendment of the hon. minister will protect the rights of all these parties.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If I were asked to make a suggestion, I would say that I want to make a reservation with respect to the conventional line that has been accepted by the government, by the lessees, by the Harbour Commission, by everybody, for thirty or forty years. That does not in any way affect the question whether or not these lessees have lived up to the conditions of their leases.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Here are parties before the1 courts to-day, and my hon. friend wants us to declare, by this legislation, that one of the parties is right.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No. The action in the courts is not for the purpose of finding out whether or not these parties have lived up to the conditions of the leases, but for the purpose of doing away with all idea of a conventional line and saying that, ab initio, it was a mistake. My hon. friend knows that all the lessees have not violated the agreement and I am speaking on behalf of those who have lived up to the agreement. I am not attempting to justify any one of them who has not lived up to the agreement.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It was a joint agreement between the Harbour Commissioners on the one side and the lessees on the other side.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, it was a joint agreement with respect to the Harbour Commissioners and the government. I remember going over the leases at the time Sir Charles Tupper was Minister of Railways and Canals, and I remember seeing there a recognition of that conventional line. More than that, if my hon. friend will refer to the records of the Privy Council for 1903, he will find an order in council recognizing it in connection with leases issued by the Department of Railways and Canals. What I claim is that these suits are brought for the purpose of wiping out that conventional line, and that the position of the Harbour Commissioners would be fortified and buttressed in every way by this section.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Not at all.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is my view as a lawyer and from my knowledge of the facts, and I think it will be sustained by the courts if the courts go the full length.


Mr. LANCASTER.: I am bound to say that, listening to the discussion, I think the hon. member for Westmoreland is practically right in his contention. I cannot see why the minister should want to interfere with the boundary line of a man's property for the purpose of protecting the rights of the parties in litigation in other respects. I do not think that is fair or equitable to the parties. I think some amendment should be inserted that will say more than the minister states, that this section shall not interfere with the boundary line or the decision as to what should be the boundary line. The section as it is would cause litigation after this Act was passed.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not think my hon. friend is right in stating the object of the clause. It simply leaves the boundary line as it was under the former statute. I admit that perhaps it might be construed as affecting the rights of the parties in the suits now Mr. EMMERSON.	.
pending, and in order to remove that possibility I have moved an amendment to the section. What the Harbour Commissioners are willing to do is to let everybody live up to his agreement.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Let the government live up to its agreement.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The litigation is not a matter of public interest. It is between private parties, as the Harbour Commissioners in this case are practically private parties.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I maintain that the remedy of the hon. gentleman goes a great deal further than he says he wants to go. It would cut away the conventional line agreed upon and interfere with the litigation on behalf of one side instead of protecting both sides.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand that the hon. minister desires simply to protect the rights of the Harbour Commissioners with respect to people who have violated the conditions of their agreement On the other hand, I do not think there is any desire to * protect the rights of anybody who has violated the conditions of his agreement, and certainly there is no desire to prevent the limits of the harbour of Montreal from being extended. What I would suggest is that the amendment be made to read something as follows:
Provided that nothing in this Act shall affect the rights as defined in the deed of the 6th December, 1873, of any proprietors or lessees who have fulfilled their obligations under that contract.
Now, the minister says, and says repeatedly, that the object of this litigation is only to enforce the fulfilment of obligations by the proprietors. Therefore, he virtually concedes that this litigation ought not to be gone on with against proprietors who have fulfilled their obligations. If the minister is willing to declare, as by this amendment, that the rights shall stand as defined in the deed in the case of all proprietors who have fulfilled their obligations, I shall be most happy to leave those who have not fulfilled their obligations to take the, consequences of their own acts.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Doherty) sees how dangerous such an amendment would be. It would purely and simply dismiss the case now before the court. The hon. gentleman admits that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Is it not a very serious matter to legislate anybody out of court? Would it not be very much better to have the amendment that I propose, ifor it simply provides that this legislation shall not affect in any way the question which is now before the courts. The hon. member (Mr

Doherty) is suggesting an amendment which would dismiss the case of the Harbour Commissioners.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then, will the minister admit what I have been contending for from the beginning-that the case before the courts is not a case to compel all parties to fulfil their obligations, but that it is, as described by the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) and myself, a pure and simple repudiation by the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal-who, whether they are the government or not, are very close to the government, and I do not think would repudiate any contract without the government's approval-


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is because the others have not lived up to their agreement.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. minister reasons in a circle. When I ask him to protect the rights of the Harbour Commissioners only against those who have not lived up to their agreement, he says that that will legislate the Harbour Commissioners out of court, the action being to declare that even those who have lived up to their agreement have no rights. But when I point out and show that that is a virtual repudiation by the government of the commissioners' contract, he says that he wants to make these lessees live up to their agreements. I think it is true that this amendment which I propose would legislate the nending case out of court. But I do think that, so far as that goes, for the sake of the public credit and honour-the action being what the minister concedes it to be-we ought to legislate it out of court. I think it a shameful thing that any board under the control of the government of this country should be before the courts with a bald repudiation of a contract not questioned to have been entered into in good faith, standing on the sole ground that the property affected was public property and neither the Harbour Commissioners nor the Crown itself-which approved of what had been done-could alienate it. Because by this ground of action, the Harbour Commissioners, with the government of Canada behind them and approving, declare that they will taka advantage of the fact that this was public property to repudiate a contract which, if they were private individuals, would be absolutely binding upon them not only in honour but in law. I do not understand that it is questioned that as a matter of honesty and good faith that contract is binding on the Harbour Commissioners. If this amendment would legislate that case out of court, as the minister says, it is because the Harbour Commissioners rely for success in that case upon the fact that they cannot be compelled to do the thing they agreed to. The practical position is this: For the purnose-I
do not want to dispute that that is the purpose, seeing the minister has declared it,- of compelling some recalcitrant proprietors to fulfil their obligations, the Harbour Commissioners, with the government behind them, are simply holding up every proprietor who did fulfil his obligations. They simply declare that if they cannot make everybody do what they wish they will take away from everybody what has been held for forty years under an agreement made at their own instance-for, if the minister looks at the deed, he will see that it was at the instance of the Harbour Commissioners that this contract was made. If the hon. minister will look it up, he will find that, with the full knowledge of the possibilities of the arising of this legal question, the Governor in Council (I cannot give the date) expressly declared that this arrangement should be approved ,and should be so approved, as a matteT of * justice. The position now is that the government, always insisting that the purpose is to make recalcitrants fulfil their obligations, refuse to accept my amendment that provides for that, and while protecting the rights of the Harbour Commissioners against every man who has not fulfilled his obligation, will leave unaffected the position of those who have fulfilled their obligations and have carried out their contract in good faith.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We have here the spectacle of a Minister of Marine saying:
' We are going to allow these actions to go on because certain individuals have not fulfilled their part of the agreement.' He says: ' These men have not fulfilled their agreement, and therefore the government will not fulfil its agreement with certain other people.' From the standpoint of public honour, it is certainly a spectacle that I had not expected to witness in this House. These individuals have their rights under the Crown, as given in 1883, 1885, 1887 and other years, rights based upon a conventional line established in 1873 under an agreement between the Harbour Commissioners and these other parties. But I hold that it is a matter in which not merely the Harbour Commissioners are interested, but the government is especially affected for the reason that it is the government that issued these leases, so that the lessees hold their rights under the government and under the Department of Railways and Canals. Their holdings go to a certain boundary, which was established by a conventional line. And now the government, by this legislation, proposes to back up the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal in sweeping away entirely the rights which were granted under these leases by the authority of the Governor in Council. I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask the minister to protect the rights in this conventional boundary of

those parties who have kept their agreement.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Permit me to put a question to the hon. gentleman. If the Department of Railways and Canals issued some leases extending to a boundary line, and if now an action is taken by the Harbour Commissioners against those lessees, have not those men an action in warranty against the department, so their rights will not be affected?


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend knows that a conventional line may not appear as a matter of record, but if it is between subjects of the Crown a conventional line is as fixed as a statute of parliament, and that in establishing a boundary between individual subjects of His Majesty the mere agreement and fixing of that conventional line estops either party forever from saying that it is not the right line. But it is different with respect to a matter between the Crown and one of the subjects of the Crown. The right of prescription is there, and, no matter where there is a conventional line, the Crown can repudiate it, and in this instance the Crown is repudiating it. In this instance we have in parliament to-day the assertion of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to the effect, that because one or two lessees have not carried out their agreement, therefore the Crown is going to repudiate this conventional line, this line that was established, this line that was lived up to, this line that granted certain rights on one hand, on the other hand they are going to repudiate that, they are going to violate their agreement, and the conditions under which they made the lease, because forsooth some individual lessees, or assignees of lessees, have not carried out their part of the agreement. That is what I complain of. What I ask the minister to do and it is embodied in the amendment of the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty), is to preserve to these lessees, or .assignees of the lessees, who have not violated their agreement, all the rights which they have and can claim under their leases. That is fair and equitable, that is what the Crown in all conscience should do. It is simple equity, it is in the public interest that it should be done, it is carrying out the public conscience. That is all I ask, and I think the amendment of my hon. friend from St. Anne carries that out entirely. But the minister says he preserves the rights of the parties who are in litigation. But there are others who are not in litigation, there are others who can claim a right to this conventional line whose rights are not in dispute.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Which ones?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not know them all.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: But my hon. friend says there are some; who are they?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am quite sure there are some. But I withdraw that statement, and will say there may be -some, and if there are such, surely you are not going to withdraw from them the protection of their rights in the matter of this conventional line. The Minister of Railways, if he were in his place would not contend that these leases were not binding, though isused in many instances after this conventional line had been established when the parties took their property and accepted their holdings, and went into possession upon the distinct understanding that there was a clearly defined line. And now, by this legislation, you are going to remove that clearlv defined line, and you are going to make them subject to the windings of the bank of the river St. Lawrence at high water mark, setting them all afloat. If a doubt' existed before, that doubt was settled. And by this legislation, at this late date, because perhaps the Harbour Commissioners have become piqued at some lessee, you are going to pas-s legislation that simply knocks from under certain lessees all the props they have in their holdings under the original lease. I think the minister should accept the amendment. It can do no injustice to any one, it does not in any w;ay protect those who have not carried out the conditions of their lease, and as I understand him, that is all that he asks.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg to move in amendment to the amendment:
That nothing in this Act shall afflect the lights as defined in the deed of Gth December, 1873, of any of those proprietors who have fulfilled their obligations under that lease.
I have not the precise date of the deed, but I would call it 1873.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I hope my hon. friend will not insist on this.' He is asking us to do a very serious thing. By this amendment he simply proposes to decide a case which is now before the courts. It will be the first time in this parliament that we have undertaken to dispose of a case before the courts. Public rights are being taken away, and that is a most serious thing to do.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think it is an exceedingly serious thing when a department of this government institutes an action to repudiate it's own solemn contract, ratified and approved by the Governor General in Council.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not admit that. The government have nothing to do with this.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If what I am saying is true, then my amendment will not affect the action at all. The minister a few moments ago, when I first suggested this very amendment, said: ' That will legislate the action out of court.' But under this amendment there will merely be protected 'the rights under the contract) of persons who have fulfilled their obligations. Therefore all that the minister is complaining of is that my amendment would legislate out of court that part of the action, if there be more than one part, whereby a department under this government, with the approval of this government, is repudiating* its own solemn contract, subsequently ratified by the Governor in Council, by the Crown, in the most formal way, not questioning that the contract was made in perfect good faith, but upon the sole ground that when the Crown ratified that contract it should have addressed itself to parliament and been authorized to do so. In other words, the very serious purpose of my amendment is that parliament should declare that it does not endorse the repudiation of solemn contracts entered into by a department of the government and approved of by the Crown upon purely technical grounds. I think that if parliament fully understands that, all my amendment can affect is the action of the Harbour Commissioners, in so far as it rests on the repudiation of that contract, it will endorse my amendment. I certainly would be very much surprised if the people of this country, through their representatives, wanted to go on record as endorsing a course of that kind with regard to a contract entered into in the manner which I have indicated by a public department and solemnly ratified by the Crown, and as would appear if we had here the order in council to which I have referred, so ratified by the Crown after attention had been called to the fact that the difficulties that have arisen, might arise, and because justice required that it should be so ratified.
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Doherty) negatived, amendment (Mr. BrodeuT) carried, and section as amended agreed to.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am proposing to extend the boundary of the harbour to Longue Point, and it has been suggested to me by my hon. friend from Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Geoffrion) that the boundary of the harbour should not only be extended to the middle of the river, but should include the southern side of the river as "well.
At one o'clock committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The Bill proposes in sections 3 and 4 to extend the limits of the
harbour of Montreal from Longue Pointe to the northern end of the island of Montreal. It was suggested by the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Geoffrion) that we should also include the southern part of the river from St. Lamberts down to the intersection of Bout de l'Isle. The Harbour Commissioners have approved of this and I therefore beg to move:
That in lieu of clauses 2, 3 and 4 the following be substituted:-
2. Section 6 of the said Act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor-.
'6. For the purpo-ses of this Act the harbour of Montreal snail be bounded as follows:-
'(a) On the western or city side, to a point opposite the church of the parish of Longue Point the boundary shall continue to be as established by the provisions of section 5 of chapter 143 of the statutes of 1855 of the former province of Canada, and as extended by the provisions of section 5 of chapter 61 of the statutes of 1873, which said provisions are set out in schedule two to this Act and shall be construed with reference to the circumstances existing when the said two Acts were respectively passed. Northerly from the said point the said harbour is extended, and the said boundary line shall continue to the extreme northern end of the island of Montreal following the River St. Lawrence along the present line of high water mark, and including the beach thereof.
(lb) The southern boundary shall be a line bearing N. 65 E. astronomically from the easterly end of the division line between the lots known respectively as numbers 3266 and 3267 of the official plan and book of reference of the parish of Montreal, to an intersection with the eastern boundary.
'(c) The eastern boundary shall be from the intersection of the southern boundary with '(the present line of high water mark on) the east shore of the River St. Lawrence along the said line of high water mark, and including the beach thereof, to the intersection with the northern boundary.
'(d) The northern boundary shall be a line running from the said extreme northerly end of the island of Montreal at Bout de l'Isle and bearing due east astronomically and continuing across the River St. Lawrence to the intersection with the southern boundary.
3. Within the limits of the said harbour the corporation shall have no right to or jurisdiction over the main ship channel of| the River St. Lawrence, nor over any island, beach or territory, whether covered with water or not, which has heretofore been granted, alienated or leased by the Crown: provided that if any such island, beach or other territory reverts to the Crown for any reason whatsoever, it -shall thereby become vested in and subject to the jurisdiction of the commissioners to the same extent as the other portions of the harbour.
2. The Governor in Council may for the purposes of this section, define the extent and limits of the said ship channel, provided that nothing in this Act shall affect cases pending in litigation.


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

['The Railway Committee did not consider that they were called on in any way to deal with the insufficiency of the notice, they dealt only with the merits of the Bill, and they made a provisional report. What is the use of referring a Bill to the Committee on Standing Orders if its recommendation is to be entirely thrown aside, and if it declares after due deliberation that the notices are insufficient, this House ignores or overrides that decision of the committee.\nBill reported, read the third time and passed.']
Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


Mr. C. A. MAGRATH (Medicine Hat).: Mr. Speaker, in rising to discuss some features of the treaty recently entered into between Great Britain and the United States dealing with certain boundary waters between our neighbours and ourselves, I realize the gravity of the situation. I realize that it is not an occasion for any spread-eagleism, but rather one calling for the calm consideration of auy gentlemen who undertake to discuss the subject. I purpose criticising our government very freely in connection with this matter, because I regard it not only as my privilege but as my duty as the representative of a section of the country very much concerned in one of the features dealt with in that treaty. In my criticism I hope to do so without offence to hon. gentlemen opposite.
Nor do I wish to offend our neighbours to the south of us in any references which I may be called upon to make respecting them. No man in this country has a greater admiration for the American citizens than myself. I recognize in them a strong, active and clear-headed people, who when they undertake to do anything something happens. I may say that I consider it no offence to them to. hold the opinion that if they possess any weakness, it is the outcome of their new-found strength-a desire to be arbitrary, a weakness which appears to have proved to their advantage on more than one occasion.
In the making of treaties there are certain outstanding principles. For instance, I hold that the greatest service any government can perform is in looking after the interests of its people in international matters, because the life of the nation may possibly be dependent thereon. The greatest honour that can be paid the citizen is in being entrusted with the making of a treaty, because it is a certificate from his country through its government of his loyalty, his eminent diplomatic qualities or high technical knowledge of the subjects to be dealt with.
When, however, is a treaty not entitled to be called a treaty? When one of the high contracting parties goes to sleep by the wayside. True, it is a settlement, but it may be a very one-sided one.
In dealing with the subject, I propose to draw a comparison between the peculiar business methods of our government and the methods of a peculiarly business government like that of the United States. To demonstrate this necessitates some detail.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In the early part of 1902, President Roosevelt and his cabinet evidently had some views regarding international waters, some end or settlement they washed to attain in connection therewith, and it is not to be supposed that such astute statesmen would expose to the public, and especially Canada, all of the objects they had in view. They placed, however, some of their views in concrete form in an Act of Congress approved 13th June, 1902. With your permission I will Tead a paragraph from that Act:
.The president of the United States is hereby requested to invite the government of Great Britain to join in the formation of an international commission to be composed of three members from the United States and three who shall represent the interests of the Dominion of Canada, whose duty it shall be to investigate and report upon the conditions and uses of the waters adjacent to the boundary lines between the United States and Canada, including all the waters of the lakes and rivers whose natural outlet is by the River St. Lawrence to the Atlantic ocean.
There are two features in that paragraph to which I desire to draw attention. It will be observed that the investigation is to cover all the waters whose natural outlet is by the channel of the St. Lawrence to the Atlantic ocean. Take the case of the Nipigon river, a Canadian stream emptying into Lake Superior, wholly within our own territory, yet its waters are discharged into the Atlantic by the St. Lawrence river. Do our friends at Washington regard it as an international stream? The hon. member for Rainy River so expressed himself when introducing his Nipigon Rfver Power Bill to this House several weeks ago-in fact he then stated that the same view had been expressed to himself by a member of the Waterways Commission. I would suggest that the government instruct that member of the commission to take his inspiration from some other source.
The language, however, in the Act is not accidental, as it is not customary for our neighbours to be accidental in anything that they do. Then does it affirm the principle that waters which fall, say in Canada, and go to make Canadian streams must not be so diverted in Canada as to materially interfere with the enjoyment which a territory in possession of another nation has had therein during all past ages? If so, what happened to that principle in the settlement of the dispute regarding the St. Mary's river as between Alberta and Montana? In that case our American friends did not hesitate to say that the chief source of supply of St. Mary's river is .the St. Mary's lakes in Montana; that the water belonged to that state and cculd and would be diverted therein for the benefit of its people, notwithstanding that the stream served Canadian territory for all ages and its diversion in Montana would interfere
*6585

with Canadian vested rights, which will be referred to later on.
The second feature in that paragraph to which I wish to refer is that the commission was to investigate waters ' adjacent to the boundary lines between the United States and Canada, including,1 &e. Does that language imply any particular boundary waters? I do not think so, and I cannot see that there is any ambiguity in the language, yet in 1905, when the Joint Commission came together the Canadian section presented for consideration the settlement of a dispute on the St. John's river as to certain interests in New Brunswick and the state of Maine. The American section took the matter up with its government and were informed that the subject could not be considered as it was not within the scope of the commission; that the language of the Act confined the operations of the commission to the investigation of the waters discharged into the Atlantic by the St. Lawrence channel. The United States government supported that view by stating that Congress never contemplated the enlarged scope of the operations as suggested by Canada, otherwise it would not have embodied in the Act the small amount of $20,000 for the support of the American section. This contention can hardly be seriously considered, as the American section in reporting to its government on the 1st December, 1905, stated:
To enable it to continue its investigations an additional appropriation will be required.
Another reason given by the United States government, which I will frankly admit is a good one, that international waters affecting New Brunswick and Maine should not be considered by the commission without representation thereon being provided for the governments of New Brunswick and Maine.
It is evident that the United States did not intend to allow the St. John river matter ta be considered. And in casting about for reasons to support its position it' certainly put forward a very excellent one, and it is astonishing to me that our government permitted the government of the United States to recede from that position when it evidently undertook to include in that treaty a dispute regarding the St. Mary's river as to certain interests in Alberta and Montana, without making any provision for an expression of opinion by the government of Alberta or other varied interests in Alberta interested in this matter. The United States government was obdurate and Canada was forced to withdraw. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, writing to the secretary of the Canadian section, 5th June, 1905, states:
W ith reference to the objection raised by the American commissioners to consider any
other waters than the waters of the lakes and rivers who9e natural outlet is by the River St. Lawrence to the Atlantic ocean, it would be no use to persist in our contention, and the government therefore are of opinion that the commissioners had better proceed even in this limited way. At the same time the Canadian commissioners would do well to call the attention of the commission to the condition of things which exists on the River St. John and the necessity of prompt joint action thereon.
I must admit that previous to the date of this letter our government certainly did endeavour by several representations to Washington, to have the work of the commission extend to any boundary waters. One cannot help remarking that the action of our friends at Washington did appear to be arbitrary in that particular instance, and it is not difficult to imagine the position that government would take should Canada undertake to force the Canadian companies supplying power in the state of New York to desist from doing so for the purpose of furnishing the same to Canadian consumers.
With your permission, I will read another paragraph from that Act:
The president in selecting the three members of said commission who shall represent the United States is authorized to appoint one officer of the corps of engineers of the United States army, one civil engineer well versed in the hydraulics of the great lakes, and one lawyer of experience in questions of international and riparian law. and said commission shall be authorized to employ such persons as it may deem needful in the performance of the duties hereby imposed.
That is essentially the act of a business government. There is no evidence of any patronage to be employed under that paragraph. We sometimes hear about cheap politics being played in that country, but certainly we have no evidence of the same when they undertake to deal with the governments of other countries. Then it is a question of finding men of the very highest professional standing and to whom they entrust the affairs of their country, satisfied that the United States cannot suffer under such conditions.
Let us follow that Act of Congress. It was in the -hands of Ambassador Choate in the city of London on the 15th of July, 1902, because on that date he forwarded it to the imperial government with an invitation to participate in the investigation referred to therein1. On the 30th of July it was forwarded from Downing street to our government and then it apparently reached dead water, because nothing more was heard of it until a cable was sent from L'owning street on the 2nd of De-cenbtr, 1902, to Lord Minto referring to the matter and adding:
What are the views of your ministers? Telegraph reply. Papers were sent to Prime Minister July 30.

Before leaving this feature I wish to point out that it took our government nearly three years to select three men, two of them it found without leaving the corridors of its own offices. It would not have occurred to them to look to our great seats of learning, as was done by the Americans, for men professionally trained in the subjects to be dealt with.
Now for the honour of our people let us hope that this will be the last occasion in which Canada will make such an exhibition of itself by exposing its utter lack of ordinary common-sense business methods. Whenever an international matter is broached by our neighbours, let us get busy and quickly select men of the highest technical standing, bearing in mind that a doctor of divinity can never fulfil the functions of a doctor of medicine in a sick room, no matter how eminent the divine may be. It is true that a claim was advanced that Canada was delayed in the selection of its men owing to the illness of a minister of the Crown. That is a contention that cannot seriously be considered under such conditions.
I now desire to deal briefly with the work of the joint commission in so far as Niagara is concerned. The first business meeting was held in Toronto, June, 1905. Two days were consumed in the discussion of certain questions and dealt with by both sections in their reports to their governments under the headings ' A ' to ' K ' inclusive. The Canadian section, however, has under the heading ' L,' ' The transmission of electric energy generated in Canada to the United States and vice versa.' The American section in its report makes no reference to the subject, and while the transmission of power to the United States is referred to in other reports of both sections, the vice versa feature is never so far as I could see thereafter mentioned, and it appears to me that it is a subject well worthy of consideration especially when we believe that we in time are going to have a very populous country. Under the heading ' B ' is, ' The uses of the waters of the Niagara river for power purposes and the regulations necessary to ensure an equitable division of the waters between the two countries and the protection of the Niagara Falls as a scenic spectacle.'
The criticism that I have to offer to the expression ' equitable division ' is that it should have a rider embodying equal benefits to the two countries.
I find, according to the reports, that the Joint Commission was more or less active during the balance of the year, visiting various localities between Duluth on the west and Montreal on the east, giving interested parties an opportunity to ex-, press their views on the international waters of the Great Lakes system. So far as the Niagara situation is concerned, the commission were at Niagara September 11 to 14, and Buffalo October 27, 28, also November Mr. M4GRATH.
10 and 11. It therefore cannot be said that very much time was spent in studying the local situation along the Niagara river. On 28th October, 1905, a resolution of the Joint Commission was passed at Buffalo suggesting that both governments refuse any further pledges for water-power until the commission was able to report more fully on the situation.
It appears, however, that matters were forced in the following spring by the American section. In February that section was asked by its government to bring the Niagara situation to a head, and when the Joint Commission met, on the 6th and 7th March in the city of Toronto, the American section pressed for the consideration of the Niagara situation and that other features be temporarily laid aside. From the report of the Canadian section to Mr. Hyman, we find:
The commission spent two days considering the details of a report upon the conditions at Niagara Falls. When the commission had partially agreed upon the facts a series of recommendations was suggested by the American section to the effect that a treaty be concluded between the two countries, wherein it should be agreed to preserve for all time the scenic beauty of Niagara by pledging each country to cancel all charters other than these under which works had been actually constructed. . . . The Canadian section opposed any hasty action. . . Intimation was given at the meeting that unless the joint commission was prepared to report promptly the American section might be called upon to give an independent report.
The above is taken from the report of the Canadian section, dated 25th April, 1908, and that report goes on to add:
Your commission is therefore of opinion that the time has come when it is desirable to make a treaty limiting these diversions (on the Niagara river), and we have prepared a series of resolutions which we intend to submit at the next meeting of the Joint Commission.
And then follows the resolutions referred to, which it is unnecessary to repeat here. Regarding the Niagara situation it adds:
If our proposal is carried out the diversions will be about as follows:-
Diversions on American side.
Niagara Falls	
18,500	second	feet.Chicago drainage	canal...	10,000Total	
28,500	"
Diversions on Canadian side.
Niagara Falls and on the
Niagara peninsula .. .. 36,000
It is interesting to note that a very full and exhaustive report was made by the American section to its government regarding the Niagara situation, dated 19th March, 1906, and within, it will be ob-

served, twelve days after the meeting with the Canadian section in Toronto. It appears by joint resolution of both Houses of Congress, dated 15th March, that the American section was called upon to report on the Niagara situation, and four days thereafter it made its report embodying the same suggestions as to the distribution of water, viz.:	18,500 second
feet to be drawn from Niagara on the American side, 10,000 second feet at Chicago from Lake Michigan for the Chicago Drainage canal and 36,000 second feet on the Canadian side from Niagara river. It adds:
One of the effects of such legislation would be to give to Canada the advantage of diverting 7,500 second feet more than is diverted >by the United States. The advantage is more apparent than real, since the power generated on the Canadian side will to a large extent be transmitted to and used in the United States. In the negotiation of a treaty, however, the point should be considered.
I expect ' the point ' was considered, and without offence to those who dratfed the treaty, I presume it is protected therein. The report goes on, and mark this passage:
The substance of this report was submitted to our Canadian colleagues before the passage of the Joint Resolution (of the 15th March) with a view of uniting in a joint report under the general law providing for the commission.
Who are, therefore, the real authors of the suggested diversions of the waters in question? Hid the American section hypnotize the Canadian section into believing that the suggestion regarding the division came from it? And one is led to fear that the American section dominated the Candian section in this matter. Furthermore, the Canadian section cannot be blamed at all; it had not a fair opportunity to go into this matter even supposing the men were as technically fit for the work as the American section, which was appointed fully two years in advance of the Canadian section, and our section finally rushed into reaching a conclusion. On 3rd May, 1906, the Joint Commission met at Buffalo and the division as outlined in the reports of both sections was approved and recommended to both governments.
What is the situation at Niagara. Falls? Our Geological Survey had investigations carried on for two seasons-1905-6-by Dr. J. W. W. Spencer, who in his report deals with the 'ratio of the volume of the Canadian and American channels and falls.' He places the discharge of water over the American fall at 7 per cent of flow, yielding about 14,000 second feet. On the 15th February last the Minister of Public Works, in answer to a query of mine as to the respective amounts discharged over 209
the American and Horseshoe falls, referred me to the International Waterways report for 1906. Upon looking up the report I found it was the report of the American section, and as usual had to go to our neighbours for information. That information would indicate the discharge over the American fall varying from 21,500 to 27,800 second feet, w:ith a total flow in the stream varying from 171,700 to 222,400 second feet. From the information to which the Minister of Public Works directed me it would appear that 14 per cent of the discharge is over the American fall.
One is almost forced to the opinion that the joint commission fixed the maximum amount-18,500 second feet-to be diverted on the American side and then adjusted the Canadian situation thereto. Of course this is only an opinion. In support of this opinion the following may be of interest, and it must be borne in mind that the total amount to be extracted from the river under the Treaty is 56,000 second feet. The Canadian section in its report to Mr. Hyman of the 24th December, 1905, states:
A competent hydraulic engineer at the request of Dr. Clarke, a geologist of the state of New York, has calculated that the subtraction of 40,000 second feet from Niagara river above Goat island will draw the water down to the rock bottom edge on the American fall, leaving a miserable little film dripping over the sill, and that the substraction of 40.000 second feet more, or 80,000 in all above Goat island will dry up the American channel completely, while the Canadian channel will still be an object of interest.
The American section, reporting on the same subject, states:
The water taken on the Canadian side below the crest of the rapids will affect the Horseshoe fall alone. If all that taken on the American side should affect the American fall alone it would practicably leave it dry. hut it seems probable that only a part of this diversion will he at the expense of the American fall. Exactly what portions that will be cannot be stated with precision, hut from a study of the channels and reefs, so far as they are known, a reasonable estimate is that the water would come from the two arms in about the proportion of one-sixth from the American fall and five-sixths from the Horseshoe fall.
There are three companies on the Canadian side now in operation which have commitments against the stream practically exhausting the total diversion to be taken out on that side, and these companies draw their water from below the crest of the rapids, while the American diversions are being taken from above that point in the proportion of one-sixth from the American side and five-sixths from the waters which would pass over the Canadian fall. If Canada was to be allowed the right to an additional charge against the stream and extracted it from above the crest of the



rapids, it would doubtless interfere with either the extraction of the 18,500 second feet on the American side or seriously injure the scenic features of the American fall, without any injury to the Canadian falls. I am aware that the contention is that several companies had secured certain rights to divert water from the Niagara on both sides of the river. Some of these companies had made no expenditures towards carrying out the works provided for in their charters. Those companies were brushed aside and the balance, it was found, could exhaust the total amount of water settled upon by the commissioners to be diverted. Many conditions may present themeslves in a large and important matter like the Niagara Falls Power question and it is a natural course for one of the parties interested to fasten on a condition that readily lends itself to an argument favourable to that party's end. Regarding the basis of the treaty, and it must be remembered that notwithstanding the unanimous conclusion reached by both sections that 18,500 second feet was to be the limit of the amount to be diverted on the American side, the treaty increases that amount by 1,500 second feet which is in itself a magnificent stream, larger than many of our western rivers and a body of water which any hydraulic or irrigation engineer would consider as being worth a great deal of money either in connection with power purposes or in the reclamation of a semiarid district.
As stated elsewhere, the Joint Commission on one occasion referred to an 'equitable division.' After the Joint Commission had agreed upon the amounts to be diverted, then the Canadian section in its report to the present Minister of Public Works, dated 9th March, 1908, commenced to theorize about ' equal benefits.' From that report the following extracts are taken:
' The commission by their various reports made suggestions and recommendations, from which the following conclusions were drawn.' Amongst these conclusions we find:
No diversion of these waters shall be permitted to the injury of navigation interests save such diversions as are necessary for the preservation of the publio health-sanitary purposes and domestic use-and service of locks of navigation canals.
Now, Sir, we all know that the Saskatchewan river is a navigable stream because some small vessels are now to be found running theron; at certain seasons of the year its navigation is difficult owing to the small amount of water carried in the stream. We know that the St. Mary's river discharges into the Saskatchewan and it would he interesting to know to what extent that feature was considered by those dealing with the subject in the treaty, as to the Mr. MAGRATH
effect the diversion of one-half of the waters of the St. Mary's river from the Hudson bay drainage into that of the Gulf of Mexico will have on the navigability of the Saskatchewan. The report adds :
When temporary diversions of such waters without injury to the interests to navigation are possible, they should be permitted so that each country, so far as is practicable, shall receive an equal benefit. This principle is applicable to diversions for power purposes in the St. Mary's (at the Sault) and St. Lawrence rivers.
Elsewhere in the same report appears:
The Joint Commission had agreed as one of the principles which should govern the use of boundary waters that where there could be temporary diversions, without injury to the interests of navigation, for the purpose of developing power, they should b:3 allowed so that each country, so far as practical, would receive an equal benefit.
Now let us see to what extent the equal benefit feature exists in the settlement at Niagara Falls. The 36,000 second feet to be allowed for diversion in Canada will produce about 432,000 horse-power, while the 20,000 second feet for the United States will produce about 260,000 horse-power. The three Canadian companies exporting power to the United States have agreements with the Queen Victoria Niagara Fails Park Company covering a period of over 100 years and by which so far as the local supply in Canada is concerned they undertake to supply like amounts 'to the extent of any quantity not less than one-half the quantity generated.' The American section in its report to its government puts it in this way: 'In the case of each of the Canadian companies the authorities reserve the right to require that one-half the power generated shall be supplied to places in Canada. It therefore appears that the United States will have the 260,000 horse-power generated in its own country plus say 200,000 exported from Canada, and the situation will then be for use in the United States 460,000 horse-power and in Canada 232,000 horse-power. In short, Canada with over 80 per cent of the water-producing power has in sight 33 per cent of the power that is to be generated, so that there is not very much evidence of any equal benefit in a settlement of that character.
Regarding the exportation of power developed by Canadian waters, at for instance Niagara, let us make a comparison of the benefits of the country producing the power with the country receiving and using it. While the power plants are installed in Canada at a very heavy cost, there they stand in so far as the exported power is concerned like handsome monuments in a

cemetery, not yielding any benefit to Canada by the creation of industry.
Follow the power over the network of transmission lines penetrating 150 miles into the United States, and we find the transported power creating industry-thereby engaged in the highest form of development work in the upbuilding of that country, and enabling its people to compete with ourselves in the markets of the world. That is what it is going to mean to Canada, even admitting that we will have enough left for the purposes of this country. Do we object to American capital coming to Canada to aid in our development? I never so understood it. Very good, if we keep our power at home, capital will be forced to come to us. Naturally our neighbours prefer spending their money in developing their own country, if we are generous enough to send them the power with which to do it. It would be interesting to find a legislative body in the United States permitting the export of power from that country to this. They are essentially a business people and they carry their business principles into their public acts.
We have in Canada 'The Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act,' which contemplates the granting of licenses for the export of power. This legislation was enacted two years ago. The present Minister of Justice in putting the Bill through the House, became poetical over the miller being unable to 'grind again with the water that has passed,' and the water that is flowing over Niagara to-day can never produce electrical power unless it is utilized in its passing. He considered it would be a 'dog in the manger policy' to deny the use of our surplus power to a foreign country. He said ('Hansard,' January 29, 1907, page 2238), in referring to the Bill:
It provides that there shall be no exportation whatever without permission under a license, that the license may be revocable forthwith if the Canadian demands are not adequately supplied, and that the amount of power which may at any time be exported under the license may be limited to the surplus after the Canadian needs are completely satisfied.
All that is quite true, but under existing conditions only. It should not be overlooked that lending and borrowing amongst neighbours often leads to trouble. The Canadian section of the Waterways Commission also has something to say about this matter in his report to the Minister of Public Works, dated March 9, 1908.
' If.' it says, ' we should require more than 200,000 horse-power i(half of the production) we can s'afely leave until then the adjustment of that difficulty.'
209 i	.;,
That is exactly where I differ with these gentlemen. While the Minister of Justice theorized on present day conditions when the great bulk of power is being produced from coal, the view held by the Canadian section apparently is 'Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.'
In dealing with factors that may play an important part in the development of a country of Canada's position and potentialities, we must of course consider 'probabilities,' but on no account are we to overlook 'possibilities.' This we are told is Canada's Century and I cannot conceive how gentlemen can get away from the situation that when Canada needs the exported power, which may not be for many years, it will then find the consumers of that power in the United States practically unable to replace it. Just think of gradually destroying industrial works in which millions of dollars have been invested, with large centres of population dependent thereon. No self-respecting government would allow such a thing to be done to its people. We will, however, find our neighbours nailing down such privileges by treaty or otherwise long before Canada can see in sight the necessity of taking for its use the exported powers.
If we still seriously think we are going to stop the export of power at some future date when our people require it, I would suggest to the government that they adopt regulations under the exporting law requiring the exporting company to adopt a form of lease agreement with its consumers containing a clause clearly stating the terms under which the power is being allowed to be exported, and provide that such contracts must be signed by consumers and a triplicate copy registered with the department of the government having the administration of the waters producing the exported power.
Turning to the Chicago Drainage Canal, being a channel originally constructed to supply Chicago with water from Lake Michigan for sanitary purposes; this canal _dis-charges its very large volume of water into the Mississippi River drainage. Both sections of the commission recommended that it should be dealt with in any treaty arrangement, as the Niagara situation could not be complete without fixing by treaty any permanent diversions of water from any of the great lakes, which would affect their level.
The Joint Commission, reporting from Toronto, on January 4, 1907, states that
10,000	second feet
will therefore suffice for the sanitary purposes of the city (Chicago) for all time. Incidentally it will provide for the largest navigable waterway from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi river, which has been considered by congress.

It would appear from the report of the American section, dated November 27, 1907:
That the trustees of the sanitary district of Chicago raised a question as to the right of the Secretary of War to control the diversion of water from Lake Michigan, which question will be decided in the courts.
The only bearing the treaty has on this matter is one in my opinion not satisfactory to Canada. Article 3 provides that no further 'uses or obstructions or diversions' of boundary waters affecting the natural level or flow shall be permitted without the approval of the International Joint Commission as well as the consent of the government of the country in which the proposed works are to be located. This provision, however, does not preclude the disturbance of waters ' for domestic and sanitary purposes.' It will therefore be observed that as the Chicago drainage canal is for sanitary purposes, and is likewise an immense transportation channel, it and similar works may be developed without the consent of the International Joint Commission. It is quite evident that Canada is topographically not in the position of the United States in the matter of permanent diversions from the great lakes system as water can be drawn therefrom into the Mississippi drainage, and no such diversions are possible on the Canadian side. It therefore appears to me that there should have been a rider to the proviso in article 3 that the disturbance of waters- for domestic and sanitary purposes without the consent of the Joint Commission may only be allowed when the water is returned to the water system from which it was diverted.
Now, Sir, turning to the controversy regarding the St. Mary's river as between Alberta and Montana, I may say that the St. Mary's lakes-22 miles long-are nestled in the Rocky mountains in Montana. Prom these lakes the St. Mary's river flows northeastward 12 miles and crosses into Canada, thence its waters are eventually discharged into Hudson bay. The Milk river likewise rises in Montana, but out in the foothills to the east of the St. Mary's river and flowing northeasterly crosses' the international boundary, thence running eastward and within 12 miles of that boundary it finally returns to the state of Montana, at a point over 100 miles to the east of the point of ingress along the boundary line. The length of the stream in Canada, however, is owing to its windings probably 200 miles. The St. Mary's river is perennial and carries probably nine times the quantity of water that is to be found in the Milk river.
In 1894 the Canadian government started certain irrigation surveys through southern Alberta, and in the following year located a canal from St. Mary's river, the intake
Mr. MAG-RATH.
being about five miles north of the international boundary. In 1897 an English corporation hereafter referred to as the Canadian company undertook the construction of this canal with the consent of our government and made an appropriation against the stream under the Canadian irrigation law for all the available low water and up to 2,000 second feet of high water or flood stages. That company then actively commenced its irrigation development and have been carrying on the same continuously ever since.
In 1901, the United States passed an Act for the reclamation of some of its arid lands, and the department of that government entrusted with the work is known as the Reclamation Service, and promptly commenced the investigations in certain arid sections of that country. It found the Canadian company operating in Canada from the St. Mary's river, and in its investigations located certain lands-about 200,000 acres-within the valley of the Milk river in eastern Montana. As that river is a small intermittent stream largely supplied by the rain and snow fall, and has already appropriations against it in Montana, it could not under any circumstances be depended upon for the supply of water to any portion of the 200,000 acres referred to. The Reclamation Service then took up the question of diverting water from the St. Mary's lakes into the Milk river in Montana and to allow the water to flow down the Milk river channel through Canada. The proposed diversion canal is about 25 miles in length.
The foregoing is a brief history of the situation as between the two countries, and without attempting to discuss it technically it may be stated that Canada has about 500,000 acres within the St. Mary's drainage capable of development by irrigation and within 50 to 150 miles of the lakes, while the area which the United States wishes to develop-200,000 acres-is 300 miles distant from the lakes and within a drainage system which discharges into the Gulf of Mexico.	[DOT]
The irrigation engineers engaged in the preliminary investigation, both by the Canadian government and by the Canadian company, were all of one opinion, viz.: that the diversion of the St. Mary's river in Montana was out of the question as it could not in any way be regarded as a commercial undertaking. Of course those opinions were expressed previous to the time the United States government itself undertook to engage in irrigation development, and it was never at any time considered from the standpoint of Canada furnishing the United States with the channel of the Milk river for over 100 miles through our territory.
What are the conditions to-day? The Canadian company has a canal from St.

Mary's river of a capacity of over 800 second feet. It has a legal appropriation under our laws, and being similar to the regulations under which water is appropriated in all other countries where intelligent irrigation development is in progress, of 2,000 second feet from St. Mary's river. The Canadian company was organized, having in view the development which would exhaust the amount of water appropriated and vested rights were thereby created. Under the settlement arranged by this treaty Canada is given a prior right to 500 second feet only, and the water of the stream is to be equally divided between the two countries. The language of article 6 of the treaty dealing with this matter is ambiguous. Canada is. to give up a portion of the water that has been appropriated under its law', not for the purpose of protecting vested rights in the United States, but to create rights that do not as yet exist.
The Canadian section in its report to the Minister of Public Works, dated March 9, 1908, theorized as follows:
As to streams which cross the international boundary, no diversion of such streams or their tributaries should be permitted in either country so as to interfere with the natural flow thereof to the injury of public or private rights in the other country; nor should any obstruction be permitted to such streams in one country to the injury of public or private rights in the other.
Now from the press reports it would appear that the chairman of the Canadian section of the Waterways Treaty was in Washington when the negotiations were in progress, and it would be interesting to know if he advocated the principle in the paragraph just read, when the settlement as between Alberta and Montana was under consideration.
And in the suggested division in the waters at Niagara the recommendations of the Joint Commission were made on a basis practically honouring the commitments against the stream in favour of the operating companies. Commitment of the Canadian company, however, was set aside.
Even in. the treaty itself there is enunciated the principle of fully protecting vested rights. Article II refers to the waters flowing across the international and emptying into boundary waters. This article provides for redress for injured interests. Are vested rights less sacred along a stream crossing the boundary, though not discharging into a boundary stream, than if such waters eventually emptied into such a stream ?
The method of dealing with all waters running along or across the international boundary is an exceedingly large one and both countries must approach it in a spirit of fairness. The settlement should be eminently fair and expressed in such concise language as to leave no question of doubt as to the true meaning and intent of same. For my part I am willing to see adopted the equal division feature, yielding equal benefits and having some due regard to vested rights.
In Article VI we have the skeleton of an arrangement whereby the United States takes half of the water of the important stream, the St. Mary's river, and has the use of a very valuable channel for the transportation of that half; and it would certainly appear from the language than no portion of the water diverted from St. Mary's river into Milk river channel can be used by Canada. There are certain seasons of the year when the Milk river carries very little water, and the time will probably come when there will be a considerable settlement in that country and our peonle may have the opportunity of seeing a large volume of water going down the channel of the river and unable to touch it except probably for domestic purposes. The question naturally arises, is Canada to be a hewer of pulpwood and a drawer of irrigation water for our neighbours?


Mr. A. C. BOYCE (West Algoma).: I rise for the purpose of offering my contribution to the very important subject which has been initiated by my hon. friend from Lethbridge (Mr. Magrath). Speaking for myself, I can say that I appreciate very much indeed the good will and the courtesy of the right hon. the Prime Minister in allowing this matter to be dealt with at this stage. There never has been to my knowledge, a matter of such deep interest to Canada, under present conditions as this treaty for the adjustment of our privileges and rights and the definition of our boundary line. If, in this discussion, in criticising the provisions of this treaty we can point out where the rights of Canada are not sufficiently protected we shall be strengthening the hands of this government and the imperial authorities, and enable them to have this treaty so remodelled and reformed, that it will protect the rights of Canada and not injuriously affect those rights as other treaties have done in the past. In order to explain the case, I wish to present with regard to the people of the locality I have the honour to represent, I desire to trace for a moment the history of this treaty. To do this we must go back to the time when the Treaty of Paris was entered into, on the 30th of November, 1782, when the boundary line between the two countries was established; and -with regard to that part of the treaty which deals with the St. Mary's river, I would refer to the extraordinary fact that, neither in the Treaty of Paris nor in the definitive Treaty of Paris which followed, nor in the Treaty of I Ghent, and which was agreed to on the
6G03

24th of December, 1814, was there any line of demarcation drawn between the connecting waters of Lakes Huron and Superior. That was a very extraordinary oversight or an intentional omission ; but it is nevertheless the fact that, for a period of about 50 years, there never was any line of demarcation drawn between Great Britain on the one hand and the United States on the other in that portion of the connecting waters between Lakes Huron and Superior. I emphasize that by merely pointing out that article 2 of the Treaty of Paris defines the boundaries of that waterway as follows:
Thence along the middle of said water communication into Lake Huron ; thence through the middle of said lake to the water communication between that lake and Lake Superior; thence through Lake Superior northward of the isles Royal and Philin-peaux

Thus it does not define in any way the line of demarcation through St. Mary's river or the outlet of that river below where it enters Georgian bay. Again, in the definitive treaty, the description of that part reads exactly in the same way:
Thence along the middle of the said water communication into Lake Huron : thence through the middle of said lake to the water communication between that lake and Lake Superior ; thence through Lake Superior northward of the isles Royal and Philippeaux to the Long lake.
Coming to the treaty of 1814, that treaty recites the provisions of the former treaty and sets forth that doubts had arisen as to what was the middle of the rivers and lakes and the water communications and appointed commissioners to define them. Article 7 of the Treaty of Ghent empowered the Commissioners under the treaty to fix and determine, according to the true intent of the said Treaty of Paris of 1783:
-that part of the boundary between the dominions of the two powers, which extends from the water communication between Lake Huron and Lake Superior to the most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods; to decide to which of the two parties the several islands lying in the lakes, water communications and rivers forming the said boundary do respectively belong in conformity with the true intent of the said treaty of peace of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three and to cause such parts of the said boundary as required to be surveyed and marked.
Now, it will be seen that there is this strange defect in that treaty-that it empowers the appointing of commissioners to define the boundary line according to the true intent and meaning of previous treaties which contain no reference to the boundaries of the water line between Lake Huron and Lake Superior. It cannot be wondered at that the two commissioners, Messrs. Peter B. Porter and Mr. BOYCE.
Anth. Barclay were absolutely unable, though they had many sessions, collected much data and made many voyages in that part of the country, to come to any decision as to the boundary line of the water communication between Lake Huron and Lake Superior. The final meeting of these commissioners was held on April 4, 1826, and no agreement was reached between them. It was not until the Webster-Ashburton treaty on the 9th August, 1842, that there was any definite settlement ^ of the boundary -so far as the St. Mary's river and the waters communicating with Lake Huron were concerned. Under article 1 of that treaty, the boundaries under Article 5 of the Treaty of Ghent were provided for. Article 2 of that treaty is the one to which I wish particularly to refer. This article was arrived at after a very great amount of negotiation and difficulty between the commissioners, notwithstanding all that is popularly supposed with regard to the ease with which these commissioners struck that line. The history of the negotiations shows that there was correspondence extending over a number of years, and that with regard to that part of the territory, both commissioners representing their respective countries, took a great deal of pains to see to it that each country had included within it what according to its contention properly belonged to it. Under this Article-No. 2-of the Webster-Ashbur-ton Treaty, the boundary was thus decided upon, and, so far as that treaty was concerned, finally adjusted as between the commissioners. I extract only a part of a very long description which refers to that portion of the boundary:
-thence west to Jonas' island, into St. Marv's river, to a point in the middle of that river about one mile above St. George's or Sugar island, so as to appropriate and assign the said island to the United States; thence, adopting the line traced on the maps by the commissioners, through the river St. Mary's and Lake Superior, to a point north of He Royaie in said lake, one hundred yards to the north and east of lie Chapeau, which last mentioned island lies near the northeastern point of He Royaie where the line marked by the commissioners terminates.
So, Sir. was defined in effect the line of demarcation in the St. Mary's river, between Lakes Huron and Superior. The treaty of 1908, by article 4, empowers the existing International Waterways Commission to fix the boundary line from its intersection with St. Mary's river to the mouth of the Pigeon river, providing that the International Waterways Commission shall finally determine that line by buoys, by boundary posts, and by accurate modern charts.
That is the history of the fixing of the boundaries. Following that, the International Waterways Commission made its re-

port on June 3, 1908, in which it is shown that they had under consideration the work placed upon them by the treaty of preparing in an efficient manner to properly draw that line and define it in the manner provided by the treaty. I am not going to deal with the subject matter of this treaty to any great extent otherwise than in regard to the locality which I have the honour to represent. My hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Magrath) has dealt with the matter very ably in some of the points, and other hon. gentlemen who are to follow me, no doubt, will give a great deal of information on others. I desire to refer shortly to the position of this treaty and some documents which accompany it. We heard that there was some debate in the United States Senate about the treaty. This debate resolved itself, on March 3, 1909, into a resolution of the Senate which I shall take the liberty of reading, as it is very short:
Resolved (two-thirds of the senators present concurring therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, providing for the settlement of international differences between the United States and Canada, signed on the 11th day of January, 1909.	.
Resolved further (As a part of this ratification), That the United States approves this treaty with the understanding that nothing in this treaty shall be construed as affecting, or changing, any existing territorial, or riparian rights in the water, or rights of the owners of lands under water, on either side of the international boundary at the rapids of the St. Mary's river at Sault Ste. Marie, in the use of the waters flowing over such lands, subject to the requirements of navigation in boundary waters and of navigation canals, and without prejudice to the existing right of the United States and Canada, each to use the waters of St. Mary's river, within its own territory; and further, that nothing in this treaty shall be construed to interfere with the drainage of wet, swamp, and overflowed lands into streams flowing into boundary waters, and that this interpretation will be mentioned in the ratification of this treaty as conveying the true meaning of the treaty, and will, in effect, form part of the treaty.
On two or three occasions I have made inquiries of the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) to ascertain what construction was going to be placed on that rider by this government, and whether this government was going to advise the Imperial Government to assent to this treaty with what I consider to he an absolutely, indefinite, ambiguous and incomprehensible rider attached to it. The construction of that rider is extraordinary. It provides that there shall be no interference with existing territorial or riparian rights in the water or in the lands covered by water. Now it might be
said, were we not dealing with such a very important subject, that this rider perhaps would be harmless, that it is simply something which deals with existing conditions, which is the very thing the treaty proposes to preserve, and that therefore it might be argued that the rider was practically harmless. But leaving aside the ambiguity of the rider itself and its mysterious features, we have to come to the arguments by which that rider was forced upon the United States Senate by one or two gentlemen representing interests up in the northern part of the state, close to St. Mary's river. Now, Senator Smith, the senator from Michigan, argued the matter, and as he admits himself it was by reason of his great foresight, of his courageously championing the cause of the state of Michigan, that this rider, which provides for very large concessions to the United States shores and United States interests, should be added to this treaty. That gentleman based his claim to the insertion of this rider broadly upon two contentions. The first contention was that the larger part of Lake Superior is south of the boundary line, and that consequently the greater part of the flow of water through the St, Mary's river should belong to the United States, and that in proportion to the area of Lake Superior on each side of the line the contribution on both sides of the river should be distributed. The second contention was that the supply of water to Lake Superior which feeds the St. Mary's Falls, that is, the water shed contribution to Lake Superior, is mainly from the south side of the boundary line, and is in the proportion of two to one. As the area of the water in Lake Superior is two to one, therefore, the water power of St. Mary's, according to his contention in the Senate, and subsequently before the Committee on Foreign Relations, should be divided between the two countries in the proportion of two to the United States and one to Canada. Now that contention resulted, not in a definite assertion by the United States of their claim to two-thirds of the power, but to an insidious, vague and mysterious rider clothed in unintelligible language, and ambiguous in construction, very mysterious in its general effect, but which, according to the United States solemn contention, means that they claim by this rider to be entitled to sixty-six to seventy-five per cent of the power flowing over the St. Mary's, and that Canada is entitled only to thirty-three per cent or less. Well, I will deal first with the arguments which preceded the adoption of this rider. The area of Lake Superior south of the boundary line is larger than it is in Canada. The area of Lake Superior is about 32,000 square miles, of which 11,800 square miles are in Canada, 20,200 square

miles are in the United States. Now, what is the actual area of the water-shed contribution to Lake Superior. Senator Smith contended that it was in the ratio of two to one, a very wild and inconsidered statement. The water-shed contribution to Lake Superior is as follows:	Ontario, 30,780
square miles; Minnesota, 6,800 square miles; Wisconsin, 3,160 square miles; Michigan, 7,860 square miles. So the total water-shed contribution is 48,600 square miles, of which Canada contributes 30,780 and the United States 17,820 square miles. Now, apart from that, we have the fact, that the International Waterways Commission, by a joint report, have taken up the matter of the conditions at Niagara and Sault Ste. Marie, and in their report of 1907, at page 112, we find this extract with regard to the St. Mary's river:
It is apparent, therefore, that the actual present use of water for power purposes is nearly equal to the amount of flow obstructed by the works of all the power development companies considered as a unit, and it is clear that the amount of water required for the proposed additions to present power developments is so great as to call for complete control of such extensions by an international commission.
Then they recommend as follows:
4. That the governments of the United States and Canada reserve all water necessary for navigation purposes, at present or ill the future, and the surplus shall be divided equally between the two countries for power purposes.
That is the decision of the Waterways Commission in 1907, and that decision it is attempted to override by the United States Senate attaching this rider to the treaty.


Mr. JOHN HAGGAKT.: Would the hon. gentleman give us his own opinion as to the meaning of the rider?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: My own construction of that rider is this, that the United States government are providing by it for the preservation of both private and public riparian rights.


John Graham Haggart: Public or private?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Both private and public riparian rights, and I will deal with that subject in a moment. I have in my hand a very admirable report which was made by Mr. John A. Wilde, a civil engineer of large experience, a report made with regard to this very matter, on the 30th of March, to the president of the Sault Ste. Marie Board of Trade, a copy of which report is in the hands of the Prime Minister. This memorandum was written with special reference to the interpretation of this rider, and the contentions of Senator Smith to which I have referred. Mr. Mr. BOYCE.
Wilde has, during a period of 21 years, been intimately associated with the development of power at Sault Ste. Marie, and has familiarized himself with conditions there. Here is what he submits as a result of that experience :
At St. Mary's Falls, however, St. Mary's island, Whitefish island, and numerous smaller ones, lie well to the north of the boundary, as provided for, hut as there are not similar islands on the American side, the boundary passes nearer to Whitefish and St. Mary's islands than it does to the American shore. This boundary was shown by the old authorities, on the more or less crude and inaccurate maps of the time, but certain points on the main shores were located and connected by triangulation across the river so that the boundary could afterwards be located. To my fairly certain knowledge this boundary has never actually been located on the ground by a mutually appointed commission of the two countries, though the American War department, through their corps of engineers have made careful, and no doubt accurate, surveys. Our government, I believe, have done nothing in that line, and if any agreement has been arrived at it would be from entirely American information, and I am fairly positive that when the Waterways Commission met at this place, no other surveys definitely defining the boundary were made, so that at t.he present moment the precise location of the boundary through the rapids is undefined and debatable.
I therefore may give my views of it from a British standpoint.
As I before stated the boundary under any circumstances passes closer to the islands on the Canadian side, than to the American shore, and from careful examination made in years past, and personal surveys made in connection with the Canadian power development, I would determine that the boundary crosses the International Bridge somewhat south of the third span from the Canadian side, leaving at all events three clear spans of the total-10-in Canadian waters, and for purposes of my calculations I will assume that thr.ee belong to Canada and 7 to the United States, and fortunately from our standpoint the water is deeper on the side nearer the Canadian shore, so that 42-8 per cent of the main river outside the Canadian islands passes, or rather I should say did pass under the three Canadian spans.
In 1895 and 1896 the United States corps of engineers made an exhaustive survey of the outflow of Lake Superior at Sault Ste. Marie, and from the report made in 1897, made by Alfred Noble, C.E., of the United States service, I proceed.
Mr. Noble shows that at the normal level of Lake Superior the discharge is 57-2 per cent through the three northerly Canadian spans and 57:3 per cent through the 7 southerly American spans of the bridge, without taking into consideration the four old streams formerly discharging on the north side of the Canadian island. (I have a number of photographs showing the large volume of these streams in former years.)
From a survey made in 1890, before the power development on the Canadian side, I find that 3,003 cubic feet per second was dis-

charged by the small Canadian streams, even after they had been much obstructed and the water diverted into the main channel by the construction of the Canadian Pacific Kailway in 1887. With this 3,003 cubic feet discharge at that date, in addition to the main river discharge, we would have 45 -2 per cent of flow in Canadian territory as against 54-8 per cent in American territory, a gain to Canada of 2 -4 per cent, and a corresponding loss to the United States, but even this is unfair to Canada.
When the Canadian Pacific Kailway was constructed across the four Canadian streams mentioned, the natural flow was very much obstructed and diverted to the main river, particularly was this the case where it crossed the stream that was afterwards used for the Canadian power canal. More than 50 per cent of the width of the stream was closed, and as the time was three years previous to the Canadian flow of 3,003 cubic feet per second, I will for the purpose of argument, assume that a modest 2,000 feet per second should be added. This would leave a final percentage of 40-7 per cent to Canada and 53-3 per cent to the United States or very nearly one-half of the total flowing belonging to Canada. How then could the United States possibly be entitled to three-fourths of the flow?
When the Michigan Lake Superior Power Company undertook the power development on the American side, the United States War department would not allow the company to divert water from the river unless suitable compensating dams were erected. This work was done by the Consolidated Company, which controlled the subsidiary companies on both sides, and the two north Canadian spans were completely obstructed from flow and have been for over six years past. By this means only one Canadian span remains open, and the flow through the main river is represented by 26 T per cent Canadian and 73-9 per cent American, and no doubt this unfair or inadvertent statement has been carried on from the War Department of the United States to be used by the Waterways Commission.
It is not very difficult to arrive at the contention which is supposed to be associated with these river piers. First, there is the area of Lake Superior-an argument which I think I have completely exploded. Second, there is the watershed contribution, and thirdly the actual flow down the river as defined by the piers of the International bridge crossing the river. All of these arguments are disposed of in that way. At the time when Senator Smith was so vehemently and forcibly endeavouring to induce the United States Senate to attach this rider to this treaty he was largely interested in protecting and pressing the claims of the Chandler-Dunbar Company, which had certain water concessions in the river, certain commitments on revocable terms, from the minister of war. The Chandler-Dunbar Company were claiming also that when the war department of the United States gave the Michigan-Lake Superior Power Company the right to divert 30,000 second feet of the river into their canal above the works of the Chandler-Dunbar Company, they were, to a large extent, interfering
with the operations and the rights which they possessed with respect to the development of the water-power. The position of the Chandler-Dunbar Company is briefly set out at page 52 of the joint report of the commission. It appears that the company, acting under a promise from the minister of war, had developed power to a certain extent and had sublet to the Edison Soo Electric Company some of their privileges. Then the contention of the Chandler-Dunbar Company came and this contention, I am informed, largely actuated Senator Smith in his argument. The Chandler-Dunbar Company were pressing the United States government vigorously to secure compensation for damages which they said had been done to their interests by reason of the authority given to the Michigan-Lake Superior Power Company to divert the water of the river to the extent of 30,000 second feet above the Chandler-Dunbar Company's works. The Chandler-Dunbar Company claim as being the owners of the riparian rights. It was by virtue of their rights as riparian proprietors that they sought to press their claim against the United States government and a very substantial claim it was. So it was, in order to support the claims of the Chandler-Dunbar Company, that Senator Smith laid down his claim that riparian rights on the American side were being infringed, that there should be more water on the American side than was apparently allowed by the treaty. That claim was recognized by the Waterways Commission and it was admitted that therefore the rider should contain, supporting the contention, of the Chandler-Dunbar Company, a provision protecting all proprietary, riparian rights, public and private, on both sides of the river, which was exactly what the Chandler-Dunbar Company wanted to make their claim good against the United States of America. This debate went on for some considerable time. There was a great deal of difficulty occasioned the United States government by the Chandler-Dunbar claim, and I am informed that, recognizing to a certain extent that the rights of the Chandler-Dunbar Company had been injuriously affected by the somewhat unusual permission given to the Michigan-Lake Superior Power Company to divert about half of the whole flow of St. Mary's river above the works of the Chandler-Dunbar Company, the United States government extinguished their rights, purchased their concession and compensated them for what they claimed. So that the ground work of Senator Smith's contention with respect to this river is absolutely gone and these rights, as far as they were represented by the Chandler-Dunbar Company, have been absolutely extinguished. I enter into this explanation to show that the reason which prompted Senator Smith to make this extraordinary argument was entirely based on local conditions and in ocnneetion with local

claims which were then pending. The International Waterways Commission as at present constituted, having looked into this whole question of the flow of St. Mary's river as well as the Niagara river, and after providing for the maintenance of the stream for navigation purposes, provided that the surplus for power purposes shall be divided equally between the two countries. What are we going to do? We have the finding of a commission appointed by both countries for this very purpose. How then can we attach any importance to or receive with favour a rider, vague and indefinite as it is, which behind it has an argument which is diametrically opposed to the sober judgment and unanimous finding of the members of the Waterways Commission? Complex and indefinite as may be the conditions existing between the two countries at present in this respect, and much as it may be desired that the rights of the two countries should be definitely ascertained, I say that the very object of this treaty and of the treaty of 1908 will be defeated if this government should advise His Majesty to ratify that treaty with that rider incorporated in it, because such a treaty would never settle the respective rights of the two countries to the flow of that river.
Then, as to the riparian rights, what is the meaning of these words in the rider:
Nothing in this treaty shall be construed as affecting, or changing, any existing territorial, or riparian rights in the water, or rights of the owners of lands under water, on either side of the international boundary at the rapids of the St. Mary's river at Sault Ste. Marie, in the use of the waters flowing over such lands, subject to the requirements of navigation in boundary waters and of navigation canals, and without prejudice to the existing right of the United States and Canada, each to use the waters of the St. Mary's river within its own territory.
There are apparently two sets of riparian rights contended for; there is the right of the individual to the water (according to the contention here) flowing past his holding on the shore, and there is the claim of each country as a nation to its rights. I contend mosjt vehemently and (solemnly that there can be no riparian rights whatever under these conditions and that to incorporate an admission that there are such rights is simply to over-ride the law as it is at present. Now, as to what the law at present is, I shall read the opinion of the Attorney General of the state of New York, which is incorporated in the joint report of the International Waterways Commission under date the 19th of March, 1906. At page 254 Mr. T. E. Hancock, Attorney General of the state of New York, under date November 16, 1895, says:
The Niagara river is a publio navigable stream, to the bed of which, and the water Mr. BOYCE.
flowing over it, the state and not the riparian owner has title.
It would be a waste of time to attempt to show why this proposition is correct. It is sufficient to say that it has been amply supported by judicial decision and is now the established law.
The sole question, therefore, for determination is: Can an owner of the soil adjoining a navigable stream divert the water for private manufacturing purposes without the consent of the state? Let us examine it.
By the term ' navigable,' it must be remembered is not meant, ' capable of being navigated.' As used in this discussion, ' navigable stream ' means one which is navigable in the legal sense. Rivers may be navigable in fact but not in law, or they may be navigable in law but only in part navigable in fact. A mere local interruption of actual navigability, therefore, will not change the character of a stream in its legal aspect.
The river being navigable in the legal sense, the title to the bed of the stream and to the water flowing over it is in the state, at least to the boundary line between the state and Canada.
The diversion of water from a publio stream for any other than domestic purposes is a nuisance, and therefore may be abated at the suit of the Attorney General.
Notwithstanding that very clear definition of what I -believe is well known law applicable as well to the St. Mary's as to the Niagara river, this rider contains something which is diametrically opposed to it as a legal international proposition. In a period of 50 years or 100 years hence when we have attained the splendid development which we all believe we shall attain, and which our descendants will enjoy, there would be this argument advanced: 'Yes, that might have been the law as defined between the two countries at that time, but it was solemnly agreed between these two countries that notwithstanding that the riparian rights, whatever they were in other circumstances, should be in that river recognized to the fullest possible extent, as also the rights of the two high contracting parties to the treaty from the national point of view.' I am very desirous of condensing my remarks at this late stage of the session and I shall now say in brief, that it would be highly improper and highly dangerous for this government to recommend the acceptance of this treaty, if only for that reason; and, unless my Tight hon. friend and his government can clearly define that that rider means something definite, and what that something definite is, and that they shall hold that that something definite does not encroach upon the rights of Canada or upon Canadian citizens on the one side or does not give to the United States or to any of the citizens or corporations of the United States on the other, any rights which they do not enjoy in the United States and which they do enjoy on the side of Canada, then that treaty should never be allowed to

be ratified in the interests of Canada. I join in the sentiment expressed by my hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Magrath).
I have the utmost faith in the high standards of those who negotiate treaties on the part of Canada, and I am not suggesting that there was any bad faith in the making of this treaty or other treaties which have been the subject of comment. I am quite sure that this government is anxious" to do all that it can by this treaty honestly and fairly to preserve the rights of Canada and prevent those rights being jeopardized now or in years to come. But I very earnestly charge the Prime Minister, for these and other reasons, to see that there is not taken from us at Sault Ste. Marie water which is necessary for our industries now and in the future, on principles the very opposite of those which were laid down with regard to Niagara Falls, and on which we were asked to make and did make large concessions to the United States. The falls of Niagara belong one^sixth to the United States and five-sixths to Canada.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Rather one-tenth to nine-tenths.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I know that the contention varies; but at the most the United States have one-sixth and Canada has five-sixths. However that may be, the working out of the concessions given under the treaty results in a very much larger percentage of the actual power going to the United States than the proportion to which they are entitled on this argument'. If that be the argument, let it be applied equally to both sides. Let the same argument that was applied to Niagara be applied to Sault Ste. Marie, or let the argument that the United States senate applies to Sault Ste. Marie be applied to Niagara. The arguments on both sides are equally cogent; but the strict rights of the two countries based on the flow of the waters have been compromised, and a reasonable adjustment has been made by the eminent gentlemen forming the International Waterways Commission, by one-half the flow being assigned to each country after reserving sufficient water for navigation purposes. This is what we contend we have by the ruling of the commission, what we ought to have, and what I ask tmy right hon. friend to maintain by the rejection of this rider. Again, this rider purports to decide only those matters of difference between .the two countries which are referred by the body of this same treaty to the International Joint Commission. By articles 9, 10 and 11 all these matters of difference-matters which affect the very substance of that rider-are specially referred to that commission. These are generally the facts and arguments with regard to the St. Mary's river.
I may say that the government of Ontario takes the position that the treaty is not a proper one in the interest of the province. I have before me a copy of a telegram which was sent by the Hon. Sir James Whitney, the prime minister of Ontario, to the right hon. the prime minister of Canada under date of Toronto, May 12, 1909, which I will take the liberty of reading:
The Ontario government is of opinion that if the waterways treaty be ratified by the parliament of Canada, that ratification should be exclusive of the rider inserted at the end thereof bv the United States senate, and this government respectfully protests against such rider as being unfair to the province of Ontario, in view of the other provisions of the treaty as to waters and streams.
I feel quite sure, Sir, that these remarks, which I fear have been very lame, being the result of a somewhat hasty examination of the matter, but which are none the less sincerely offered, will be received by the government in the spirit in which they are offered, and that due consideration will be given to the excellent arguments of my hon. friend from Lethbridge (Mr. Mag-rath) and other arguments which may be adduced by other hon. gentlemen, and that the Tight hon. gentleman will hesitate before he permits the very important commercial and other interests of Canada to be jeopardized by the acceptance of a rider which is so meaningless on its face, but which covertly may contain in its future construction very much hardship or at least uncertainty for the Canada of the future.


Mr. A. C. MACDONELL (South Toronto).: Mr. Speaker, my apology for detaining the House at any length on this matter at this late period of the session will be made by the brevity of my remarks. I join with the hon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Boyce) in an expression of thanks to the right hon. gentleman for permitting this opportunity for an expression in this House upon this treaty ?t this late hour of the session. I trust, however, that the remarks which have been made by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Magrath) and by the hon. member for West Algoma may not be without some compensation for the courtesy which the right hon. gentleman has extended. My remarks will be directed entirely to one feature of the treaty, namely, that in connection with the treatment and disposal of the power at Niagara Falls. The hon. member for Lethbridge has already reviewed this at some length and in some detail. This feature of the treaty is unlike the rider which has just been discussed by the hon. member for West Al-goma, because in regard to the Niagara Falls situation there is complete simplicity;

there is no conflict of facts; there is no cloubtj or uncertainty as to the whereabouts of the boundary line. All the facts regarding the Niagara river were definitely settled and disposed of many years ago by the two nations; so that when the commissioners who had to deal with this matter approached the question, on neither side were they embarrassed with any conflict of facts. Permit me to read article 5 of the treaty which deals with and disposes of the question of the Niagara river. It is as follows:
The high contracting parties agree that it is expedient to limit the diversion of waters from the Niagara river so that the level of Lake Erie and the flow of the stream shall not be appreciably affected. It is the desire of both parties to accomplish this object with the least possible injury to investments which have already been made in the construction of power plants on the United States side of the river under grants of authority from the state of New York, and on the Canadian side of the river under licenses authorized by the Dominion of Canada and the province of Ontario.
So long as this treaty shall remain m force, no diversion of the waters of Niagara river above the falls from the natural course and stream thereof shall be permitted except for the purposes and to the extent hereinafter provided.
The United States may authorize and permit the diversion within the state of Nfew York of the waters of said river above the falls of Niagara, for power purposes, not exceeding in the aggregate a daily diversion at the rate of twenty thousand cubic feet of water per second.
The United Kingdom, by the Dominion of Canada, or the province of Ontario, may authorize and permit the diversion within the province of Ontario of the waters of said river above the falls of Niagara, for power purposes, not exceeding in the aggregate a daily diversion at the rate of thirty-six thou land cubic feet of water per second.
The prohibitions of this article shall not apply to the diversion of water for sanitary or domestic purposes, or for the service of canals for the purpose of navigation.
The language of that article is in no respect uncertain; and, like other wise tribunals, the commissioners gave no reasons for concurring in it. The plain statement is made there that the United States people shall have the use of 20,000 cubic feet per second, and the Canadian people the use of 36,000 cubic feet per second.


John Graham Haggart: What is the actual user P


Angus Claude Macdonell: It is very difficult to say. We must assume that the commissioners who dealt with those rights, did so on some established facts and some well-defined policy. Let me say that, so far as I am concerned, and I think the same may be said of other hon. members, we are not cavilling at this treaty in its Mr. MACDONELL
fundamental features. No policy can be wiser than that this government should definitely set at rest, so far as we can, our boundary line. The desirability of preserving, as far as possible, peace between the two countries, cannot be overestimated, and to secure that, even concessions might reasonably be made. I desire to refer to one authority with regard to the quantity of water we have at the Falls. My hon. friend from Lethbridge (Mr. McGrath) has shown very fully by his own argument and by quotations from documents and reports of this commission, that it was intended that the commission should approach this matter with the view of making an equitable division of these waters-a division which should be based on the respective rights of the parties concerned. With the view of ascertaining all obtainable facts regarding the Falls of Niagara and the Niagara river, Professor Spencer, attached to the Geological Survey Branch of the Department of Mines of this government, spent two years in making very careful surveys and soundings of these waters. He not only made personal investigation in the years 1904-5 and 1905-6, but procured all obtainable information on the subject, and it must be said that his efforts were largely successful. His own investigations and the information he procured elsewhere are to be found in a book he published, which certainly ought to be very useful to the people of this country and the members of this commission. He begins his work with these words:
" The international boundary line at Niagara falls was determined by the signed map of the commission of that time (1819). At one point this line is found within 235 feet of Goat island, thus throwing the whole of the great crescent of the falls within Canadian territory, while only the turn beyond the orescent, trending to Goat island, belongs to New York. Here the cataract is now often reduced to mere strings of water. The withdrawal of the water for power purposes threatens to leave exposed a strip of rock belonging to Canada, now covered by the rapids, on the eastern side of the falls. The quantity of water falling over this end adjacent to Goat island is too small a factor in the whole volume to be considered. But the volume flowing down the American falls is approximately seven per cent of the whole.
For that authority he refers us to chapiters 2 and 3 of his work, in which he elaborates the statements herein made:
The proportion of the discharge of the rocky rim, which determines the flow of water down the upper rapids, gives to Canada 75 to 80 per cent of the total discharge of the river.
That is, I take it, that right at the brink of the Falls where the water flows over the American side, the Americans have

only about 7 per cent of the total flow. Further up the river, at the crest of the cataract he statees that the proportions are 80 per cent to Canada and 20 per cent to the Fnited States. Further, at page 16, he says:
The placing of the boundary line gave the whole of the eastern channel, the American falls, and Goat island to the state of New York; but only from 235 to 300 feet of the river at the falls. This threw the crescent of the Canadian falls within the territorial boundary of Canada.
Then at page 8, he figures out the quantity of the main discharge which falls over the main bed of the river:
The mean discharge of 201,000 cubic feet gives a gross horse-power from above the upper rapids of 4,900,000. It was reduced in February, 1902, to 4,200,000 horse-power, when low water prevailed, or for the lowest day to 3,800,000. But this does not represent the available force, as two of the power companies take the water from nearly fifty-five feet below7 the head. Again there are other great losses in the application so that the whole power cannot be used, and these will reduce tho amount by 30 or 35 per cent. Accordingly the available low water discharge is reduced to 2,600,000 horse-power; for only this amount can be considered in the power question.
Then Mr. Spencer prepared a table showing the average flow of water from the Falls from the year 1860 until the present, giving it by yearly periods and also by high and low date. According to that the average per second is 204,000 cubic feet:
The descent of the Niagara river from the first cascade of the upper rapids to Lake Ontario is 312 feet. Tho surface of the river below the falls may be taken at 100 feet. Thus the power of Niagara represents the product of a fall of 212 feet and the variable discharge volume of any particular day.
Average 1860-1890.. . 1891-1905.
discharge.
Cubic feet per second. *226,000 204,000
Corrected cubic feet per second.
204.000
204.000
204.000 2927000
221.000
238.000
187.000
175.000 tl58,500
Reducing these figures to horse-power the following results are obtained:-
1860-1905	*219,000
1858 (October 7)	 314,000
1862 (for the year).. .. 243,000 1862 (month of June).. .. 260,000
1895 (for the year)	 187,000
1902 (month of February). 175,000 1902 (February 28)..	.. fl58,5O0
Range of Horse-power of the Falls.
Corrected Horse- liorse-Average gross horse-power, power.	power.
1860-1890	
5,444,000	4,914,0001891-1905	
4,915,000	4.915.0001860-1905	
5,276,000	4,748,0001858 (October	7)	
7,563,000	7,033,000Corrected Horse-	horse-Average gross horse-power,	power.	power.1862	(for the. year)	
5,854,000	5,326,0001862	(for month of June).	6,264,000	5,736,0001895 (for the year).. .. 4,505,000	4,505,0001902	(month of February)	4,216,000	4.216,0001902 (February 28)	f3,818,000 f3,818,000
From these figures it may be seen that the work of Niagara varies enormously.
These averages taken from the discharge tables, hut on account of the lowering of the lake outlets, not allowed for here, the correct mean discharge is that of -the period of 1891-1905.
tWater at Port Colborne only 569-58 above the sea.
He continues in this way, and I desire to read this because the Chicago Canal has some bearing on it:
A change of one foot in the height of Lake Erie will increase, or diminish the discharge by 23,205 cubic feet per second, which is equivalent to 569,000 horse power. When it comes to the question of the artificial application of power of water to be taken from the river below the first cascade, the obtainable horse power will be much less than if taken above; on the average of all the companies, the available amount will be reduced by from 30 to 35 per cent, owing to the loss in height, in the waste weir tunnels, and at the bottom of the shafts, &c. This will reduce the available horse power for a foot of fall in the lake to
400,000	or less. Where the water is taken at a considerable distance below the head of the rapids, from forty to fifty feet lower down, the available amount will be still further decreased. Accordingly, the net mean water power of the falls if entirely diverted for artificial purposes would fall to 3,200,000 horse power, and the low water discharge to 2,600,000. On the basis of 7 per cent, the available horse power of the American falls is 350,000 for mean stages, or nearly 250,000 for low water.
Now, let us compare what Professor Spencer says the American side is entitled to compared with what they get. Under the treaty; regarding the quantity of horsepower to which each nation is entitled, I find that the United States gets five horsepower to our nine. By the natural flow of the river, the United States, under Professor Spencer's definition, is entitled to five horse-power to our fifty-two. Taking the most favourable American claim or contention, to which I will refer more fully in a moment, and it would give the United States one horse-power to six for us. There is a discrepancy there which it is very hard for ordinary people in this practical age to understand. Professor Spencer continues :
At the first cascade of the American channel the average depth scarcely exceeds three feet; and being very much smaller that the deeper section of the Canadian channel, the volume of discharge is reduced considerably below nine per cent, perhaps as low as six per cent, though probably the range may he

generated on the Canadian side will to a large extent be transmitted to, and used in, the United States.
So throughout the whole transaction the American section seems to have had the better of the Canadian section in reference to the division of power. Now both the sections apparently reported that the American diversion would be 18,500 feet per second whereas the real diversion amounts to 20,000 cubic feet per second. The net result of it is this, that Canada gets a volume of
36.000	feet per second, which equals 432,000 horse-power; the United States gets 20,000 feet per second, producing 260,000 horsepower. But of Canada's 432,000 horse-power,
200.000	of it is exported to the United States, and so far as we can see will continue to be exported. That leaves a total for Canada of only 232,000 horse-power, outside of the Chicago drainage canal.
Now, Air. Speaker, just a few words more and I have finished. We have before us the naked result of the work of our commission. They were handed over a most important work, they were handed over the disposition of the water-power of Niagara Falls, together with that of other powers. They have made their report, but I do not think that the Canadian people are satisfied with the disposition that they have made of our heritage. I think it right that we, who are affected by this report, should ask the question of these hon. gentlemen, how it is that they have dealt with our natural rights in such a manner as to lead to the disparagement of our peoples' heritage. They found a natural condition most advantageous to Canada. They seemed to have receded from their position of advantage, to have given up their position which was, at the very worst for us, six to one, and they submitted to a compromise by giving the American people 30,000 feet per second and receiving a contribution for the Canadian people of 36,000 feet per second. T think that we have no apology to offer for having brought this subject to the attention of the House. It is a matter for the government to deal with. The treaty is there. It has not yet been ratified. It may be ratified by His Majesty upon the advice of his responsible ministers whom, I take to be, in this case, the government of this country. Can the government, in face of the facts, justify the acceptance of this finding, more especially as we have no offset to the loss that we suffer at Niagara? There is no claim that we are securing other rights that we were not entitled to or that might be doubtful rights in consideration of our giving up our rights at Niagara Falls. There is no question of a set-off against a right of that nature. We simply voluntarily agree to a division which is not based upon any just or equitable principle. We have no compensation at all, either at Niagara or elsewhere, in consideration of this treaty for what we give up at Niagara Mr. MACDONELL.
Falls. It is for the government to say whether, in face of the facts, this country will be justified in agreeing with the findings of our commission as they are laid down in the report.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 158) respecting the Bank of Winnipeg.-Mr. Molloy.
Bill (No. 177) respecting the Royal Victoria Life Insurance Company, and to change its name to the Royal Victoria Life Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Sutherland.
Bill (No. 103) respecting the National Accident and Guarantee Company of Canada. -Mr. Pardee.
Bill (No. 169) respecting the Patents of Washington McCloy.-Air. Rivet.
Bill (No. 182) for the relief of Fleetwood Howard Ward.-Mr. Lewis.
Bill (No. 183) for the relief of Aaron William Alorley Campbell.-Mr. W. H. White.
Bill (No. 184) for the relief of John C Cowan.-Mr. Turriff.
Bill (No. 181) for the relief of Laura Me-Quoid.-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill (No. 168) respecting the Mexican Transportation Company, Limited, and to change its name to the Alexieo Northwestern Railway Company.-Air. Sutherland.
Bill (No. 171) respecting the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company.-Air. Michaud.
Bill (No. 170) respecting the Brockville, Westport and Northwestern Railway Company.-Air. Marshall.
Bill (No. 178) for the relief of John Wake. -Mr. McCraney.
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.-Air. G. W. McIntyre.
Bill (No. 185) to incorporate the Catholic Church Extension Society of Canada.-Mr. Parent.
Bill (No. 166) respecting the Central Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Ethier.
Bill (No. 176) to incorporate the St. Maurice and Eastern Railway Company.-Air. I Geoffrion.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 188) respecting the Prudential Life Insurance Company of Canada, and to change its name to the Security Life Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Proulx.
Bill (No. 189) to incorporate the Commerce Insurance Company.-Mr. Geoffrion.
Bill No. 190) respecting the Fidelity Life Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Mc-Craney.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 161), to incorporate the Equity Fire Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Macdonell.
On section 1,
Mr. LENNOX.: I have instructions from several shareholders of the old company to oppose the incorporation of this company. They point out various features which they think objectionable. I do not want to say in a public way anythng that would prejudice this company if it is about to do business. Certain shareholders, principally resident in Barrie, have a very strong objection to this company being incorporated here mainly on the gronind that, as they claim, the company has not been successful, and they think it will not be successful.
I heard the counsel state in the committee the other day that this company is absolutely solvent. I do not know anything as to that. It is reducing its stock.
I call the attention of the Minister of Finance to a statement made in the committee the other day that this company is reducing its shares to $50 each, and that the new Insurance Act has a provision that the capital stock shall not be divided into shares of not less -than $100 each. If so, that would conflict with this Bill.


William Stevens Fielding: There is a clause inserted providing that where in any case the provisions of the two acts come in conflict, the provisions of the General Act shall prevail; so that I do not anticipate any difficulty.


Haughton Lennox: The final clause of this Act provides that where there is a conflict, the provisions of the General Act shall govern. That being the case, it seems to me that section 3 of this Bill would not be workable, and the policy on which this Bill is framed would fail in that respect. There is a distinct provision here for a reduction of the shares to $50, and that a certain amount shall be credited upon them, $5 out of $30, and that the difference between that amount and $50 shall be the amount the shareholders shall have to pay. That could not be worked out if the value of the shares were made $100 again. It would seem to me that this Bill, notwithstanding its special provisions, would be governed by the General 210
Act, so that the shares would have to be $100. If so this provision in section 3 would become unworkable, and the object of the incorporation would fail. I leave that matter to be dealt with by the Finance Minister. I was also specially requested to draw attention to section 8, which provides that the affairs of the company shall be managed by a board to be composed of not less than eight or more than twenty-four directors. It is pointed out that that is too large a number. In the same section it is provided that a director must have possession of fifty shares. I am instructed to urge, what I believe is a correct principle, that stockholders who hold twenty shares ought to be eligible to be directors. It is also pointed out that section 11 seems to be defective in that the statement of the affairs of the company is not required to be made under oath. I do not know what the policy of the government has been in reference to that. The loose way in which statements and returns have been made from time to time in connection with insurance companies indicates the importance of requiring such statements to be made under oath. These are not nearly all the objections I have been asked to make to this Bill, but they are the principal ones, the main one being that as the company has not been successful, and. as these old shareholders feel, is not likely to be successful, it should not be incorporated.


Angus Claude Macdonell: The hon. gentleman who has just spoken appeared before the committee and made the game complaints there that he has made here, and the committee disposed of the matter without taking his objections very seriously, because he did not make them seriously. My hon. friend did not even divide the committee, because it transpired from his remarks that the gentlemen whose views he was putting forth were a number of shareholders in the town of Barrie on whom certain calls on the stock of this company had been made. These gentlemen are not desirous of paying these calls, and take this means of trying to get even with the company. The Bill as it appears before the House passed the Department of Finance, and was very carefully gone into by the committee. The hon. gentleman who made these objections made them in a half-hearted way, and let them drop. As the end of the session is in sight, I think we ought to put this Bill through. When we come to the various clauses of the Bill, we can deal with the difficult objections the hon. gentleman has made.


Haughton Lennox: I take very serious objection to the hon. gentleman telling this House that I did not make my objections seriously or made them in a half-hearted way. I made my objections in the commit-



tee, and I repeat them here, in a perfectly serious way, and I hope they are entitled to some consideration from the committee. I have the greatest respect and friendship for my hon. friend, but I do not propose to let him make the statement unchallenged that I pressed these objections otherwise than seriously. I hope he realizes that it is not necessary to shout or swear or declaim in order to be serious. I am not a member of the committee and have no power to divide the committee, as mv hon. friend suggests. But I made the objection on behalf of several subscribers for stock in the town of Barrie, who are not in a different position as regards this company from other stockholders. Whether I shall be able to carry my proposition or not, I assure my hon. friend and the committee that I am exceedingly serious and exceedingly earnest in the matter, and I have very great faith in the propositions I advance. I do not know whether I shall succeed in convincing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), but I feel that if I had him convinced I should win the battle. But I urge upon him to take this matter into his serious consideration. Here is a company that has been, so far, unsuccessful. I have great respect for some of the gentlemen connected with the company, but that shall not deter me from advancing the proposition that I believe to be in the interest of the public, and I believe it to be in the interest of the public that this company should not be incorporated.


William Stevens Fielding: Owing to other engagements, I was not able to give personal attention to this Bill, though I was present for a few minutes in the committee. My officers informed me that they had examined the Bill carefully and that there was no objection to it from a departmental point of view. That being the case, I was prepared to have it passed.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I am bound, in my own defence, to repeat the impressions that I stated I received in this House and before the committee as to the manner and attitude of my hon. friend in dealing with this Bill. I do not care to go over what I said as to his attitude, when the Bill was before the committee. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) was there apparently to speak on behalf of private interests, and in that capacity appeared before the committee. Not a member of the committee supported my hon. friend or adopted his views. In justice to myself I must say that. And no attempt was made to divide the committee, and the Bill passed the committee unanimously. It is entirely in the hands of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) whether the Bill is proceeded with now or not. I would like to have it proceeded with, and, if pos-Mr. LENNOX.
sible, disposed of, and I do not know any reason why it should not be passed.


Mr. NESBITT.: The Bill was considered carefully in the eommitttee and, while I have no interest in the world in the matter, as the chairman of the committee is not here, I would like to report the fact that the Bill was carefully considered. Anything that might appear to be wrong in the Bill will be rectified by the general Act. It must have the consent of two-thirds of the old shareholders before it goes into effect.


Haughton Lennox: I cannot allow the remarks of my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) to go unchallenged. I think his last remarks even more unwarranted than the first. If there is anything he can divulge, I hope he will be manly enough to divulge it and to state openly what he knows. I do not like his insinuations, and I take it as an insinuation that there was something not divulged. I went to the committee and asked to be heard. There were a great many gentlemen as usual, who wanted to speak, and I only briefly outlined my position. I had to leave to attend the meeting of another committee. I recognized then, and recognize now, that there was a very large and influential committee that had evidently more knowledge of these matters than I had, but I hope it did not appear to any one besides my hon. friend that I was not in earnest. I am exceedingly in earnest and I do not think it becomes any hon. gentleman, unless he has something that he has not yet divulged, to state that I was not in earnest.
On the motion to report the Bill.


Angus Claude Macdonell: As a matter of personal explanation, I desire to say to my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) that I had no intention of imputing to him any motives other than the most honourable, either in what he said or in his attitude in this House or before the committee. I got the impression, no doubt an erroneous one, that possibly he was not in earnest in presenting his objection.
I accept the statement that he was, and I entirely concur in the opinion that his attitude throughout has been earnest and sincere.


Haughton Lennox: Of course, I accept my hon. friend's (Mr. Macdonell's) statement in exactly the way he gives it.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.	[DOT]	*


MONTREAL BRIDGE AND TERMINAL COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 180) respecting the Montreal Bridge and Terminal Company.-Mr. Ecrement.
Haughton Lennox: I deaire to call the attention of the Minister of Railways to the special report from the Railway Committee in reference to this Bill, which says:
With respect to the last mentioned Bill, your committee have deemed it desirable to call special attention to it in view of the representations made to them to pass the said Bill with sections 3 and 4 contained therein, notwithstanding the report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, of May 16, 1909, which report recommended that the powers contained in the said sections be not granted, as in the opinion of that committee the notice therefor had not been duly advertised.
I do not know what the minister proposes to do in that connection.


Mr. GRAHAM.: The Senate Committee on Standing Orders approved of the notices and it passed through the Senate Committee on Railways, but the Standing Orders Committee of the House found there was not sufficient notice for sections 3 and 4, and there being no objection to the Bill, it was put through the Railway Committee with the precaution that this committee should be notified. There seems to be no serious objection on the face of the Bill itself.


Haughton Lennox: I have no serious objection neither, but I thought it my duty to call attention to this special report.


Mr. AMES.: This House has already passed a resolution ratifying the action of the Standing Orders Committee which declared that clauses 3 and 4 were not covered by the notice, and so the House will have to swallow itself in order to pass this Bill. Is it not necessary to reconsider our previous resolution?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The Committee on Railways and Canals, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee, decided that the Bill should be reported. My hon. friend will admit that the provision which is inserted in the Bill practically prevents the company from building anywhere else than in the place originally intended. Clause 4 declares that the company may erect certain stations in Montreal, bolt only with the consent of the city council.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is it to be taken as a precedent hereafter that notwithstanding that the House may have ratified the report of its committee declaring that the notices were insufficient, nevertheless a Bill can be passed.


George Perry Graham: A statute overrides a resolution.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The report of the Standing Orders Committee was before the Railway Committee, and the Railway Committee passed judgment on the whole thing, 210J
and came to the conclusion that the defect in the notice was not sufficient to prevent the Bill being passed.


George Perry Graham: The Railway Committee did not consider that they were called on in any way to deal with the insufficiency of the notice, they dealt only with the merits of the Bill, and they made a provisional report. What is the use of referring a Bill to the Committee on Standing Orders if its recommendation is to be entirely thrown aside, and if it declares after due deliberation that the notices are insufficient, this House ignores or overrides that decision of the committee.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed adjourned debate on the motion that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['The committee may report progress and the Bill will go on government orders for Monday.\nProgress reported.']
Edward Arthur Lancaster: Mr. Speaker, I feel it my duty to say something upon this question, which I consider one of the most important now requiring the consideration of the government. It is a little significant that the very first time I spoke in this House shortly after the first parliament to which I was returned had opened, that I found it my duty to bring this very matter to the attention of the government. My constituency adjoins the international boundary line, and from what I had heard at that time in the adjoining republic, I thought there was nothing like taking time by the forelock, and if our neighbours were acting as I deemed they were acting, I thought the Canadian government should know it. On the 6th day of February, 1900, I put a question upon the Order Paper and it was answered on the 14th of that month (page 94, 'Hansard,' 1901):
,Mr. LANCASTER. Is the government aware that in the United States Senate of United States, at the first session of the 56tli Congress, in January, 1900, the following resolution was passed, viz.:
That the President of the United States invite the government of Great Britain to join in the formation of an international commission, whose duty it shall be from time to time to report upon the conditions and uses of the waters adjacent to the boundary line between Canada and the United States, including all the waters of the lakes and rivers whose waters flow by the River St. Lawrence to the Atlantic ocdan and also upon the effect upon the shores of these waters-and the structures thereon and upon the interests of navigation by reason of their diversion from their natural flow and further to report upon the necessary measures to regulate such diversions.

Hare any representations been made to this government by (1) the government of the United States, or '(2) iby the imperial government with reference to the above?
If so, will the government state how the matter referred to now stands?


The PRIME MINISTER (Sir Wilfrid L'au-rier).: The government has not been informed of the matter referred to in the question, either by the imperial authorities, or by the United States government.
The information I had received caused me to ask that question. I also had the abject in view, as I have had ever since, of trying, entirely from a non partisan or political' aspect, to protect this country against the incursion on, or may I say the invasion by our neighbours to the south of this great natural resource of ours. The answer given by the government, which I have cited, was given two years before the United States appointed their commission, and that commission was appointed almost in the very of the resolution of the Congress of the United States to which I refer in my question. In view of the fact that the attention of the Canadian government had been drawn to the matter by my question at that early date, I think it is a great pity that the responsible officers of the government, whoever they may be, should not have taken means to keep track of what the government of the United States was doing so as to be prepared for the emergency which has since arisen. I may perhaps be accused of claiming to know more than any one ordinarily knows, but my constituency being on the border line we naturally take a deep interest in such matters and are more apt to know the ways of the Americans than the people of the rest of the country do, and we are possibly more attentive than others to their manner of doing business. In 1902 the United States appointed their commission; they got busy at once, and they had their army engineers and surveyors out through the counties of Lincoln and Niagara, which are situated on the Niagara river. We wondered if they were making surveys for military purposes or not, but as their efforts seemed to be directed on a point upon the Niagara river towards the Falls, we concluded at last what their real object was. I had occasion to bring the matter up again in 1906-1907, and the question put by me and the answer given on behalf of the government will be found in Hansard' of the 3rd December, 1906.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 1. Were any copies of a certain map presented by Dr. J. W. Spencer, printed, or engraved, by any department of the government, to illustrate a report on the recession lines of Niagara Falls?
2 If so, how many copies were printed or engraved ?
3. Why was not the map included in the summary report of the Geological Survey for the year 190a?	J


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 


['']
Mr. SPROULE.: Were those surveys made on Canadian soil?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes, partly.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: On what authority?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not suppose they had any express authority. We supposed in 1903 and 1904 that these men were railway surveyors, but their efforts were concentrated about the river. Dr. Spencer published the fact in his report, but told me of it in 1907 before it was published, and I thought it wise to give it to the country without waiting for the report. These surveyors were there dressed in civilian clothes, acting under the instructions of the American government to find the boundary line-because the boundary line in wateT cannot be indicated without reference to old monuments and old places along the river as they existed in 1842 and in 1812. Dr. Spencer found the boundary line, and wanted to mark it on his map for the information of the people; but he was told that he was not sent there to report

on where the boundary line was, but only on the recession of the falls. When he told me of that at my house at St. Catharines, I said to him: 'You are in the same position as a in5111 who is sent out by an executor of an estate to see how much timber is on a piece of land, and who reports that there is so much timber and also a gold mine, and the executor tells him, I don't want to know anything about a gold mine; I only want to know about the quantity of timber there.


Haughton Lennox: Who said this to Dr. Spencer?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It was somebody connected with the geological survey. It was not Dr. Lowe himself, but somebody under him who was editing the report. All this was brought up by me in 1907. I said-then that my desire was not to have another Alaska case. I said I wanted to prevent the milk being spilt. I think we aTe still in time to prevent the milk being spilt, though the jug is now near the edge of the table, because I think we can prevent this treaty being confirmed. I do not wish to say anything harsh about these commissioners, but it is manifest that whether from lack of information or lack of ability to deal with the question, they have not got the bargain they should have got for the people of Canada. If the boundary line at Niagara Falls had been disputed, I could understand a compromise; but if the Canadian section made that .agreement without bothering or saying anything as to where the boundary between the two countries was, it was a matter of almost ignoring their duty to get evidence. When their report was made, it is true that this information had not yet been put before parliament. The sessional Teport of that year was lying on the table when I drew attention to it, but at the time this information was given the Waterways Commission had met.
They would have to reverse their other bargain. They, perhaps, were too proud to do that. If they knew what happened in this House in January, 1907, they ought to have taken that into consideration. But they have gone on as if that information had not been given. They ignored the territorial division at Niagara Falls, but they have given all that the Americans could claim on that ground at Sault Ste. Marie and everywhere else. And, as pointed out by hon. members who preceded me, everywhere the Americans got the best of it. During the two years from 1902 to 1904, the American authorities went on investigating with our commission doing nothing. In 1906, our commission began paying attention to the matter. They spent, all told, five days in considering the question of Niagara Falls, two days in Toronto, and three days outside. That is all the time they Mr. LANCASTER.
claim to have spent on this subject-five days given to ascertain how this great world-famed cataract, this greatest of the world's water-powers, should be divided. And they never discussed, as I have said, where the boundary line was. There is an undue haste about it all. So, I contend that it will not be any harm even if you leave these same commissioners in office, to put before them all the evidence and sugges-tions-or the suspicions, if you like-and warn them that they ought to make a new bargain in regard to this matter. And if you must reject the treaty or accept it, why reject it, on the plain ground that it is unfair to Canada. If you can still make a bargain about it, all right. But we do not have to worry about that, for, even without a treaty, we are all right, and the Americans cannot stop us in developing. It is nice to have a bargain with your neighbour, but better have no bargain than have one that will be against your own interest and one that will cause heart burnings and grumblings hereafter. But if you are going to ha\e a treaty for the sake of having a treaty this rider ought not to be rejected, but simply take it as showing that the territorial division ought to govern, and, in that case, what you lose at Sault Ste. Marie will be more than made up at Niagara Falls. If they will not agree to the territorial division, why, then, the whole thing can be shown to he unfair. It looks to me as if the Ami ricans thought we were easy. I want to be good fr'ends with everybody on the other side of the river. I have great respect for them as business men. But I know, as one living near the boundary, that they like to succeed in a bargain. One hon. gentleman here said that he did not wish to say anything offensive of the Americans. We need not worry about that. You cannot offend them as long as you let them have the nest of the bargain. They do not care what you say or do; they want to report to their people that they have got the best of the deal-and they certainly have been able to do that so far as this treaty is concerned. They seem to think that, as we were so easy that we never bothered about the territorial question at Niagara Falls, they can bring in that question at the Sault where it will enable them to get a little the best of us. That rider that they have passed should be taken as reason for a new negotiation. I offer that suggestion to the Prime Minister, and I would like to see him adopt it. This is not a party question. In all humility, I offer this to the Prime Minister as the suggestion of an ordinary citizen representing 35,000 or 40,000 other ordinary citizens who live near Niagara Falls and know something of what they are talking about in this matter. If this rider be taken as a reason for new negotiations, they will make a better offer in the whole matter than what we have now.
There is one other subject I wish to say

a word about before I sit down. In 1907, as the Prime Minister knows, we passed a Bill regarding the export of power. I pointed out that we should be careful about this export. I said I could not see why we should not put in a clause providing that power should not be exported until all the power required to be used in Canada had been supplied. I took the liberty of proposing a resolution to the effect that not more than half the power generated should be exported. That was voted down. Now, I do not say that the government will allow them to export from Canada all the power they produce. But, so far as this government is concerned, there is nothing illegal about it. The power companies have an arrangement with the Ontario government, so far as the province can control them, that they should not export more than one-half of what they produce. If the Americans, with their great capital, with their previous holdings, and their prior knowledge of the conditions and how to manipulate that power, took this 28,000 cubic feet per second that they are entitled to, and added to that one-half the 36,000 cubic feet which we are entitled to, they could transfer to their own side the power to represent all that water-power and there is nothing in the treaty to prevent it In view of these circumstances, I think the government ought not to sanction this treaty. The matter is so important, so manifestly momentous in the interests of Canada, that, even at the risk of being uncomplimentary, if you like, to the commissioners who have made the treaty, we ought not to confirm it in the interests of Canada. Those interests demand that it should be refused and an entirely new treaty made.


Rt.   H@: This subject is an important one, and perhaps it is to be regretted that, at this period of the session, we cannot give it the attention we would give it otherwise. The treaty was passed on January 9, and, as soon as passed, congress being then in session, it was referred, under the terms of the American constitution, to the United States Senate. The Senate, almost two months afterwards- that is on March 3-gave it their sanction, with, however, the introduction into it of an important amendment affecting the disposition of the treaty in so far as the rapids of the St. Mary's river are concerned. I have listened with great care to everything that has been said by the gentlemen who have addressed the House on this subject. I am sorry that my hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Magrath) is not present, because I would rather have said in his presence what I wish to say. That hon. gentleman is generally fair,' but it seemed to me that he imported into the debate an amount of political bitterness which I should not have expected from him. He
attacked the composition of the Canadian section of the Waterways Commission, and rather insinuated that this had been appointed for political purposes and as a matter of patronage rather than for considerations of the fitness of the commissioners. It seems to me that such a reproach is altogether unwarranted, there is not even the semblance of a reason for it. We have only to look at the personnel of the commissioners. First of all, there was Mr. Mabee. Nobody has a word to say against him, on the contrary everybody admits that he was a man eminently qualified for the position, both by character and by judicial ability. When Mr. Mabee was afterwards promoted to the bench, Mr. Gibbons was put in his place. Nobody who knows Mr. Gibbons, his ability as a lawyer, his ability as a business man, his earnestness in anything he undertakes, but will say that it would be difficult to select a gentleman better suited for the position than he is. The second commissioner is Mr. W. F. King, in one of the departments here. Why did we appoint Mr. King? Certainly not for political considerations. Mr. King had been in the Civil Service for at least 25 years. I do not know what his politics are, I do not think he ever had any. But he is an expert, and has always been chosen by the present government and by the former government to serve in all matters of this character. The third commissioner, Mr. Louis Coste, had been an employee of the Public Works Department. He is an engineer. I do not know that Mr. Coste has any politics; I know the politics of his family, and they are not in accord with the present government. Therefore, if we had considered his politics alone they would perhaps have been a bar to his appointment. But we selected Mr. Coste because of his competence as an engineer, and on the whole I think it would have been difficult to make a better selection. So it is absolutely out of the question to say that these appointments were political. Whatever may have been our sins in other directions, it is preposterous to say that in the composition of the present commission there was any political consideration whatever.
Now we come to the work of the commission. The commissioners were entrusted with the duty of preparing, if possible, a treaty for the division of the waters of the St. Lawrence system. They made a division which I believe is on the whole very fair. It gave to the two countries an equal division of waters, with the exception of the Niagara river, where Canada had a larger proportion than the United States in the proportion of 36 to 20, or nearly two-thirds on the Canadian side and a little more than one-third on the American side. Everywhere else, on the whole St. Lawrence system, there was an

equal division of the waters. I will come in a moment to the amendment which was made by the United States Senate. By taking this part of the treaty alone, it seems to me that everybody must admit that there was a very fair division. My hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), my hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Magrath), my hon. friend from Algoma (Mr. Boyce) not tot the same extent, but especially the former two, and my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) contended very strongly that we did not get the proportion of water to1 which we were entitled at Niagara. Well, Sir, I will not dispute them. It is difficult to say mathematically what would have been a fair division of the water. That we should have more water on our side than the Americans, was conceded by the American commissioners. The only question is as to the proportion. Some of the hon. gentlemen who have addressed the House say that we should have had nine-tenths and the Americans only one-tenth. I do not dispute that. But a treaty never was negotiated which gave each party everything they thought they were entitled to. A treaty is not an adjudication in court, it is simply a matter of negotiation, and very often, in order to get a treaty at all, you have to give a little more perhaps than you think you should give otherwise. Now I put it to my hon. friend from Lincoln who is a representative of one of the border counties: Does he not believe that it is of the utmost importance that we should have a joint commission for the division of the waters, for the preservation of the waters, which would be guided by certain rules to be observed by the commission? He agrees to that. Article 7 of the treaty provides that there shall be a board of three commissioners appointed by Canada and three appointed by the United States, which shall have authority to divide the waters between the two countries, and to see that no unfair advantage be taken by one country at the expense of the other. If we have not a commission of that kind, what will be the consequence? The consequence will be that either country will be at liberty to tap waters on the other side of the boundary, until navigation must suffer. Perhaps treaty rights would not permit navigation to suffer; but my hon. friend will realize how difficult it would be to prevent a powerful neighbour like the United States from exercising rights to which we might object, and object perhaps with very little effect, at all events, not without serious trouble. Everybody will agree that the treaty was wise, that' it was eminently judicious to organize a commission of that kind. And if, in order to have such a tribunal appointed to see that justice was done to both countries, the commissioners gave the United States little more at Niagara than the hon. gentleman Sir WILFRID LA DRIER.
thinks they should have given, after all, it is a matter for consideration whether they acted wisely or unwisely.
Now I come to another objection which was made by my hon. friend from Medicine Hat, an objection which interests him more than anybody else, because it interests the part of the country which he represents, and the very riding which he has the honour to represent in this House; I refer to article six of the treaty with regard to the St. Mary's river and the Milk river. The disposition of the treaty with regard to the river St. Mary's and the Milk river, in article 6, is in these words:
The high contracting parties agree that the St. Mary's and Milk rivers and their tributaries in the state of Montana and the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan are to be treated as one stream for the purposes of irrigation and power, and the waters thereof shall be apportioned equally between the two countries, but in making such equal apportionment more than half may be taken from one river and less than half from the other by either country so as to afford a more beneficial use to each. It is further agreed that m the division of such waters during the irrigation season, between the 1st of April and the 31st of October inclusive, annually, the United States is entitled to a prior appropriation of 500 cubic feet per second of the waters of the Milk river, or so much of such amount as constitutes three-fourths of its natural flow, and that Canada is entitled to a prior appropriation of 500 cubic feet per second of the flow of the St. Mary's river, or so much of such amount as constitutes three-fourths of its natural flow.
The measurement and apportionment of the water to be used by each country shall from time to time be made jointly by the properly constituted declination officers of the United States and the properly constituted irrigation officers of His Majesty under the direction of the International Joint Commission.
The St. Mary's river rises in Montana and flows into Alberta, and empties into the south branch of the Saskatchewan river. The Milk river also rises in Montana and flows into Canada for a distance of about 100 miles, running almost parallel to the boundary, and flows back again into the United States. The St. Mary's river is not a large stream comparatively, but is much larger than the Milk river. This treaty, if it comes into force, will join them, that is, power is given under the treaty to join the two rivers into one stream which will flow together in the bed of the Milk river and enter the United States. My hon. friend has asked why we should have agreed to such a disposition as that, why we should have permitted a stream that flows into Canada to be made to flow into the United States? The reason is such that I am surprised that my hon. friend does not appreciate it; I was more than surprised, was more than sorry, I was even astonished at the criticism which he made of that disposition.	i	i

The United States reclamation service have undertaken large works upon these waters and they contemplate still larger works. They contemplate first to tap St. Mary's lake through which the St. Mary's river flows and to divert it in their own country. If this had been to the injury of a river flowing into Canada we would have protested against anything of the kind being undertaken. Whether we would have protested successfully is a matter as to which I am not quite sure, because the United States claim that they have the right to divert any river, even if the river flows into Canada or into a foreign country, so long as they tap it within their own territory. They assert that their sovereignty with regard to a flowing stream is absolute even though that stream flows into a neighbouring country. I am not quite sure that as a matter of international law the position is well taken. My view on the contrary is that the principle of civil law would apply to international law and there is strong authority for that contention, but whilst it is a contention, the Americans have held to a different construction and they assert that they have the right to exercise sovereign power so long as the work in question is within their own territory, even though the water flows through a foreign countrv. There was a source of difficulty. But, putting that aside, the Americans contemplate establishing at the head of these streams, large reclamation works, that is to say, putting up an immense reservoir to store the waters and keep them for the whole season. Under the present conditions my hon. friend stated this afternoon that with a commitment of 2,000 feet of water they never could develop more than 800. Why? I speak under correction, because I have to get my information from other sources, and I am not familiar with the country, but I understand that in a very short time in that section of the country the spring waters are exhausted, and that in the summer they have a very small amount of water, whereas, if they had these immense reclamation works which are contemplated by the American reclamation service the water.would be stored and would be available during the whole summer, and therefore my hon. friend from Alberta and his constituents would have the benefit of the storage of that water all summer. I know that I speak with absolute certainty when I say that the reclamation service cannot join these two streams into one as contemplated under this treaty unless they construct these immense reclamation works which are now proposed. Therefore, these reclamation works being established, Canadians will have the benefit of them, and will have a store of water
to draw from all the long summer, whereas, at the present time, they can only have it in the spring and fall months. That is the reason we have agreed to this diversion of the St. Mary's river into the Milk river and I am pretty sure that when the matter is looked into the disposition of the treaty will be found to be an excellent one.
This, however, is a matter which relates more to a physical condition than anything else, and therefore I have no hesitation in expressing an opinion upon it.
I would not care, however, at this moment, to exprOss an opinion upon the whole treaty, and I will tell my hon. friends the reason why. I said a moment ago that the treaty was passed on the 9th January and signed by the American and British plenipotentiaries. Having been passed and signed it was referred, under the terms of the American constitution, to the United States Senate then in session. The Senate deliberated a long time over it, but after two months of anxious debate, echoes of which have come to us, thev agreed to the ratification, adding the rider to which my hon. friend from Algoma has taken very strong objection. My hon. friend will not be surprised if I do not care at this moment to express an opinion upon it. I have only this to say that the amendment which has been made to the treaty has been such as to cause us to pause before we would advise the ratification of it. Two things have to be considered before w'e make up our minds finally upon it. It is proper that we should make up our minds upon it but only two months have elapsed since the ratification by the United States Senate and therefore no time has been lost. Two things have to be considered before we come to a conclusion whether or not we should advise His Majesty to ratify the treaty. The first is: What are the physical conditions which are to be affected by this amendment? What are the rights of the riparian owners, how. much property is affected, what are the rights upon one side of the river, what are the rights upon the other, who are the riparian owners, and so on. This is a subject which we have not yet had time to investigate, but I think the House will agree that we should undertake an investigation before we come to a conclusion. There is another consideration. This amendment, speaking with all due respect, perhaps, is not as clear and lucid as one could wish. I have my own views upon it. I have consulted my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) and we have agreed pretty much as to the conclusion at which we should arrive, but the time has not come for us to announce any conclusion upon this matter and certainly

until we make up our minds as to what attitude we should take, it would not be proper for me to offer any opinion.
Therefore, I have only to say to my hon. friends who have spoken to the House that for my^ part, while making some slight reservation with reference to some of the words of my hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Magrath), I altogether appreciate the spirit in which the remarks have been made by hon. gentlemen who took part in the debate. I am very glad to have their views upon this subject. I do not know that I accept their views altogether. I am not prepared to say that I would act upon them in advising His Excellency as tc. what we should do, but I altogether appreciate the manner in which they have been made and the spirit which inspired them. As my hon. friend from Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster) observed, this is a matter in which the government and people of Canada are very much interested. May I say a word as to the observations which were made by the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Boyce) in which he stated that the Ontario government had interfered in this matter. I do not know that the government of Ontario were well advised when they interfered as they did. When they interfered with regard to the Bill of the Ontario and Michigan Power Company I quite appreciated the ground of their protest, because it was a matter in which, as a government, they were interested, as the Bill might have interfered with the policy which they have declared of developing their water-powers as a matter of provincial rights. When they interfered in the matter of the Canada Life Bill I could not at all appreciate upon what ground they rested. It seemed to me that they were altogether beyond their authority, and, not only beyond their authority, but that they were no where near their authority when they interfered in this matter. It was a matter as to which Sir James Whitney, or Mr. Hanna, or any other gentleman, might offer his opinion, but when the government, as a government, sent in a protest it seemed to me that it was a matter that had not been properly considered. I say as well with regard to this matter that if Mr. Whitney, Mr. Hanna, or any member of the government of Ontario, should offer his opinion we should certainly give it great weight. I may say that Mr. Gibbons had instructions during the time that negotiations were being carried on, to confer with the government of Ontario and with the members of the government of Ontario, and I think he did, because we realized that they were concerned and very Iproperly concerned in a matter of this kind.
Now, Sir, having said this much, I have


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: only to add that the matter is under consideration now, and we are not prepared to say whether we should or should not advise His Majesty the King to ratify this treaty. If the amendment had not been inserted by the Senate I am free to say that for my part I would entertain a strong opinion that we should have ratified that treaty, because after all, although its provisions did not contain as much for us as I would have liked to have, I hold that we must give and take, and I would be disposed, I think, to take that position. I am not sure that I would, but such would have been my inclination. But with the amendment that has been placed in the treaty by the Senate, it is right that we should look carefully into what is implied by that amendment before we make up our mind. That is why at the present time I am not prepared to say what action should be taken by the government.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN (Halifax;. I do not think that any one in the House will have the slightest fault to find with the attitude the Prime Minister has taken in that respect. The treaty has been amended by the Senate of the United States and it is only proper and right that the government of this country should take ample time to consider what their attitude will be in regard to its acceptance or non-acceptance. Indeed I do not think any one on this side of the House expected that the Prime Minister would at thi3 stage of the proceedings make any definite declaration as to what the policy of the government would be, having regard to the somewhat dubi,ms effect of the rider which has been added by the Senate of the United States. I am not prepared, however, to concur in the observations of the right hon. gentleman with regard to what he terms the interference of the province of Ontario. He seems to be utterly forgetful of the fact that the province of Ontario is a riparian owner on these international streams, and why should it not interfere? I would be absolutely astonished if the government of Ontario, thinking that this treaty was detrimental to the interests of that province did not interfere. They would be absolutely false to the duty they owe to the people of the province if they did not put in their protest while there was yet time to make a protest. My friends on. this side of the House consulted me as to whether or not they should speak with regard to this treaty, and I told them that if they had anything to say which would be of assistance to the government in coming to a conclusion with regard to it, it was their bounded duty to speak now when the government could take their representations into consideration, and not to wait until after the government had taken action and

then make their criticism. I say that the government of Ontario have precisely the best possible reason, both on account of their interest and by reason of the doubt as to what the action of this government will be, to make representations. The government of Ontario were absolutely justified, if they thought this treaty was not in the public interest, in making that protest. Did the right hon, gentleman think it would be better for the government of Ontario to wait until the Dominion government bad taken action, and if that action were adverse to the interests of the province, denounce this government in the legislature or upon public platforms? Is it not infinitely fairer and better for them to make their protests now. And, when the right hon. gentleman said that he had instructed the members of this commission to consult the government of the province of Ontario, he absolutely knocked the ground from under his feet and destroyed his whole argument. If it be impertinence now for the government of Ontario to raise their voice in support of what they believe to be the just rights of that province, how was it that the government of Canada instructed this commission to consult with the government of Ontario in regard to the provisions of this treaty. It seems to me that the observations of the right hon. gentleman on this question are inconsistent with each other.
I do not intend to speak at any length upon the matters which have been so fully and ably discussed by my hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Magrath) and my hon. friend from Algoma (Mr. Boyce) and other gentlemen. But, when the Prime Minister criticises the observations of the member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Magrath) and regards his strictures upon the policy and administration of the government as lacking in fairness, I would like to remind him that the member for Medicine Hat simply stated the facts, and I think he stated them fairly. The hon. gentleman drew, as he was perfectly justified in drawing, certain inferences from these undisputed facts. It may be that the right hon. gentleman or other members of the House do not concur in the inferences which have been drawn by my hon. friend, but these inferences cannot be regarded as unfair, and every fact he stated to the House was absolutely beyond dispute.
I notice that my right hon. friend in running over the 'personnel of this commission most skilfully avoided the secretary, Mr. Cot6, a gentleman who is supposed to have ample time and ample ability as well not only to conduct a very influential Liberal journal but also to safeguard the interests of Canada, as secretary of this commission, in respect to a matter that he knows absolutely nothing about so far as I am aware. The government of the United States took a very different course; they appointed as secretary of their commission an experienced man, a man who had long and varied acquaintance with the matters to which this commission must direct its attention. The example of the government of the United States in the appointment of their secretary, in contrast with the action of the Canadian government in the appointment of Mr. Cote-which I say without fear of contradiction can only be regarded as a gross exercise of patronage-the action of the government of the United States stands in splendid contrast with the action of the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues in making such an appointment.
I would like to make another observation with regard to the government of Ontario. Has the right hon. gentleman read his own treaty; does lie know what it contains? Does he know that by its very terms that treaty calls for legislation and that that legislation, dealing as it does with private rights, must as it seems to me, be enacted by the various provinces of Canada where those rights will come into question? I see no escape from that. There is a section in the British North America Act giving power to the government and parliament of Canada to make treaties, and although I have not carefully considered the matter, I would not suppose that that section would confer jurisdiction upon this parliament to carry into effect by legislation, the provisions of this treaty so far as they do affect civil rights. There is a provision in article 2 of the treaty under which citizens of the United States are to be invested with the right in the province of Alberta to maintain an action against any person in that province who may have done anything without the authority of the commission, which shall have resulted in detriment to any person owning land in the state of Montana through the diversion of a stream running across the boundary line.
In other sections of the treaty we have the same thing. We have in article twelve an express provision that:
The high contracting parties agree to adopt such legislation as may be appropriate and necessary to give the commissioners the powers above mentioned on each side of the boundary, and to provide for the issue of subpoenas and compelling the attendance of witnesses.
-and so forth. I would suppose, speaking after a careful examination of the treaty, that if carried into effect it would call for legislation, not only by the parliament of Canada, but also by some of the provinces of Canada; and was it not therefore wise for the government of Ontario, as it is liable to be called on hereafter

by this government to provide legislation for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this treaty, to give the government of Canada their views in regard to the treaty and to say that according to their present judgment it is not in the true interest of that province?
The article of the British North America Act to which I alluded a moment ago is this:
The parliament and government of Canada shall have all powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of Canada or of any province thereof, as part of the British empire, towards foreign countries, arising under treaties between the empire and such foreign countries.
I do not know that any exact construction has ever been put upon that section; but it would seem to me, in the light of its language, that there is at least grave doubt whether or not the legislatures of some of the provinces of Canada must not be called on by this government to implement the provisions of this treaty in case it is ratified.
Might I allude, just for a moment, to a matter which I spoke of earlier in the session-the desirability that treaties of this kind should be made subject to the ratification and approval of this parliament. Some previous remarks of mine on this question were interpreted as casting some reflection on the inperial government and as_ calculated to arouse suspicion in the minds of the people of this country that Canada had not been fairly treated by that government. As I have already explained. I had no such idea. I regard this treaty as one for which the government of Canada alone is responsible. The British government has acted on the advice of the Canadian government in negotiating this treaty, and whatever there may be in it of merit or of matter deserving of censure, is attributable to the government of Canada and not to the imperial government. Therefore in the remarks I make I am not referring in any -way to the imperial government, but solely to the government of this country, whom I regard as absolutely responsible for this treaty. It does seem to me that a treaty of this kind should be made subject to the ratification arid approval of this parliament, and I hope that if this treaty is revised and another is brought down at another session, it will be made subject to the approval of this parliament. It can never be carried into effect without legislation of this parliament, or without legislation of some of the provinces of Canada. Therefore the treaty should be subject to the ratification and approval of parliament in order that it may be fully discussed by the representatives of the people before it becomes binding on the people. I alluded to several instances in which that Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
course was taken, and I may now mention one other. The treaty of 1887 was signed on the 5th of February, 1888; it was sent to the United States Senate on the 20th of February, 1888; it was brought down to the Canadian parliament on the 7th of March, 1888; it was rejected by the United States Senate on the 21st of August, 1888.
I gather from the most authoritative text books that treaties under the following conditions should be made subject to the approval of parliament: First, those imposing any burden on the people; second, those involving any ,change in the law of the land; third, those requiring legislative action to make them effective, or which affect the free exercise of the legislative power; fourth, those affecting territorial rights. Anson in his edition of 1896 referred to the Heligoland treaty between Great Britain and Germany as creating an unfortunate precedent, the British government having ceded the Island of Heligoland sub-iect to the approval of parliament, it being apparently the view of the British government at that time that any treaty involving cession of territory ought to be made subject to the approval of parliament. In view of what has since taken place in Great Britain, I observe that this criticism is entirely absent from the 1908 edition of Anson, in which, at page 107, he says:
We seem to be drawn to this conclusion, that apart from precedents relating to Indian territory, it has of recent years been thought desirable, if not necessary, that the consent of parliament should be given to the cession of territory in time of peace.
Lowell, the new president of Harvard University, in his recent work on the Government of England, at page 22 of volume I, speaking of the power of the Crown, acting upon the advice of the Cabinet, says:
It has power to declare war, make peace and conclude treaties, save that, without the sanction of parliament, a treaty cannot impose a charge upon the people or change the law of the land, and it is doubtful how far without that sanction private rights can be sacrificed or territory ceded.
This treaty must have the effect of altering the law of the land if carried into effect. You must have new laws in regard to actions brought by people in Canada against people residing in the United States or by people in the United States against people domiciled in Canada. It sacrifices private rights to a certain extent- and in respect to various portions of boundary waters it makes a cession of territory. The Heligoland Treaty of 1890 and the Anglo-French Treaty of 1904 were both made subject to the approval of the parliament of Great Britain. The Japanese Treaty of 1906, and the French Treaty of 1907 were made, and I presume the French Treaty of

1909 will be made-subject to the approval of this parliament. Under these precedents and having regard to all the circumstances, I think it would be the wiser course, in dealing with matter of this kind, to make such treaties subject to the approval of parliament. It would have the additional effect of avoiding the unfortunate occurrence of last winter, when this treaty was published in full in nearly every newspaper in this country and the United States, when it was officially before the representatives of the people of this country.
I observe in a report of an opinion of the Attorney General of the State of New York that that eminent authority has declared that the title to the bed of the stream of the American side of the Niagara river and the water flowing over it are in the state of New York. This would seem to indicate that in the United States as well as in Canada legislation for one or more states would be required. For that reason also it should be apparent to the right hon. gentleman that the provinces of Canada as well as the various states of the American republic are directly interested in the terms of this treaty and that legislation of both would be required to carry it into effect.
I would conclude with an observation with regard to the constitution of commissions of this character. The government of Canada could well follow the example of the government of the United States in making such appointments. It should get the very best experts we have in the country to deal with a great international question such as this one, in respect of which both knowledge and experience are absolute necessary. The government of the United States may have been criticised in the past with regard to the administration of its public affairs, but in one thing it has given an example which we would do well to follow in respect to the execution of its public works. It has had its public works executed under the direction of the most eminent - officers of the army of the United States, men of great technical training and experience. For a matter like this Waterways Commission it secures the very best enginering talent and experience in the United States-men having experience, knowledge and training, not only in engineering but in hydraulic engineering. We ought to follow that example in Canada. I do not believe that it would be difficult to get men of the requisite training and experience in Canada; but if we cannot do that, we ought to go outside of Canada for the necessary assistance and advice in respect of great international questions such as this.
I join with the Prime Minister in congratulating my hon. friend from Lethbridge (Mr. Magrath), and the other gentlemen who have spoken on this occasion, not only on the ability, but on the moderation and fairness with which they have presented their views to this House, and I sincerely trust that what has been said this afternoon may prove to be of some service to the government when they come again to consider the provisions of this treaty, and once more submit to parlia-mest their policy with respect thereto.
Motion agreed to and House went into Committee of Supply.
Ocean and mail service between Canada and Great Britain, $600,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is an increase over last year of $50,000, due to the superior service which is now given by the Empresses and the Victorian and the Virginian. The number of passengers carried in 1907 was 60,000, last year 78,000; the tons of freight carried in 1907 were 162,000, last year 225,000.


Mr. CROSBY.: I would like to ask if the government has any control over these steamers. They are paid large subsidies, and in carrying goods from the other side to Halifax, they first call at Halifax and deliver the mail, and then go on to St. John and ship the goods from there to Halifax by rail; charging for them 2s. 6d a ton more than they charge for freight to St. John. In addition to that, and when goods are delivered in the city of St. John, they are very anxious, of course, and rightfully so, to send them to the west as speedily as possible. And you can understand how the eastern freight going back is not as well looked after as the western freight going on. I would; like the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), as he is here, to see to it that a reasonable clause is put into the contract to provide that steamers must land in Halifax the goods intended for Halifax and Nova Scotia, unless other instructions are given. I do not think that is asking too much.


Wilfrid Laurier: No complaint has come to me up to the present time on this point, but I will have the matter looked into.


Adam Brown Crosby: As ai matter of fact, this has taken place. And as a matter of fact, I have spoken of it in this House before. I would like to have some assurance that, if we are going to subsidize boats, the city of Halifax should not be overlooked. It would be easy to provide that goods billed to Halifax should be landed at Halifax.
Steam service between Canada and Mexico upon the Atlantic and Pacific oceans-$100,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Some trade is developing there, is it not?


Wilfrid Laurier: There is a very good trade developing on the At-

lantic, but very little on the Pacific. It is questionable whether the line on the Pacific will be renewed.
Steam service or services between Canada and Newfoundland, $18,000.


Adam Brown Crosby: To whom is that given?


Wilfrid Laurier: To the Reid Newfoundland Company.
Steam service between Canada and New Zealand, $50,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: To what company is that given, and how frequent is the service?


Wilfrid Laurier: It is given to the Allan Line, and thej service is every two months. It is questionable whether it will be renewed this year.
Steam service between Canada and South Africa, $146,000.


Mr. BLAIN.: Has the government any control over the freight rates on these vessels to which we pay subsidies?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Richard Blain: Are rates submitted to the government for approval?


Wilfrid Laurier: Frequently they are. They are always liable . to be submitted if we have complaints. The rates are subject; to revision by us.
Sohooner service twice per month during the season of open navigation between Gaspe basin and north shore of the river and Gulf of St. Lawrence, $1,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: Who has that schooner service?


Wilfrid Laurier: Louis L. Cormier.


Herbert Brown Ames: What tonnage is the schooner?


Wilfrid Laurier: It is 57 tons; speed 8 knots.


Herbert Brown Ames: Does the hon. minister know the name?


Wilfrid Laurier: The 'Sea Star'.
Steam service between Halifax and Canso, $4,000.


Adam Brown Crosby: To whom is that paid?


Wilfrid Laurier: To the Halifax and Canso Steamship Company.
Steam service between Halifax and Newfoundland via Cape Breton ports, $4,000.


Adam Brown Crosby: To whom was/ that paid?


Wilfrid Laurier: Pickford & Black.


Herbert Brown Ames: What is the vessel in that case?


Wilfrid Laurier: 


Wilfrid Laurier: The 'Har-law'.
Steam service between Halifax and Spry bay, $2,500.


Adam Brown Crosby: To whom is that paid?


Wilfrid Laurier: The Halifax and Sheet Harbour Steamship Company.
Steam service from the opening to closing of navigation in 1909 between the mainland and the Magdalen islands, $12,500.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is that the service from Pic-tcu?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Adam Brown Crosby: To what company is that paid?


Wilfrid Laurier: The McClure Company. It is a Pictou firm, I understand.


Adam Brown Crosby: What boat is it?


Wilfrid Laurier: It was formerly the Magdalen Islands Steamship Company, and the steamboat used was the 'Amelia.' That has been changed, but I have not the information as to the other at hand.


Adam Brown Crosby: The 'Amelia' is on another line and subsidized in another direction. I presume that, though we pass the item and grant the subsidy, the government will see to it that they have a proper service and a proper boat on the line.
Steam service between Prince Rupert, B.C., and Jed way, Queen Charlotte islands, $5,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: How does it happen there is so much of an increase over $750?


Wilfrid Laurier: It is a new service altogether. The purpose is the development of the Queen Charlotte islands.
Steam service between Prince Edward island, Cape Breton and Newfoundland, $12,000.


Adam Brown Crosby: What company performs this service, and what is the name of the boat?


Wilfrid Laurier: The Dominion Coal Company. The boat is the 'Buena Vista.'


Adam Brown Crosby: Are they running a boat there to carry coal, or is it a regular passenger boat?


Wilfrid Laurier: They are running a regular service boat. The number of passengers carried last year was 482, and tons of freight, 6,864.


Herbert Brown Ames: The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Crosby) wanted to know if this was a Dominion Coal Company boat, and if she still carries coal?


Wilfrid Laurier: She does.

Steam service during the year 1909, between Quebec and Blanc Sablon, calling at ports and places along the northern shore of the river St. Lawrence between such terminals. $20,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: What is the boat now on that service, and who are the owners?


Six WILFRID LAURIER.: 
Herbert Brown Ames: 
Wilfrid Laurier: They were not paid, I understand. There was a deduction made for that trip, according to the information given me.


Herbert Brown Ames: How much?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know, but I am informed they were not paid.


Herbert Brown Ames: I would call the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that the service this company renders requires very much closer watching than it has had in the past.
feir WILFRID LAURIER. Hear, hear.
Steam service for not less than fifty-two futt round weekly trips between St. John and Halifax via Yarmouth and other way ports, or in the alternative for not less than one hundred full round trips between St. John and Yarmouth during the season of 1909,


Robert Laird Borden: What boat performs that service?


Wilfrid Laurier: The * Amelia '.
. Steam service from the opening to the clos-mg of navigation in 1909 between St. John and Minas Basin ports, $3,000


Henry Robert Emmerson: What steamer is performing that service?


Wilfrid Laurier: The' ' Brunswick '.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Does she run from St. John up to the ports of the Chignecto basin?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: No, to Minas basin.


Richard Blain: What precautions does the government take to see that those who receive these subsidies fulfil their contracts? Is there any special officer appointed?


Wilfrid Laurier: The customs collectors certify to the accounts and to the performance of the service.


Richard Blain: For each trip?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.
Steam service between Victoria, Vancouver, way ports and Skagway, $12,500.


Herbert Brown Ames: What boat is that and what is the company?


Wilfrid Laurier: The company is the Canadian Pacific Railway and the service is performed by the ' Amur,' ' Princess May,' ' Princess Beatrice,' ' Tees,
' Princess Royal ' and ' Queen City.'
Allowance for probable variation in agreements and for additional services, $10,000.


Robert Laird Borden: That seems to be a new item.


Wilfrid Laurier: This is a new vote taken for the purpose of making allowances here and there for which no provision has been made, or for any little service that is required or any excess in the service. It is in the nature of a contingent fund.


Adam Brown Crosby: If you vote a specific sum for a specific service that is the maximum that the steamer should get. There must be some reason why you are putting in this extra $10,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is in the nature of a contingent expenditure given to the Department of Trade and Commerce. They can make some little changes here and there. This is a new vote altogether and it is in the nature of an experiment.


Herbert Brown Ames: What department of the gov-ment is particularly charged with the oversight of these mail services?


Wilfrid Laurier: The Department of Trade and Commerce.


Adam Brown Crosby: I take it that this $10,000 will probably be included to cover any application that is made after the estimates are made up, but I cannot understand why you would have to pay anything beyond what the contract specified to a steamer receiving one of these subsidies because I take it for granted that the maximum amount to be paid is put in the main estimates.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend has hit it right. That is what it is intended for.


Mr. J. D. REID.: Perhaps the Prime Minister could let us hear the latest news from Captain Bernier of the ' Arctic '?


Wilfrid Laurier: Too late this evening.
Trade and commerce-administration of the Chinese Immigration Act, including remuneration to trade and commerce and customs officers, $7,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is an increase of $3,000 due to an increase in the business,


John Dowsley Reid: At what point?


Wilfrid Laurier: Chiefly in British Columbia.


Herbert Brown Ames: Perhaps this is a pertinent place to ask the Prime Minister what is the policy of the government with respect to Mr. AMES.
Chinese students who come here with the intention of pursuing a course in our universities?


Wilfrid Laurier: I may say to my hon. friend that an order in council has been passed within the last few weeks to exempt Chinese students from the capitation tax. Up to the present time they have been subjected to the tax but they are now exempt.


Herbert Brown Ames: What definition do you apply to a student? How do you define a student to be free from the capitation tax.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry I
have not the order in council at hand, but I understand that it is sufficiently broad in its terms to apply to any gentleman who is a bona fide student.


Herbert Brown Ames: Would the minister let us have a copy of the order in council tomorrow?


Wilfrid Laurier: With pleasure.


Adam Brown Crosby: How do you keep track of the students? Are they warehoused or in bond? This is a very serious question and while students may come in here and attend college I would like to know whether they go back or remain here.


Wilfrid Laurier: If my hon. friend will wait until to-morrow I will bring down the order in council. If I were to attempt to explain perhaps I could not do it to his satisfaction or to mine.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought it was regulated by the statute which was passed last year.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand it has been done by a regulation of the Treasury Board approved by order in council.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the statute provides for that.
Trade commissioners and commercial agencies, including expenses in connection with negotiation of treaties or in extension of commercial relations; miscellaneous advertising and printing, or other expenditure connected with the extension of Canadian trade, $85,000.


Robert Laird Borden: When was Mr. Preston removed from Japan to Holland? It came rather as a shock to us the other day to hear he was leaving Japan.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Preston has been applying for more than a year to be removed from Japan for domestic reasons. He has been assigned to Holland within the last month.


Adam Brown Crosby: Who was in Holland before?


Wilfrid Laurier: It is a new
agency.


Haughton Lennox: There is something mysterious about Mr. Preston?


Wilfrid Laurier: How?


Haughton Lennox: Because after we were told the other day that he had gone to Holland one of these trade reports shows that he was still in Japan and the trade reports are supposed to be up to date.


Wilfrid Laurier: The order in council was passed within the last month, but I am not yet informed as to whether he has yet removed to the new sphere of usefulness to which he is assigned.


Herbert Brown Ames: It would appear from one of those official documents that on the 22nd April he was in Hong Kong. Is he taking a preliminary canter to Hong Kong before he goes to Holland?


Wilfrid Laurier: There must be some mistake there.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like io know what grip this man Preston has on the Prime 'Minister. When he was in England we had the North Atlantic Trading Company trouble, and we had continental European immigrants sent out here who were injurious to Canada. Then immediately on his landing in Japan all these Japanese came to British Columbia and the whole country was set wild over his actions there. Now he has gone to Holland and I suppose we will have some trouble with Holland before long. The Prime Minister should have considered seriously before sending him to another country. I believe it would have been better to have sent him to some remote part of China, whence he could not send immigrants and *where he would lose himself. The first thing you know you will have a war between Holland and Canada, and as soon as we get that settled Mr. Preston will be sent somewhere else to cause a row.


Herbert Brown Ames: I cannot help but feel that the natural phlegmatic temperament of the Dutch was taken into consideration in choosing a plaee to which Mr. Preston might be sent. No doubt the cabinet looked the world over very carefully to discover somewhere that Mr. Preston could not stir up trouble. I wrould suggest that Patagonia or Spitzbergen or some such place as that might be assigned to Mr. Preston after he has succeeded in setting Holland on fire. His experience in Japan has been peculiar. He has not been there long but he has succeeded in getting the foreign merchants of Japan at loggerheads, he has managed to fall out with the British Trade Commissioner at the embassy, he has got into lawsuits with several newspapers whom he is suing, and I think there are com-211
plaints from the Kobe and Yokohama boards of trade to this government with respect to Mr. Preston, which we have asked the government to lay on the table, but so far without success. Mr. Preston is irrepressible in his zeal, and his usefulness in Japan having disappeared we may expect that even Holland will become agitated in a year or two, when I suppose Mr. Preston will be removed to some other field of labour. After all the matter is not laughable, because it does not bring the Canadian commercial consular service into good repute. Let me say just a few brief words along that line. If we are ever to build up a Canadian commercial consular service we must endeavour to train men for that service. We .must not take simply politicians for whom we can find no other place, whose whole ability has been displayed in serving the party, and place them in competition in foreign1 lands with men who have been brought up all their lives in diplomatic work. I would recommend in all seriousness to the Prime Minister that this should be the subject of serious consideration in the future. I think the time has come when Canada should begin to train men as trade representatives in different parts of the globe where there is a possibility of our opening up markets. We are rapidly expanding, and we are utilizing within our own markets the greater portion of the goods wTe manufacture. The markets for our foodstuffs have hitherto been comparatively limited, but on the other side of the Pacific the diet of the peoples is changing and the demand for the food products that Canada produces is becoming very rapidly greater. There will be great opportunities for Canadian export trade in parts of the world which we have as yet made no attempt to reach. In order to do that, we need trained men. The merchant who has started to sell his goods in a new country does not take the first man from the street and say to him: Take my samples and go out and get orders. He takes a man who has been all his life in a particular business, who has learned the good points of the wa*es he is called upon to sell, who can place these wares in the most attractive mode before a possible buyer, and who by his superior knowledge oftentimes actually forces his goods upon the buyer. In taking men for our commercial consular service we should select those who have had a business training or who have keen business insight and place them at these points throughout the world where we may expect to do trade. I would like to suggest to the Prime Minister that the time has come when we should attempt to adopt a sort of training school in Canada to equip men for that service. I am sure it would



not be difficult for McGill University or Toronto University or the other universities in the Dominion to establish a course in training men for this commercal diplomatic service, and then, after a few years engaged in some real business enterprise in this country by which they would become acquainted with the goods Canada has to sell, they could introduce these goods in foreign lands. I should like to see the time come when at Sydney, or Melbourne, or Bengal, or Calcutta, and in other parts of the world, there would be going on all the time a sort of small exhibition of what Canada has produced and which could be sold in these countries. The Canadian Commercial agent abroad, if he has his' little exhibit of Canadian products, would constantly be endeavouring to introduce these goods into that country, and soon an increasing export trade would be built up. I bring to the serious consideration of the Prime Minister the thought of training men for the commercial consular service which will some day be an important factor in building up our Canadian export trade.


Adam Brown Crosby: We have a great opportunity for just such men in South America, in the Brazils. We are building up a large trade between Canada and South America, and it would be a great advantage to our merchants who are shipping goods there if we had a Canadian agent to whom we could appeal in case of dispute to see that fair play was given to our trade. I trust that the government will take that matter into consideration.


Wilfrid Laurier: I realize that it would be a great advantage if we had a trained class to draw upon for these agents.
I do not see, however, what action the government can take. The universities might enlarge the scope of curricula to give the necessary information to some of their young men.


Herbert Brown Ames: I think they would do so if they knew there were places for them.


Robert Laird Borden: How many agents are there and where are they stationed?


Wilfrid Laurier: There ate seventeen commissioners. They are stationed at Bristol, Cape Town, Belfast, Mexico, Glasgow, Shanghai, Yokohama, Sydney, Birmingham, Leeds, Hull, Manchester, Durban, Paris, St. John's, Newfoundland, Melbourne, Holland and Bermuda. Then we have commercial agents at Antigma, Nassau, Jamaica, St. Kitts, Christiania and Trinidad.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any systematic arrangement for the forwarding and tabulating of information, or are the results contained in more or less irregular and discursive letters?


Herbert Brown Ames: 


Wilfrid Laurier: There is a complete system of reports which are given to the public every month or week.


Herbert Brown Ames: The difficulty of these reports is that while they appear every week, they are not connected, and they are not tabulated or epitomized at the end of the year. It seems to me the department might as well publish an annual report along these lines.


Robert Laird Borden: Under the consular system of some countries, more particularly Germany, the consul is required to furnish exact and comprehensive information in weekly, monthly and annual reports, which are exceedingly valuable to the government and the exporter in knowing precisely in what way to attack the problem of making an entrance into a foreign market. If our system has not attained that degree of development, I would think it desirable that a very thorough system should be adopted in that regard, with the results of the year's work of every one of these commercial agents published in tabulated form.
To provide for the expense of administering the Act respecting annuities for old age, $25,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: To what extent is that being taken advantage of?


Wilfrid Laurier: Very largely. The following shows the results up to the present time:
Memorandum re Old Age Annuities.
Number of annuitants	 155
Amount of annuities applied for. $ 35,779 02 Purchase money received (to date). 101,287 78
Immediate last survivor (man and wife).- Number, 3; amount of annuities, $1,083.58; purchase money (in full), $12,836.
Immediate, single.-Number, 18; amount of annuities, $3,968.18; purchase money (in full), $12,348.65.
Deferred annuities, single payment.-Number, 26; amount of annuities, $7,218.81; purchase money (in full), $33,624.59.
Deferred annuities (being paid for by a lump sum and periodical payments).-Number, 7; amount of annuities, $1,450; purchase money (to date), $4,811.64.
Deferred annuities (being paid for by periodical payments, weekly, monthly, quarterly, half-yearly or yearly).-Number, 101; amount of annuities, $22,058.45; purchase money (to date), $7,666.90.
Militia and defence-ohargeable to income- pay and allowances, $1,646,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Who is the present commandant at the Royal Military College?


Frederick William Borden: Colonel Taylor; but his term is about to expire, and application has been made to the imperial authorities for a successor. We expect that a new commandant will take charge at the beginning of the next college year in September, or about that time.
m '*


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am bound to say that it is a good thing for the people of Canada that Colonel Taylor is going. If the taxpayers knew as much about him as we do, they would feel that.


Adam Brown Crosby: It has been stated in the city of Halifax that the contracts there for supplies have not been properly handled. It was stated that the firm of Davidson & Fraser some three years ago put in a tender for bacon known as breakfact bacon, and that John F. Outhit had also put in a tender, and that while the former firm sold bacon at nine cents and a fraction a pound, it was sold to the Militia Department by John F. Outhit at between eleven and twelve cents a pound. It was also stated that in the following year Davidson & Fraser had no opportunity to tender, because the contract was given to John F. Outhit without tender. I would like to have some explanation on this matter from the minister.


Frederick William Borden: This matter was thoroughly threshed out at the last session of parliament, and the explanation then given, I think, satisfied the committee. But I will, as well as I can remember it, state the situation. Davis & Fraser are manufacturers of bacon in the city of Halifax. It is the custom of the Militia Department to ask for tenders for bacon, vegetables and other things which make up the rations at the different depots through the Dominion. Davis & Fraser tendered for bacon only, and refused to tender for the other things. Outhit, the successful tenderer, tendered in accordance with the requirements for everything which made up the rations, and his tender being the lowest he got the contract. Now, so far as concerns the statements that Davis & Fraser supplied bacon at nine cents for which Outhit received thirteen cents, that is not correct. I have letters from Davis & Fraser complaining that it is not fair to them that bacon should be brought down to Halifax from Ontario. You may be quite sure that if Davis & Fraser had been supplying the bacon there would have been no fault to find. As a matter of fact they were not supplying it, and that was the whole trouble. As to the statement that a contract was renewed, that is true.


Robert Laird Borden: There was something else. If I recollect well, the charge was that one description of bacon-


Frederick William Borden: The charge that a lower grade of bacon was supplied?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, that one grade was contracted for and a different grade supplied.


Frederick William Borden: That was stated, but that also is untrue. It was pub-211i
lished in the papers-or some of them-in Halifax, but it was not supported by evidence. As a matter of fact, I am informed, it was absolutely unfounded. Every day a competent and reliable officer inspects all the food that is supplied to the men, and no report has ever reached the department that any inferior bacon, or bacon which is not called for by the specifications, has been supplied. These are simple facts, and I give my word for the truth of them. I certainly believe that if inferior bacon had been supplied, the officer would have reported upon it. And it was open to every man, or to any man, in the barracks, who was not satisfied with the food he was receiving, to make the complaint, and that complaint would, of necessity, have been forwarded to me. No such complaint has reached me.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, the men might be satisfied with the bacon, and still you might be paying for a higher grade of bacon and getting a lower one. The hon. minister's argument would not be conclusive. Still, I have not. the information to justify me in making a statement of the case inconsistent with that which the minister has given. But what is the reason that all these articles are tendered for en bloc? That is not the custom with the imperial government.


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: My recollection is that they used to call for tenders, for example, for bread separately from other things. I feel sure that was the case, because I was consulted, when I was practising my profession.


Frederick William Borden: Possibly there may be a separate tender for bread.' I have the form here which will show exactly what I mean.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister (Sir Frederick Borden") will remember this firm supplied Outhit with the bacon there and they produced evidence to that effect, and that the bacon they supplied was not the higher grade specified" in the tender, if I remember well.


Frederick William Borden: They did not give evidence here. This matter came before the Public Accounts Committee, but there was no evidence taken at all. That statement appeared in the newspapers, but there was no evidence to support it. Here is a list of the things for which tenders are asked: Groceries and vegetables-fruit is included; bacon, breakfast; bacon, green; potatoes; beans; jams; butter, cheese; split peas; sugar, and eo on. These are put all together, and one tender is asked for them. And it is much more convenient to the administration of the serI vice at the different depots that this course

should be followed. It would be absolutely impossible-or almost impossible-to carry on the work at these depots with half a dozen contractors running in there every day with these articles. As a matter of fact, this course has been pursued in Great Britain and has always been pursued in Canada at the different stations. Take a man who puts in a tender for all these articles, and another man puts in a tender for one; the man who puts in his tender for the whole makes it up on the expectation of getting the whole contract. If you take away one important item, like bacon, you disarrange all his calculations. It would not be fair to him, and he would probably refuse to enter into the contract.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister is right m saying that this case was before the Public Accounts Committee. But if I recollect well, there were so many cases ahead of it that we never reached it.
^Sir FREDERICK BORDEN. That may


John Dowsley Reid: But was not the evidence printed in the Halifax papers, or the statements given in the papers to the ef-feet that Davis & Fraser had been supply-lng the department for some years with this bacon and supplying that alone?


Frederick William Borden: No, they never supplied the department with bacon.


John Dowsley Reid: If I remember correctly, the tender called for breakfast bacon, and I think there was an affidavit put in to the effect that they were supplying Out-hit with roll bacon, instead of the breakfast bacon, and that this roll bacon went direct to the government in Halifax. And there never was any evidence that I have ever seen from the officials down there or any affidavit produced by the minister here or elsewhere to the effect that Davis & Fraser's affidavits were false. ,


Frederick William Borden: It would
have been only reasonable that Davis & Fraser should establish the proof of their statement. I am very sorry the matter did not come before the Public Accounts Committee, because, I believe, Davis & Fraser were, unintentionally, in error They may have sold Outhit that class of bacon. Outhit is a large dealer and had a large number of customers outside of this particular contract. But I have here in my. hand the letter of Davis & Fraser complaining of the unfairness of bringing in Ontario bacon. They complain that these peopie are supplying goods produced outside the province.' That is their letter written m 1907.


Richard Blain: What was the complaint?


Frederick William Borden: The complaint was that they did not get the con-
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN
tract, that somebody else got it. I have explained that the department required a tender for a number of articles, including bacon, and Davis & Fraser declined to tender for anything but bacon, and their tender was not recognized. Later on the department agreed to give Davis & Fraser an opportunity of tendering for bacon alone. As a matter of fact they did tender, but their tender was not the lowest even then. The contract was given to a Halifax firm of grocers, not to Davis & Fraser, nor to Outhit & Company.	.


Richard Blain: Does the minister think there is anything wrong about Ontario bacon coming into competition with local bacon down there?


Frederick William Borden: I do not think so. As a matter of fact the director of contracts in my department says the bacon is better. Perhaps I ought not to repeat that. I refused to take that narrow view myself, I did not propose to exclude Ontario bacon.


Herbert Brown Ames: Has the minister the letter he sent to them asking them to tender on pork products?


Frederick William Borden: The letter I sent to them was this form I have here, which I read, asking for bacon, vegetables and everything else. They were invited to tender but refused to tender on anything but bacon, when they complained, and this letter is one of their complaints. Finally I yielded to them, they were very persistent, and they were allowed to tender on bacon alone. Their tender was received but it was not the lowest, and they did not get the contract.


Herbert Brown Ames: You evidently sent a letter to him inviting him to tender?


Frederick William Borden: No, we did not invite them to tender, we simply posted advertisements, and then they wrote a letter complaining that the advertisements were not properly posted, and my letter which I have just read was in answer to theirs, saying that the advertisements were properly put up and that every opportunity was given. As a matter of fact on that particular occasion we extended the time to enable them to get tenders in. I was trying to find the names of the people who were the successful tenderers in March last.


Adam Brown Crosby: Bault & Gibson.


Frederick William Borden: Yes, they were the successful tenderers, but they were lower even in bacon than Davis & Fraser.
I do not think there is anything in this story that reflects on the department.


Adam Brown Crosby: I would not have anything to say on this subject were it not for the statement made by the minister in reference to bacon coming into competition with bacon from Nova Scotia, for the purpose of making his Ontario friends feel that he was looking after the interests of Ontario?


Frederick William Borden: Fair play is all we want.


Adam Brown Crosby: If the hon. gentleman only gives fair play we can stand our ground with any province in the Dominion of Canada. I may say if the gentleman who made their tender for this bacon .had got fair play perhaps there might have been another story. I am not attributing anything wrong to anybody, but sometimes a minister cannot know everything that is going on. This contract was called for and these gentlemen made a tender. Now as a matter of fact I know that when the difficulty arose, John F. Outhit & Company went to the factories in Ontario and bought bacon there and brought it down, and they would have bought it there if it had cost them twenty cents a pound, rather than buy from Davis & Fraser after Davis & Fraser had opened up their discussion. Yet it was not better than that manufactured in the province of Nova Scotia. When the time came round, what made Davis & Fraser feel dissatisfied? Mr. Davis, if we are to discuss politics, I think is as strong a Liberal as I know in the city of Halifax; he and his brothers were strong and prominent workers in the Liberal ranks, and held very high positions. I think his brother, the stationer there, holds the position of president or vice-president of the Liberal club and I know that he is chairman of Ward No. 1 or Ward No. 2- I am not sure which. But Mr. Outhit is quite a genius in political warfare. He is not only a genius in political warfare, but he is a genius in many other things. Mr. Outhit is not a grocer or a manufacturer of bacon, nor does he sell bacon I do not know that there is any man in Halifax who has a better knowledge of that kind of thing than myself. We buy more goods of this kind from different dealers in the city of Halifax than perhaps any other firm. We have a large trade with Newfoundland and we buy our goods where we can buy them to the best advantage. We would never thing of going to Johnnie Ouhit for bacon. But we know that Johnnie Outhit is a dealer in potatoes and fruit. I never knew him to be in the grocery business, but the strange part of it is that he came in and got this contract. How did he get this contract? If the minister will look at this contract he will find that while Mr. Outhit was lower on breakfast bacon than Davis & Fraser, he was
not lower on rolled bacon. He beat them out in breakfast bacon, but they supplied the rolled bacon. Then again they have another grievance in the fact that while they had information from the department telling them that they would have an opportunity of tendering again in the following year they did not have that opportunity because tenders were not opened. Now, we will come to the tenders which have just been invited. They asked for tenders for everything in the grocery line. Under the old imperial regime they asked for Tenders for beef separately and I think you do the same?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Adam Brown Crosby: They asked for tenders for bread separately and they asked for groceries not beef, butter and vegetables would be included all together. That was the old system. To-day the tenders for these different articles are divided up. We have large stores that sell nothing but butter and cheese, or bacon, butter and cheese. All grocers sell bacon and particularly the large groceTS. When the department last invited tenders they asked for a tender for green bacon and a tender for breakfast bacon. The difference between green bacon and breakfast bacon is the difference between having it smoked and not smoked. The tender of Ball & Gibson for green bacon was 6 cents and a fraction a pound and the tender for breakfast bacon was somewhere in the vicinity of 14 cents. Putting the two together they could beat any person who might put in a fair tender for that bacon. No one can sell bacon at 6 cents a pound so that when you put the two together they could beat any honest tender that could possibly be put in. The Department of Militia did not get any green bacon, the firm did not have to' furnish any green bacon and you can see how that could be done. The same thing can be done with respect to other articles. There may be a way by which these people can find out whether the department are going to use any green bacon or not. As a matter of fact they never used any and that would be a pretty good indication that they were not going to use any on this occasion. Tenders with regard to flour and other things could be made up in the same way. These people had a knowledge of how the rations were made up in the Department of Militia and Defence. They got the contract. Some dissension was caused on the part of men who were tenderers for the rations on account of this firm getting the contract, and they think that there must be collusion in some way or other on account of a firm like Ball & Gibson which is a reliable firm, tendering to supply green bacon at 6 cents a pound, when they knew that it would be impossible under the market



[Stage Direction]
conditions to-day or for the last five years for any firm to supply bacon at that price. Therefore, they naturally came to the conclusion that they got some information on the inside that nobody else got. Whether that he true, or whether there is anything in it or not, I am not prepared to say, and I am not prepared to stand here and question the department, but, nevertheless, the facts are as I have stated them, and if the minister desires to make an inquiry he will find that what I have stated is true with regard to the actual cost of that character of bacon to-day. He .will also find that at present the department does not use that class of bacon. Therefore, I say these dissensions are brought about because, perhaps not by the fault of the department, there is a feeling abroad that an opportunity is given to those on the inside which others do not enjoy. A firm down there wrote to me upon this matter, and I went to the department and got a copy of the contract. The deputy minister was good enough to give it to me and was anxious indeed to give me all the information he could. I sent a copy down to these people and they wrote back that they had nothing to say any further than that the firm which secured the contract had some inside information and they thought that there was doubtless room for suspicion. In the case of Davis & Fraser they still think they have been shut out from having an opportunity, because, having been asked before by the department to tender for bacon alone, it was intimated to them that if their tender was lower for bacon alone the bacon would be taken from them. They gave me to understand that that was the case and the little disturbance which they made was the result of their being shut out. With regard to government contracts you cannot have too much light thrown upon the circumstances and conditions surrounding them if you want men to tender lor these contracts at all. If the Militia Department have not been in the past inviting tenders for such articles as bacon, butter, cheese and beef separately these might very well be separated from vegetables and groceries, but that is a matter for the department itself.
Frederick William Borden: My hon. friend will agree with me that a man who fails to get a contract is always disposed to consider himself an injured party and to feel that there has been some conspiracy against him. That is human nature. If Mr. Davis was one of the leading Liberals of Halifax, it is not probable that I would be disposed to enter into a conspiracy to keep him from getting the contract. On the face of it that upsets the idea that there is any political pull. The hon. gentleman has said that Outhit is not even a grocer; neither are Davis & Fraser. In the Mr. CROSBY.
tender there is a list of articles including bacon, groceries, vegetables and fruit. Out-hit is a dealer in fruit and vegetables; Davis and Fraser are dealers in bacon; Outhit sees fit to conform to the requirements of the tender and although not a grocer or a manufacturer of bacon he tenders for everything on the list. It was open to Davis & Fraser to do exactly the same thing; they did not see fit to do it; they have themselves to blame.


Adam Brown Crosby: You gave them an opportunity of tendering for the bacon alone.


Frederick William Borden: Afterwards. My hon. friend says that Bauld's prices were not lower than Davis & Fraser, except by combining two prices, namely, the price of the kind of bacon which is used and the kind which is not used, and that by putting these two prices together and striking an average Bauld's price was lower than that of Davis & Fraser. That is absurd; the average could only be made


Adam Brown Crosby: I was speaking of the last tender with reference to which they made some complaint about putting the prices together.


Frederick William Borden: Well, how could an average be reached except by taking the quantities of each kind of bacon, adding the prices together and thus getting the average price. If there is no bacon used of one kind then there would be no price and no quantity of that kind of bacon included.


Adam Brown Crosby: You put it in the tender.


Frederick William Borden: Yes, but my hon. friend says the average was reached by putting the high price and the low price together, and I am pointing out that is impossible.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What quantities of each kind of bacon do you ask them to tender for?


Frederick William Borden: I do not know, but I am going to show my hon. friend he is mistaken in his premises. As a matter of fact, Bauld's price for breakfast bacon was 13J cents and the next lowest price was 13J cents, and therefore on this very item of breakfast bacon, which is the bacon chiefly used, Bauld was the lowest and it does not matter what the other price was.


Adam Brown Crosby: They got the contract on the average price of the bacon and groceries all the way through, and in that the 6 cents bacon figures.


Frederick William Borden: Yes, but notwithstanding that, and notwithstanding that we allowed Davis & Fraser to tender on bacon alone, on their own ground

they were beaten, because their tender was higher on bacon than the tender of Bauld. These are the simple facts.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Did they tender on these figures irrespective of the amount they might be asked to supply?


Frederick William Borden: Ye3.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They understand they may be asked to supply any quantity at these figures.


Frederick William Borden: That is it.


Adam Brown Crosby: Their complaint is, and I do not say it is true, that Mr. Outhit was supplying roll bacon in place of breakfast bacon, and they say they can prove that.


Frederick William Borden: That is the allegation, but I do not think it is true.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the minister briefly state the system adopted in Nova Scotia for military training in the schools?


Frederick William Borden: An agreement has been reached by which the Department of Militia undertakes to supply instructors to all the schools and colleges in Nova Scotia, in which school teachers are prepared for their work, provided the Educational Department of the province of Nova Scotia will require from everybody who asks for a license to teach, a qualification in the teaching of physical and military drill. In the case of female teachers it would 'of course be physical training only, and in the case of male teachers there would be military drill and rifle shooting for those in the higher grades. The Educational Department of the province is to make it compulsory upon all who apply for license to teach, to qualify just as they would qualify in reading, writing and arithmetic.


Robert Laird Borden: That will be in the shape of a binding agreement?


Frederick William Borden: It is now, and I would be happy to send the leader of the opposition all the papers on the subject.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to see them very much; it is very interesting.


Frederick William Borden: I have every reason to believe and I hope that the system will be adopted by all the provinces.


Adam Brown Crosby: Is the same work going on this year as hitherto at McNab's island?


Frederick William Borden: I think practically the same.
Ocean and river service-maintainanoe and repairs to government steamers and icebreakers, $476,250.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The following are the steamers: ' Montcalm,' ' Aberdeen,' ' Lady Laurier,' ' Lansdowne,' ' Champlain,'
* Druid,' ' Minto,' ' Stanley,' and ' Quadra '.


Robert Laird Borden: Is any employment given to these ice breakers during the summer months? I would like to get some information as to the actual net results of the service of these vessels. Is the scheme to be regarded as a practical success so far as opening navigation earlier, or keeping it open later is concerned?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: These vessels are used not only during the winter but during the summer. At present the 'Montcalm' is in drydock, but in the spring she generally goes in the Cabot strait to meet the incoming vessels. She is also used during the summer to deliver provisions to the different lighthouses, especially in the strait of Belle Isle. In regard to the result of the work of these ice breakers, the 'Montcalm' gave very good results this year. She started in January at Cap Rouge, near Quebec, where an ice bridge of 20 or 25 feet in thickness is formed in the narrow part of the river, and she succeeded _ in breaking the ice jam, the result of which has been to prevent the flooding which formerly occurred in the upper part of the St. Lawrence and at the same time to open navigation about a fortnight earlier than usual.


John Dowsley Reid: I see that there were extensive repairs done to the 'Stanley,' costing a total of $93,103.78.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The 'Stanley' was sent last year to Glasgow to have new boilers and machinery put in by the original builders of the vessel. The vessel was built nearly twenty years ago, and these repairs were necessary.


Richard Blain: It seems to me that that work could have been done in Canada.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am informed that the vessel could not go through the canals, and the work could not be done at the works at Collingwood.


John Dowsley Reid: What is the system in vogue of purchasing supplies for all these vessels?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have made contracts with the captains and in some cases with the stewards to provision the crew at the rate of 60 cents per day for the officers and 50 cents per day for the men.


John Dowsley Reid: It seems to be that under that system the crew would be liable not to be properly fed.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This system has been in force for some years on our dredges and on the St. Lawrence fleet, and the results

have been satisfactory. We have had very few complaints. We have prepared a bill of fare for each day of the week, and those who have the contracts are required to live up to that standard, and the crews know exactly what to expect. I agree, however, with a good deal of my hon. friend's criticism, about giving these contracts to the captains-so much so, that in discussing the question with the officers of the department I came to the conclusion that it would be better to give them to the stewards, so that if the members of the crew were not properly fed, they could complain to the captain and he would have the decision.


John Dowsley Reid: When did that system come into force?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: During the winter season, when we p>ut the * Stanley ' and the ' Minto ' into commission on the Northumberland straits route.


Adam Brown Crosby: Did the minister make any effort to have the 'Stanley' repaired on this side?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am informed that the engines and boilers could not be made on this side. I am informed that they could not. be made in Halifax.


Adam Brown Crosby: I want to tell the hon. gentleman that in Halifax they can do any work that can be done in any other part of the world. If the hon. gentleman looks at his accounts, he will find that in the last ten years large sums of money have been paid for engine and boiler work in Halifax. The steamers of the Black line, and the Dominion coal boats all get their repairs in Halifax, and I am surprised that the minister, who knows Halifax very well, should make that statement. We have in Halifax one of the best docks in the world, equipped with the very best machinery for constructing as well as repairing vessels. In New Glasgow we have a forge that _ can make any kind of shaft that is required. It is impossible to discuss this matter at this late hour; but it is simply an outrage that this ship should be sent to Scotland for repairs when we have plenty of men and facilities for doing the work in Halifax.


Haughton Lennox: Does the minister know how much it cost to take that vessel to Scotland and bring her back again? Because I see that in some of the accounts it cost a great deal, after we purchase a vessel, to bring it out to Canada.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I understand it would cost about $7,000.


Haughton Lennox: The two trips, or a single trip?


Mr. BRODEUR  .@: 


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, over and return.


John Dowsley Reid: Seven thousand dollars each way?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, so I understand.


Haughton Lennox: There are a number of members absent to-night who wish to discuss items of the minister's estimates. I do not know which items they wish to deal with, but I suppose we can arrange to have the discussion go on at a later stage.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, we might leave one item.


Haughton Lennox: With the understanding that any item may be discussed when that is before the committee?


Adam Brown Crosby: Yes, we must have an item reserved. Otherwise, we could not let this go by? It is only out of deference to the minister that we leave the discussion over.


John Dowsley Reid: At page O-20 of the Auditor General's Report, under the head of ' Dominion Steamers-' Lansdowne ', I see:
' Lord Kitchener ' and owners, St. John; charter of steamer from April 36, 1967, to September 2, 1907, and from September 9 to October 9, 1967, at $125 a day, $19,625.
What was this steamer doing? And does the amount paid include the wages and maintenance of the crews? Or had these to be paid for besides the $125 a day?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This vessel was chartered for the purpose of assisting in the buoy service in the Bay of Fundy. The $125 a day included the wages of the crew, the fuel and all expenses.


Robert Laird Borden: Why did not one of the government boats perform this service?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Because we have not enough boats for that purpose. Since we have provided aids to navigation in that section, as well as on the Atlantic coast, we have been obliged to employ more boats. For example, in Halifax, we must have two boats, the ' Lady Laurier ' and the ' Aberdeen.' And, in the Bay of Fundy, we had only the ' Lansdowne ', an old boat, which was not sufficient for the service.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the actual fighting strength of our navy?-how many boats are there?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think there are fifty-three.


John Dowsley Reid: Including the ' Arctic ' and the ' Maisonneuve '?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Mr. BARNARD.: And all the chartered boats?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, the boats belonging to us number fifty-three.
Further amount required for the construction of the icebreaker for Northumberland straits, $150,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Who has that contract?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I will get the figures in a few minutes. Her length is 279 feet, beam 46 feet, draught 18 feet and indicated horse-power 6,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Can the minister tell me what the specifications were when the tenders were first called for. It strikes me it was 275 feet long and 45 feet beam, or something like that.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Vickers, Sons & Maxim. Mr. J. D. REID. What will it cost?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 


John Dowsley Reid: Delivered on this side? Mr. BRODEUR. Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: When will she be delivered?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In August or September.


John Dowsley Reid: What will you name her?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: ' Earl Grey.'


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I recall what my hon. friend (Mr. J. D. Reid) is alluding to. Somebody stated to me that there had been a change in the specifications. That is absolutely erroneous. As this was a matter of great importance to have a first-class boat, the question of her dimensions was referred to the British authorities, and there the plans were revised. The question arose as to what beam she should have, but on consultation with the best authorities, it was decided that the beam should be that mentioned-46 feet. I remember that somebody said there was a change, but there never was any change made.


Adam Brown Crosby: Did the minister make any effort to have that boat built in Halifax?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We advertised in the newspapers, and nobody in Halifax tendered.


Adam Brown Crosby: How were tenders called for?-by circular or by newspaper advertisement?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Advertisement in the public press.


Adam Brown Crosby: I am surprised to hear that. I know of a firm that were prepared to tender, and I understand they communicated with the department with that view. However, I take what the minister says for the present and will make some inquiries.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend (Mr. Crosby) will find the advertisement in several Canadian newspapers. We received four tenders.


Adam Brown Crosby: Was it published in the Halifax papers?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have no detailed information, but I am sure it must have been.


Adam Brown Crosby: What time would that be?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think it was in the beginning of 1908.


John Dowsley Reid: Perhaps the minister will send us the names of the papers and also the names of the tenderers?


John Dowsley Reid: I was told at the time that the department asked for tenders from the Canadian firms, and the minister has just read out a list of Canadian firms. He was anxious to give this tender to Canadian firms, so anxious that he took good care to give them opportunities to tender. The steamer was 278 feet long and 45 feet deep. When it was shown that the parties tendering could do it, the specifications were changed, and called for a boat one foot longer and one foot more beam, with the result that it was impossible for the Poison Iron Works or the Collingwood Ship Building firm to send a boat of that size through the locks. The matter was then up, so far as our Canadian firms were concerned, and the contract went quietly over to the old country. That is the story I have heard, and I believe it is true. I have been through the Collingwood works myself, and I am satisfied that the Collingwood Dry Dock Company can build a boat equal to anything that is built in the world. I saw a steamer there that was launched this spring, I think it is called the ' Hammonic,' one of the finest steamers, I think, in the world, of her class. They claim she is equal to any of the White Star Line steamers. I am satisfied the minister would not tell the manager of the Collingwood Dry Dock, or even of the Poison Dry Dock Company, who I believe are equally able to build, that they could not build a steamer suitable for that work on the Atlantic between Prince Edward Island and Halifax.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I will.


John Dowsley Reid: Have you given the length and beam of that steamer?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The story the hon. gentleman heard is a mistake; there was no change made in the specifiations.

Rewards for life saving, including lifesaving stations, $39,600.


John Dowsley Reid: Are there any life saving stations on Lake Ontario east of Toronto?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There are stations at Collingwood, Goderich, Kincardine, Longue Pointe, Poplar, Port Hope, Port Colborne, Port Rowan, Port Stanley, Toronto, Wellesley and Wellington.


George Henry Barnard: What is the situation with regard to the life boat that was wrecked on the west coast of Vancouver island? Has she been repaired, or what has been done with it?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have put a temporary boat there, and we are asking for prices for a new boat. The boat was wrecked about a couple of months ago.
as the life boat is concerned this item is to pay for a life boat .propelled by oars to cover an inhospitable coast line of fifty or sixty miles. The department should have taken that matter up and had that boat repaired at once or put a new one on. Can the minister give any information as to the circumstances under which that boat was wrecked?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My information is that the boat was left in an exposed condition, that the crew was on shore and that there was no one in charge of the boat at all. The men who should have been in charge were not there and they have been dismissed.


John Dowsley Reid: If the boat was wrecked what use would you have for them?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We would need a crew for a new boat.


George Henry Barnard: How long does it take to get a tender?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We require a special boat with a special design, and it takes some time to get a tender.


George Henry Barnard: Does the minister know what injuries were done to the boat?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hull was broken to pieces, but the engines were left in a fair condition, and we are communicating with the manufacturers to find out whether we can use them again.


George Henry Barnard: Have you a crew for the surf boat?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Certainly.


Mr.   .T. D. REID@: What kind of a steamer was this that was wrecked and what would the cost of it be?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It was a gasoline boat and the cost was, I think, $25,000. It was a surf boat.


John Dowsley Reid: The whole crew went away, left that boat and let it get wrecked?


George Henry Barnard: In the meantime that whole coast is practically without protection, and it is a dangerous coast. It is a matter that requires some haste.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We are trying to act as fast as possible. We have now a regular life surf boat stationed there, which will meet the purpose if there is any accident. It is an ordinary surf boat propelled by oil.


George Henry Barnard: The coast is from 50 to 70 miles long, and we have had no protection there from February until this time.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is a life boat there now, and besides we have been building the * Trail,' so that in case of accidents we may be notified, and that the lives of those who are exposed in a wreck may be saved.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is unfortunately what happened.


John Dowsley Reid: I think we should know the names of the persons who recommended these men as being qualified to take charge of that boat.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know whether we have the names of those who recommended them, but I suppose they must have been recommended by sopie persons in the locality.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister last year admitted that he had a committee in different places which recommended persons for positions in his department-the Liberal committee in different places.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I never said that.


George Henry Barnard: As far as the 'Trail' is concerned it is another question. Work was stopped and there was no appropriation made for a continuation of it in the original estimates. It was only after pressure was brought to bear on the government that provision -was made in the supplementary estimates for continuing the 'Trail.' As far Mr. BRODEUR.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to know if it was the Liberal committee in Victoria or Vancouver that recommended these men.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No.


John Dowsley Reid: Then the minister must admit that it was the member.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In cases like that, if there is a member representing a constiu-ency in sympathy -with the administration, we generally get recommendations from him.


John Dowsley Reid: What member represents that constituency?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think it is in Comox-Atlin and it would then be represented by Mr. Sloan.


John Dowsley Reid: We take it for granted that Mr. Sloan, the ex-member, was the gentleman who recommended these men for positions on that steamer?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not say that he recommended them, but in the ordinary course of business this is the way it is done.


John Dowsley Reid: Either the minister did not have confidence in Mr. Sloan and declined to accept his recommendation as the representative of the constituency or, for some other reason he selected these men on some one else's recommendation. I would like the minister to say whether he treated Mr. Sloan in that way or whether he always carries out those recommendations.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It sometimes happens in sections of the country which are far from settlements that our officers select the employees. It would not be a question of patronage but ipurely a question of finding proper men to carry on the wotk.


George Henry Barnard: Would the officers be instructed to take recommendations from the Liberal committees or associations.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know.


George Henry Barnard: The minister would surely know what instructions were given to the officers and his department.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know what may be passing between the member and the persons living in the locality.


George Henry Barnard: I would take it that the members of the different- constituencies do not give instructions to the officers of the department, that the instructions to the officers would be given by the minister?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


George Henry Barnard: Did the minister instruct the officers of the department to get recommendations before making these appointments from the local associations?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, I never gave any such instructions.


George Henry Barnard: Then, we are to understand that these officers are not entitled to appoint any person they like irrespective of any recommendation?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No. When there is a vacancy they simply notify the department and we give them the names of persons whom they may employ. Sometimes we give them instructions to employ whomever they can find. Sometimes they make recommendations themselves.


George Henry Barnard: How many life boats are there on the west coast of Vancouver island?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There are life boats at Victoria, Clo Ose, Bamfield, Ucluelet and Clayoquot and some other places.


George Henry Barnard: Is the minister sure he is correct in that?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, life saving stations.


George Henry Barnard: How many men are there employed at these stations?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The general organization is a coxswain in charge of the station, and he engages the members of the crew.


George Henry Barnard: These men are paid by the department?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, for the drill.


George Henry Barnard: How many men on the pay-roll for that work?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have not the information.


George Henry Barnard: That information is necessary in considering this item.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: At Bamfield the coxswain gets $75 a month, $50 for the engineer and $45 for two men; at Clayoquot, $60 per month and volunteers 50 cents per hour, and so on at the other stations.


George Henry Barnard: There are boats at these stations?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


George Henry Barnard: And also at Victoria and Esquimalt?	>


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, the boat is in
charge of the Victoria life saving association.


George Henry Barnard: Is there one at Esquimau?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have not the information with regard to Esquimalt. I understand there are auxiliary arrangements, as well as the large stations.


George Henry Barnard: What is the auxiliary arrangement?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is an arrangement with the fishermen.


George Henry Barnard: Then the government does not maintain these life boats?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Not in these auxiliary places.


George Henry Barnard: What life boats does the minister maintain?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Bamfield, Victoria, Clayoquot, Clo Ose and Uclulet.
Investigation of wrecks, $9,060.


John Dowsley Reid: Who discharges the duties of wreck commissioner now?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Nobody is formally appointed. Admiral Kingsmill and Captain Demers are for the present making the investigations. We have not been able to find a suitable man for the position.


Adam Brown Crosby: You can find plenty of them in Nova Scotia.


John Dowsley Reid: WTiat do these two. gentlemen do?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Admiral Kingsmill is in charge of the fishe^ protection service, and Captain Demers is chief examiner of masters and mates.
Removal of obstruction in navigable rivers,


Adam Brown Crosby: The owners of wrecks are supposed to remove them.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: They are obliged by law to do so, but in some cases we have taken steps to remove them ourselves. In some cases we have taken action against the owners of the vessels to recover when they are known. In other cases there is not enough left to meet the expense and we have taken this vote.
Tidal service, including an amount to maintain tbe surveying steamer ' Gulnare,' in commission for an additional month to finish investigation of currents in Northumberland strait, and to complete the requirements for deep sea anchorage, $42,500.


Some hon. MEMBER.: Carried, carried.


Robert Laird Borden: We will have to have order or there will not be another item passed to-night. This sort of thing must be stopped at once. Mr. Chairman, I am
directing yeur attention


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I must be allowed to read the item; I have not yet had the opportunity to fully read it.


Robert Laird Borden: I think you should keep order instead of reading the item.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon gentleman is criticising the Chairman's method of conducting the business of the committee, which I regret.


John Dowsley Reid: And I think it is deserving of criticism.


Robert Laird Borden: Now that you have read the item I wish to point out to the Minister of Finance that we are trying to expedite_business, but we will have to have order. I hope my hon. friend will appreciate that.


William Stevens Fielding: I am appreciating it by keeping absolute silence myself.
To continue subsidy for wrecking plant in Quebec, maritime provinces and British Columbia, $36,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have contracts with three companies for the purpose of maintaining wrecking plants, and pay them each a subsidy of $10,000 a year.


Robert Laird Borden: To what extent do these companies compete with private enterprise?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: These wrecking plants are for the special purpose of looking after the wrecks, and of course they might compete with persons engaged in the same business. We were asked for several years to establish that plant. For the Atlantic coast we have a contract with the Dominion Coal Company, which has placed at our disposal several boats which are generally under steam and kept available for use in case of a wreck.


Adam Brown Crosby: What boats have they there?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The 'Douglas Thomas.'


Adam Brown Crosby: What apparatus has she for wrecking?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: She has pumps and all the necessary apparatus and must keep up steam and be ready at all times to go to a wreck.


Adam Brown Crosby: As a matter of fact, the ' Douglas Thomas ' is a tow boat employed the whole time by the Dominion Coal Company. She is never idle for an hour, and would not have time to go to a wreck. She may be towing to Halifax or Montreal, and may not he available when she would be wanted.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The main obligation they are under is to have a boat always under steam and available in ease of an accident. I am surprised to hear that this boat goes to Montreal, unless the company has another boat available at Sydney. I will make inquiries as to that.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there a written contract with regard to these vessels?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it would be well for the minister to look into the question of the fulfilment of the contract in all these cases.


John Dowsley Reid: When was this contract made on the Atlantic coast?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: A year or two ago.


John Dowsley Reid: The reason I ask is that the minister was urged to have something of this kind done there, and for two or three years Captain Leslie, of Kingston, wfio is well-known to be one of the best wrecking men in Canada, had been asking the minister to grant the subsidy. He had a steam barge, a dug, a pontoon, and a complete wrecking outfit, and I cannot understand why he was not considered when, this contract was made. I would like to know why the contract was given to the Dominion Coal Company instead of to him?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I remember that he tendered for the service but it was felt that the Dominion Coal Company was better equipped, because they had several boats to place at our disposal.


Adam Brown Crosby: The ' Douglas Thomas ' no doubt complies with the terms of the contract in regard to being always under steam, but where she could be found would be difficult to say, because she is constantly employed in towing. She does most of her towing up the St. Lawrence now, and it would probably take her a few days to get to a wreck on the Atlantic coast.
Mr. A1ACKENZIE. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he knows of any barge of the Dominion Coal Company which comes up the St. Lawrence? I venture to state that the 'Douglas Thomas' never comes up the St. Lawrence at all.


Adam Brown Crosby: That does not interfere with the fact that she does take barges up the St. Lawrence, and as she is always engaged in towing, she could not give any attention to a wreck.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the minister, the next time his estimates come up,
will bring down, not the whole of these contracts, but the effective portion which describes what he wants the parties to do.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I will get them to-morrow.
To provide for the maintenance of vessels employed in patrolling the waters in the northern portion of Canada, also for establishing and maintaining police and customs ports on the mainland or islands, $59,000.


Robert Laird Borden: What portion of the fleet is working at this?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The 'Arctic.'


John Dowsley Reid: Has the minister heard from Captain Bernier lately?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No.


John Dowsley Reid: When do you expect him back?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: A year from now.


Haughton Lennox: What service is he engaged in?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: He was to start from Greenland and follow the shore for some distance and then cross to Lancaster Sound and make explorations of the islands, collecting customs dues or license fees from the whale fishermen in those waters.


Haughton Lennox: What was the amount of the last return of those collections made?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think he collected $500.


John Dowsley Reid: What is this amount for?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The provisioning of the 'Arctic' and the expenses of the trip.


John Dowsley Reid: When the 'Arctic' started out, the minister stated that she had provisions for three years. Yet she came back after having been away one year; therefore she must have had two years' provision on board. Last year an amount was voted in the estimates to supply here with a year's provisions.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the hon. member is mistaken. She had some articles supplied for twenty years, and one particular article for between 170 and 180 years.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is this sum all for the 'Arctic'?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, but I understand that we have sent some coal also to the Hudson Bay this year.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not understand. The 'Arctic' was provided with fuel and everything when she left. And here is about $60,000 which the minister says is

for her. I would like to know what it is
to be spent for?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I see there is an increase here of $9,000, which would appear as an increase for the current year. This was incurred last year and has to be provided for in this estimate. It is to pay for provisions purchased before the boat started.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister does not understand what I mean. The ' Arctic ' must have had three years' supplies on board, for that is what the minister told us when making explanation before. He told us the vessel started off for three years, but when she came back in one year the minister said she had two years' supplies on board.	[DOT]


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: She has been away three years now.


John Dowsley Reid: But when she started out everything was paid for and it was all on board. And now the minister asks for $50,000 for the maintenance of that vessel. But I cannot understand where the money is going, for the 'Arctic' has her provisions aboard.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have to pay for the crew. The hon. member says that last year the 'Arctic' had three years' provisions, and she should have these provisions yet. But he must understand that she has been away three years. She went first to Hudson bay and spent a year there, then she went to the northern islands, and through Lancaster sound, and spent a. year there. She will have been gone four years by the time she gets back. We have to pay for the men and also for the provisions bought last year, as I have explained.


John Dowsley Reid: All right. We will get it all next year from Captain Bernier when he comes back.
To provide for the organization of a naval militia and expenses in using the cruiser ' Canada ' as a training ship, $10,000.


George Henry Barnard: What is this item to he used for exactly, and what is the extent of this training school?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: So far, I must say, it is somewhat rudimentary. We have the 'Canada,' upon which are about fifty or sixty young men who are being trained in gunnery and seamanship. In the winter these men are trained in the yard in Halifax. The 'Canada' is engaged in the fisheries protection service.


Adam Brown Crosby: How are these young men engaged?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Most of them are ordinary sailors. We have, however, two or three cadets on the boat.


John Dowsley Reid: 


Adam Brown Crosby: That is what I am speaking about. How are these men engaged?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: On the recommendation of the minister.


Adam Brown Crosby: If a man wanted to have his son put on that boat, should he make application to the minister?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, and the minister would be glad to consider the application. We expect, when we have our navy, which will probably be started soon, many of these young men will come. So far, we have received only three applications which have been granted. Just now, we could not consider many more, as the space is limited. But we shall probably have a training ship on the Pacific coast and perhaps one on the Atlantic, and we shall be glad to consider the applications of young men who wish to become part of our naval organization.


George Henry Barnard: What steps have been taken to obtain a training ship for the Pacific coast?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am in negotiation with the British admiralty in regard to it.


George Henry Barnard: What is the policy of the minister on that point?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have provided for a cruiser on the Pacific coast, and perhaps I can get from the admiralty a suitable vessel for the purpose we have in view.


George Henry Barnard: The minister is in negotiations for a man of war?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: A cruiser, for the purpose of a training ship and to be used in the fishery protection service.


George Henry Barnard: If I may ask the question without being indiscreet, what is the likelihood of these negotiations culminating in the near future?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I expect to be able to complete them when I go across.


George Henry Barnard: Will it take as long as it does to let the contract for the fisheries protection cruiser? That has been in the estimates three years, and so far we have only got to the point where the minister can tell us that he hopes to let the contract before long.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It was probably my strong desire to place the contract with a Canadian firm that caused the delay. We called for tenders, but Canadian builders asked us to delay, beacuse they thought they would be able to tender on a somewhat different specification. We changed the specifications for the purpose of meeting their view.


George Henry Barnard: 
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have other ships there on the Pacific coast. We seized an American vessel the other day.


George Henry Barnard: With regard to that, the minister knows that his officers have been reporting since 1905 that the ships he has out there for the fisheries protection service are absolutely inadequate, they have stated time and again that the vessel we have got there is no use at all. It is a most exceptional case when she can catch a poacher. We lost a prize last year worth $70,000, and in 1907 another prize worth $30,000, because the ' Kestrel * is too slow to catch the poachers. In 1907 the minister promised Mr. Sloan, then member for Comox-Atlin, to give them a cruiser that year. The people are tired waiting for this cruiser. I would like the minister's assurance that the cruiser will be built this year.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I cannot say whether we will build this year or purchase one. But the government has decided to put an additional boat there for the purpose of protecting the fisheries.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Haughton Lennox: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: We will take up Bills and resolutions which stand on the Order Paper, including the Insurance Bill. Later in the day, if time permits, we will go into Committee of Supply, Marine and Fisheries first.


John Dowsley Reid: Is it the intention to press the Insurance Bill through this session?


William Stevens Fielding: I have received many intimations which lead me to believe that it is the desire of the House that the Bill should be considered and disposed of. If there is any general feeling that the Bill cannot be disposed of, I will not press it.


John Dowsley Reid: Will the House sit tomorrow night?


William Stevens Fielding: There is no arrangement to the contrary.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1.55 a.m. Saturday.
[Stage Direction]
Saturday, May 15, 1909.
The SPEAKEE took the Chair at Eleven o'clock.

Frederick William Borden: Before the Orders of the Day are called, might I ask my hon. friend the Minister of Eailways whether he has any further information respecting a question I mentioned some time ago- the report and recommendations of the tribunal appointed under the Conciliation Act respecting the status and position of certain officials of the Intercolonial Eail-way?


George Perry Graham: As I stated on several occasions, the conciliation board made recommendations which included the dismissal of 25 per cent of the freight clerks. It is rather difficult, among some hundreds of men, and takes a good deal of time to get through the work of organization and find out who should be retired and who should be retained. I have handed the matter over entirely to the board of management and asked them to deal with it as rapidly as possible.


Frederick William Borden: Some correspondence I have received seems to question the minister's statement as to the number of persons whose dismissal would be involved. They seem to think that the percentage has been greatly overrated. I am not sufficiently familiar with the report or the condition of the road to express any opinion, but thought it only right to bring this to the attention of the minister.


SUPEEME COUET BENCH OF NEW BEUNSWICK-VACANCIES.
Mr.  O. S.@: CEOCKET (York, N.B.) When may we expect appointments to be made to fill the vacancies on the Supreme Court Bench of the province of New Brunswick? There are two vacancies, one caused by the retirement of Mr. Justice Gregory, and the other by the death of Mr. Justice Han-nington. That leaves the bench with only four judges, one of whom is the Chief Justice and Judge of the Equity Court, so that there are available for nisi prius work, and the common law side of the Court only three judges. I have several letters from members of the bar calling attention to the fact that the administration of justice will be greatly crippled if these vacancies are not soon filled. I would also point out that there is at present no judge residing in the capital of the province or in the whole northern district of the province. When the appointments are made

I trust the government will make some provision for the residence of at least one judge in the city of Fredericton.


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: I quite recognize that in all our provinces our courts are certainly not overmanned, so that when any vacancy occurs, there necessarily will be more or less-I hope less rather than more-obstruction of the work of the courts for the time being. But in the present instance, at all events, there has been no avoidable delay. There are at present two vacancies in the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, and the earliest one took place only two weeks ago. It cannot therefore be said that there has been any undue time lost thus far in deciding who should be recommended for the vacancies. I can only say that the matter is receiving careful attention, and expecting, as I do, to leave this country for some length of time within a couple of weeks, I have every confidence that the recommendations will be made "before that time expires.


THE INSURANCE ACT.
Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that in the case of any insurance on property situated in Canada effected in any unlicensed company, the person effecting such insurance shall pay to the Minister of Finance for consolidated revenue fund a sum equal to fifteen per cent of the total net cost of insurance so effected, but not to exceed in any case fifteen cents for each one hundred dollars of insurance for one year, or a proportionate sum for any longer or shorter period.
He said:	It becomes necessary, before
we can proceed with the Insurance Bill, that we should dispose of this resolution which touches one of the most important clauses of the Bill. I quite realize that at this stage, a Bill of such importance cannot go through except with the general approval of the House. I would suggest that we should consider this resolution in committee, nobody being committed thereby to the terms of the resolution; and as the discussion proceeds in committee, we will be able to form an opinion as to the disposition of the House towards the Bill and decide whether it would be well to press it this session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee.
William Stevens Fielding: This is really one of the most important clauses in the Bill, the one which is most likely to create some differences of opinion, but I think that, after a short discussion, the committee should Mr. CROCKET.
be able to reach a conclusion. _ While the point is one on which I have views of my own, I do not regard it as a vital matter in the Bill, and will be quite prepared to accept the judgment of the committee upon it. Under our insurance law we require home companies and such foreign companies as desire to do business in Canada to take out licenses, put up deposits, and become subject to the provisions of the general In-. surance Act. For example, we require them to make returns in a specified manner and at specified times. If they fail to do so, they are subject to penalties, and in many instances such penalties have been collected. It would seem only reasonable that if as a matter of .public policy-and it has been the policy of the country for many years-we impose these restrictions or burdens, as perhaps the companies might call them, but let us call them restrictions and obligations-on Canadian companies and upon all organized foreign companies which are well established in Canada, it w^ould seem only reasonable that if parliament imposes these restrictions on these companies, it should not admit other companies to do the business without restrictions. It would seem that is so reasonable a propositon the committee will accept it at once. That I think is the theory of our present insurance law. It does not contemplate the doing of business by foreign companies free of -these obligations which may be imposed on our home companies. In the revision of the Act however, it was pointed out that the machinery for enforcing these conditions seems to be defective, and a new clause was inserted to the effect that among the things as respects which penalties are imposed, is the inspecting of risks. It was found that wdiat seemed to be-I say this with deference to those who may possibly hold a different view- the theory and purpose of the insurance law, was evaded by contracts being made outside of Canada. That is to say, an order for insurance would be sent outside and insurance would be effected, and that it is held did not come within the provision of the Canadian clause. Insurance men in Canada argued, apparently with reason, that if they were placed under these obligations, there should be machinery to impose the penalties on all these outside companies which were not subject to these obligations; and so, for the purpose of thoroughly raising the question-which wre were well aware would be the subject of controversy-we inserted in the new Bill this provision, that a person who came into Canada to inspect a risk should be deemed to be doing the business of insurance and become subject to the penalty provided in the Act. Property owners say that the effect would be to prohibit any insurance in unlicensed companies, be-

cause if these foreign companies were not permitted to send an agent to inspect risks they would not do the business at all, and our Canadian owners of property would be placed at the mercy of the insurance companies at home, or what is sometimes called the insurance combine, and we find, by our experience in the committee, that these companies are not the most popular organizations in Canada.
When the matter was discussed in the Banking and Commerce Committee, the very men who came before that committee to oppose our Bill, after discussion came to the conclusion that the Bill in that respect has some merit but was probably too severe. It was, they claimed, prohibitive, because if a foreign company cannot come in to inspect a risk it will not do the business at all, and the ground taken by the opponents of the Bill in the end was this: ' We admit the contention of the licensed insurance companies that they ought ont to be placed under these obligations and other companies be free to come in and compete, but we do not want you to shut out the foreign companies altogether. We think that the home companies are entitled to some measure of protection in view of the restrictions which the law places upon them, but our home companies cannot always undertake the volume of insurance required.' Others said that the rates charged by the home companies are so very high that if we prohibit the foreign companies doing business altogether we shall be placing our property at the mercy of the so called Canadian combine. But these gentlemen who came to oppose the Bill took this position in the end. They said: * We recognize the fact that the home companies are entitled to some protection but do not think that legislation should be adopted which will prohibit business being done by unlicensed companies. We think you might reasonably give the home companies a fair preference and consideration by allowing business to be done by the unlicensed companies subject to the imposition of whatever may be deemed a reasonable tax.'
One of the most prominent opponents of the Bill accepted that view in a personal conversation with me; and as he was a manufacturer, with very well known high tariff proclivities, I said to him: ' My friend, now that you have agreed that there shall be a reasonable tax, do you want a tax imposed under the general tariff of thirty-five per cent or the preferential tariff of twenty-five or twenty per cent? ' He said that the rate of taxation was not so serious a matter as the question of prohibition, and he would leave that to the judgment of the committee and let them decide what would be a fair tax and reasonable conditions to impose. The committee, after due consideration, thought that a tax of fifteen per cent on the net premiums on 212
1	REVISED
this unlicensed business would be fair and reasonable.
The New England Mutuals do a very large amount of this business. Then there are individual underwriters who do the business. In the Bill, as proposed at one stage, it was designed that the New England Mutuals should come in under these conditions and the individuals or reciprocal underwriters, but that any foreign organized company which wanted to come in, should take out licenses. However, on further discussion, a gentleman in the committee, which took a very warm interest in the whole matter, proposed that we should remove some of the limitations and not only allow the New England Mutuals and the individual or reciprocal underwriters to come in but any foreign company as well, even if it has no license, provided it was subject to the taxation thereafter imposed. That is the form in which the Bill now stands. If this clause be adopted, any foreign company, even though it has no license in Canada and is not subject to the general conditions of our insurance law, will have the right to effect insurance upon complying with the provision of this section-I mean the section which deals with taxation.
The main portion of the section is before us at this moment, that portion which deals with taxation. The second portion requires them to make a return to the Superintendent of Insurance as to the amount of business, &c. But the vital part is the question of taxation, which is the resolution now before us. The committee reached the conclusion that this tax of fifteen per cent was probably a fair and a, reasonable one, but before we had disposed of the question, we were asked to consider the special difficulties of .a certain class of property owners. A very large volume, probably the greatest volume, of this business done by unlicensed companies is done by the mutual companies. These companies make it their boast that their business is to prevent fires. By the construction which they insist upon, by the system of protection, by what is called the sprinkler system and by the use of various appliances, these companies say, they diminish the risk to very small figures, and in consequence they are able to give the people insurance at very low rates. Indeed, it was stated before the committee that very much of this insurance was done at as low a rate as 12i per cents and even 10 cents on the $100. The method employed is this: A fixed rate is mentioned as the premium, let us say, for illustration, one per cent, that being deemed to be the maximum risk which the company would run. At the end of the year an accounting is held, and whatever sum has not been found necessary is returned by way of rebate to the


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
policy-holders. And we have been told by gentlemen who have had experience that, in some instances, these returns are fifty, sixty, even as high as ninety per cent of the original premium rate. The tax that we desire to impose then is not upon the nominal rate, but upon the net rate. In a case such as I have mentioned by way of illustration-factories specially constructed and protected are able to get their insurance as low as 10 cents on the $100- and if we impose a tax of 15 per cent on the net rate of 10 cents on the $100 it will cost them li extra cents on the $100, and that-
John Graham Haggart: How are you going to get at the net rate until the termination of the policy?


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) is quite right. You cannot get at the net rate until the end of the year; we have to make provision for that. But while it is true, as affects a very large volume of insurance, that, perhaps, a net rate of ten cents per $100 is a very low one, in many instances it is 121 cents to 15 cents. Still, we are told, there are many cases in which the rates are very much higher. Take, for instance, a class of risks such as lumber mills in certain situations where the hazard is held to be particularly great. We are told that these risks, at times, have to be carried at as high a rate as three, four and even five per cent. A gentleman from British Columbia, with whom I conversed, told me that he thought the average of such risks there would be five per cent, though, on further consideration, I believe, he thought that was rather a mistake. But there is no doubt that in cases, specially hazardous cases, they have to pay as high as five per cent. If a man who has to pay, say, $4 for insuring $100 worth of property, that is a pretty heavy tax, and if we should levy 15 per cent on that $4, we should make his insurance cost $4.60 per $100. And we think that where a man was paying these very high rates the tax we propose here should not apply. So we have put in a limitation. While this 15 per cent shall be imposed upon the net cost of the insurance, not the gross premium, wherever the rate exceeds one per cent the tax shall cease to apply. That is to say, that if a man pays for $1 on the $100, he would have to pay 15 cents extra, but if he had to pay $4 on the $100, as in the specially hazardous cases I have mentioned, he would still only pay the 15 cents. In no case shall the tax be more than 15 cents on $100 of insurance.
Now, I have received many telegrams and letters from property owners sinoe this Bill came before the House in its last stages, in opposition to this proposal. I suppose that, to some extent, the people Mr. FIELDING
who send these communications are fully aware of the situation, and do not wish to pay any tax-no man likes to pay any more taxes than he must, and the proposition to levy a tax, even though a small one, on any class of the community, naturally, is opposed by that class itself. But, while that may be true as respects some of the telegrams and letters I have received, a large number of the representations made to me are I think based on erroneous information. For example, I have received a letter from the manager of a very large manufacturing establishment in the Dominion, who stated that he desired to protest against this Bill. He said that this Bill would tax his insured property at the rate of 15 cents on the $100 that his premiums amounted to $400, and that under this Bill we were going to increase them to $900. I have no doubt that many of the representations made against the Bill are based on erroneous information, as that one unquestionably was. The gentleman to whom I refer is, as I have said, the manager of a very large business, had received the impression that what was proposed was a tax of 15 cents on every $100 of insured property. If we apply the Bill to his particular case we shall find that, as he is paying only 12i cents per $100 for insurance and the cost of his insurance is $400, he would pay 15 per cent on that $400, which would be $60. Therefore, the increase in the cost of his insurance caused by this Bill would not be $500 as he supposed, but exactly $60-he would have to pay $460 a year instead of $400 a year. I believe that if this Bill were more -widely understood on that point very much of the objection to this clause would disappear. Some of the criticism, I am aware, has been from quite a different point of view. I have been told by hon. members of the House that the principle of the clause is all right, but that it is ineffective; that if we wanted to do something to give a preference or protection to home companies and those which take out a license, we should have made the tax larger, 15 per cent being too small. Others, on the other hand, think that it is too large. We hope that we have struck the happy medium. However, the House will see the principle in a moment. It seems reasonably necessary that we should do something of the kind to give a measure of protection, if you call it such, to bur Canadian companies. The question is as to the amount-is it too high as some would think or too low as others would think? I say I do not regard that as a vital point. It is a point on which I have rather decided views myself, as a result of the study I have been able to give to the question in the light of the information that has been laid before me, but it is not vital, and, if it is the opinion of the House the rate
should be lower, I shall be glad to accept it and proceed with the Bill.


John Graham Haggart: I think it is perfectly right that the government should impose conditions on foreign companies doing business in Canada, to put them on an equality at least with our own companies. The minister seems to think that the proposition he has placed before the committee will, to a certain extent, counterbalance the burden the home companies have to bear in pitting up deposits, taking out licenses and so on. But the difficulty I see about it is this: Supposing a citizen of Canada goes, as many have done in the past, to the American side, say to the state of Maine, and enters into a contract of insurance; are we going to tax that contract here? Have we the power to do it? That is a nice question. You may provide a penalty for the Canadian going to a foreign country and entering into a contract of this kind, but whether parties in a foreign country who make these contracts will submit to a tax imposed upon them is another point.


William Stevens Fielding: We do not intend to impose it upon the foreign corporation, but upon the Canadian policy-holder.


John Graham Haggart: I understand that perfectly well. But it is an imposition on a contract entered into in a foreign country. As a Canadian, for instance, I go to the state of Maine and enter into a contract for the insurance of my property in Canada, and I am penalized for it. It is nothing else but a penalty. You give him the right to go there, and you impose a penalty upon him for going there. It is a nice question. I do not know whether we have power to pass such legislation at this time. I suppose the Minister of Finance has looked thoroughly into it, and has got over the difficulty in some way.. But at first blush it appears that we have no power to impose conditions upon people of Canada going into a foreign country and entering into an insurance contract.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is one feature of this proposal which should not be lost sight of. It is the outgrowth of a need which was not supplied in the country, and parties who were obliged to resort to this means for insurance could not get insurance in the country. The Minister of Finance' knows that that was said by several gentlemen before the committee, and I have had information from others since to the same effect :	First, that they could not get insurance in the country; secondly, if they could get a portion of insurance in the country, as in some cases they could, they were obliged to pay an exorbitant figure for it. I do not think the insurance companies in the country who cannot supply all the local 2124
needs should complain if it is done by outsiders. That is the situation here. In the next place it is a much cheaper insurance than can be got in the country. The Minister of Finance said in many cases mills and such lines as that sometimes had to pay 5 per cent, I can tell him that they would have to pay 6 and 7 per cent; you cannot get it at 5 per cent.. You cannot get it in many cases for cash even at 4 per cent. Now then, with regard to the question of whether the amount payable to the consolidated revenue of Canada is too much or too little, in my judgment it is too much.
I have in my mind at the present time a party who tells me that on his insurance he pays $2,500 a year. Now 15 per cent of that would be $325. Why should he be obliged to pay $325?


Mr. MILLER.: He would not have to pay it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He certainly would pay it, because as it, the business, is run now he has declared he does pay it, and that chaTge does no more than actually carry his risk.


William Stevens Fielding: Is it all in outside companies?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes. Then if this additional tax were put on it must be paid by the party insured, there is no one else to pay it.


William Stevens Fielding: Does the hon. gentleman happen to know the rate? Is it one of those high rates he refers to?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not a high rate, it is a commercial rate.


William Stevens Fielding: Would it exceed 1 per cent?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, it is below 1 per cent.


William Stevens Fielding: Then if the rate is lower than 1 per cent, the whole tax would apply.


Mr. HENDERSON.: The hon. gentleman says that he pays annually $2,500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: All these rates aTe down to about ten cents on the $100. Then he will pay that amount of money yearly, and in addition he will pay $325, which would go to the consolidated revenue of Canada. That would mean to him $325 a year more for insurance, because he would be obliged to pay every cent of it, there is no doubt. Now in view of the fact that we cannot supply that demand at home, and the present companies, whatever their capacities may be, cannot do that business. I think that is a strong reason why we should allow others to do it at as cheap a rate as possible. Then where people have to pay a large amount of insurance on a large amount of property they could get it at a moderately cheap rate. I think ten per cent would be a very good

rate. It seems to me that while all foreign companies ought to pay something to the country for the business of looking after the finances of insurance, the question is how much they ought to pay. It does not seem a heavy tax, and in view of the fact that the books of the companies cannot publish who is insured, if he is a British subject and a Canadian, I think we should make it as cheap as possible.


Henry Horton Miller: The hon. gentleman spoke [DOT]of a man paying $2,500 a year for his insurance. Does the hon. gentleman know the rate of premium that was paid?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, I do not.


Henry Horton Miller: I think the hon. gentleman will understand that if the rate of premium was ever 1 per cent, as I should think it would be to make that gross amount, then the tax would not be 15 per cent but probably only 5 per cent or 3 or 4 per cent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I just answered the Minister of Finance that my understanding is that it is below 1 per cent, and therefore the whole rate comes off him.


Henry Horton Miller: What class of property was the insurance on?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is on manufacturing property.


Henry Horton Miller: Mill property?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes.


Henry Horton Miller: A sawmill?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not going any further.


Henry Horton Miller: If we knew the class of property we would know something as to the rate of premium that was paid. Much would depend upon whether it was a sawmill or planing factory, or any thing of that sort.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member knows you cannot get a rate on an ordinary sawmill or planing factory in this company at all. They do not take that kind of risks.


Henry Horton Miller: New England companies do not, but there are companies doing business outside of Canada who do take sawmills and lumber yards; they are not New England companies, but there are some who do. Now many hon. gentlemen have received telegrams and letters asking them to oppose this tax of 15 per cent, not to exceed 15 cents on each $100 I have in my hand a circular letter sent out by Mr. Heaton, who is manager of the Insurance Department of the Manufacturers' Association, and I apprehend that it is as a result of this circular letter


Thomas Simpson Sproule: from Mr. Heaton that these telegrams and letters have reached members of the House. In his circular letter Mr. Heaton says:
The committee of the association having this Bill in charge has decided, first, to send a deputation to Ottawa to seek a reduction in the amount of the tax; second, to request you to promptly wire your representative, the Minister of Finance, or other members of the House, protesting against the amount of the tax.
Now, I point out that this letter from the manager of the insurance department of the Manufacturers' Association does not oppose the principle of the tax, it simply asks to have some reduction made in the amount of the tax. I would point out to the House that the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Harris) moved in committee to have the rate of duty increased from 15 per cent to 25 per cent. The manufacturers and others who were here looking after their own interests in connection with this Bill, stated they were quite willing to pay a tax of 25 ner cent or even a higher tax; one of them was the secretary of the Manufacturers' Association. I may say that I heard Mr. Kemp, who in the last parliament was a member of this House from the city of'Toronto, who is a prominent manufacturer and a prominent member of their association, state that he would be quite willing to pay a tax, if the committee thought it wise to fix it at that amount, as high as 30 per cent. The hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Sproule) has spoken of the inability of Canadian companies to carry insurance and thart therefore it is absolutely necessary for Canadian insurers to go outside Canada. Now there is a great deal of difference of opinion as to that. Mr. Laidlaw, a prominent insurance man, speaking before the commission, insisted that the Canadian companies were quite able to carry all the insurance needed for any
who may desire to apply.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the hon. gentleman was chairman of the committee. Is he not aware of the fact that the gentleman representing the Eddy Company came before that committee and declared positively that he had tried all the Canadian companies for insurance, and after they had absolutely refused him, he was obliged to apply to American companies. That is only one of two or three other cases that were cited before the committee, where they could not get insurance in Canada.


Henry Horton Miller: I remember the incident very well. I remember there was a little war of words between the gentleman referred to and one of the insurance men, and that the representatives of the insurance

companies who were before the committee said that since the Eddy Company had improved their risks they had not applied to the Canadian insurance companies at all, and he said that the Canadian companies were glad and able to carry all the insurance they could get and to carry it at a rate nearly as low, if not quite as low, as it is being carried now by American companies. It was thought by the committee that as there was a difference in the statements, the insurance men stating that they were able and willing to carry at reasonable rates all the insurance that Canadian manufacturers and other business men may have to offer them, it might be well to allow this Act to go and remain in force at least for one year, and then if there were cases cited to us of the inability of Canadian business men to obtain insurance in Canadian companies or under then conditions in outside companies, some amendment might be made to the Act. I point out to the hon. gentleman that if the Bill carries in its present form no man is prevented from going to the United States or any other part of the world and getting insurance if the Canadian companies are not able to carry the business. He is as free as he was before to go outside and obtain insurance.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Of course he has to pay a higher rate.


Henry Horton Miller: He has to pay a higher rate, but the additional amount will be very small; we were informed by some manufacturers that it will make very little difference in the gross amount of their premiums and will still leave them free to obtain insurance outside of Canada much cheaper than they can in Canada.


Mr. BRISTOL.: Then what good would that do the Canadian insurance companies?


Henry Horton Miller: This will have a tendency in cases where there is little difference between the rates of the Canadian and American companies to send the business in the direction of the Canadian companies.


Edmund James Bristol: Is not the information before the hon. gentleman that the difference in rate is very great?


Henry Horton Miller: The very cheap insurance that has been given to the Canadian manufacturers and business men by the New England sprinkler companies has been due to the fact that they have been making a specialty of 'sprinkler' risks. In order to carry to advantage this sprinkler business the American companies have employed expert inspectors, among the most clever men in the American business world, each one a specialist in his line. It was not contended that the rates of the Canadian companies were too high under existing conditions but the Americans have their system of inspection and by compelling the improvement of risks, have been most successful in preventing fires. There was not a sufficient volume of the sprinkler business in Canada to permit Canadian companies at any reasonable rate of insurance	to employ expert	inspectors.	Thatclass of business has been growing and with the increase in the number of manufacturers, the improvement in their financial	circumstances	and	their consequentability to equip their factories with sprinklers, which are quite expensive, the Canadian companies have within the last two years employed just as efficient and well-equipped inspectors as the American, and	are just as	well able to	lookafter	this business.	It	is true that	until
very lately they were not as well equipped for handling it as the American companies. The sprinkler rates charged by the Canadian companies are now very nearly the same as those charged by the American companies, In fact a number o>f Canadian firms who for years have been carrying their business in American sprinkler companies have voluntarily placed it with Canadian companies.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: While in the case of the Eddy Company it was contended by the insurance agents that they would take the risk after the improvements were made, the representative of the Eddy company asked them: ' Why did you not tell us you would take the risk provided certain improvements were made to prevent fires? We would have made them but we had no information from you that you would accept the risk and you did not send any people to educate us bow to arrange the buildings or what preventive measures to adopt. You simply told us that you could not take the risk. Now that we have made the improvements you say you will take it.' The Canadian companies are thus primarily at fault because they did not educate the people as to what is requisite to prevent fires so as to reduce the cost of insurance. Then when others come in and give the information the Canadian companies say:
' Oh, if this had been done we would have taken your risk.' There is a fiat contradiction bet-ween the men most interested, those who are obliged to obtain insurance and the insurance people. I think Mr. Kemp said something to the effect that he could not get insurance on his business in this country and that therefore he was obliged to go abroad. Mr. Kemp is well known by members of this House and is a man in whom everybody has confidence.


Henry Horton Miller: I do not think the committee got much information from the somewhat angry words of the gentlemen to whom the hon. member has referred. I


C699 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
have here a short letter by an insurance agent to the member for North Perth (Mr. Rankin) which I shall read:
Stratford, Ont., May It, 1909. Dr. J. P. Rankin, M.P.
Dear Sir,-In reference to the insurance Bill now before the House, I wish to state that I think clause 139 dealing with unlicensed companies is particularly worthy of your support I find unlicensed American companies are canvassing for business in this district. They interfere with the local agent's business, do not pay taxes to the government as all licensed companies do and are not in any way under the control of the Insurance Department. I do not think this is fair to agents who make their living in the insurance business. Some manufacturers claim they can get cheaper insurance, but if this is the case they should be willing to pay the same average rate of duty on their business as the public pay on manufactured goods. 1 trust you will see your way clear to support this Bill.
Yours truly,

[Stage Direction]
I am myself a director in one of the largest furniture companies in Canada. That company has had two of its factories insured in the New England Sprinkler Company and the management are quite satisfied with the Bill before the House and will be quite willing to pay the small additional tax, which they think reasonable.
Mr. PERLEY.: This clause is the. most contentious one in the Bill and the one which was most discussed in the Special Committee. It is a very vexed question. Representatives of both sides gave evidence regarding it before the Committee on Banking and Commerce. Personally I think it would be better if things were left as they are at present. To my mind the law ought to be made very strict to prevent any unlicensed company from having an agent, opening an office or soliciting business in Canada. But I can see no good reason why I should not be free to taae insurance in a foreign company if I desire to do so. It seems to me you might as well enact that I should not go and borrow money in New York as that I should not take out an insurance policy in New York. To forbid me to take insurance except in Canada is an interference with individual liberty which I do not think any member of this House would countenance. As this clause was drawn it would prevent anyone from going abroad and taking insurance in an unlicensed company. Before the Committee on Banking and Commerce the chief discussion was with reference to the New England Mutual. The representatives of the manufacturers came here and asked that these companies should be allowed to continue to do that business. The chairman Mr. MILLER.
of the committee (Mr. Miller) said that Mr. Kemp stated he was willing to pay 35 per cent.


Henry Horton Miller: I said Mr. Kemp had said he was willing to pay 30 per cent.


George Halsey Perley: I do not think Mr. Kemp meant that in that way. The discussion was with regard to putting a tax on, and he said he would be willing to pay one if " necessary, even if he had to pay as much as 35 per cent, but he did not state that he believed that that was a proper principle or that he ought to be asked to pay any such tax. However, the clause was afterwards changed in the committee, and as it is now drawn, any person in Canada can go abroad and take insurance in any company provided he pays this tax of 15 per cent. If this principle is to be adopted, the clause as now in the Bill is a good, fair clause. We have tried to put it in as good shape as possible provided this is to be the principle adopted, and I understood that the Minister of Finance thought that was the proper principle. Personally I would prefer to have this clause and subsection (c) of section 70 struck out. That would leave a person free as at present to take insurance in an unlicensed company abroad, but would prevent absolutely any unlicensed company from soliciting business or having an agent in this country. I believe that any insurer in this country would prefer to take his insurance in a Canadian company. If I need insurance it is easier for me to take it from an agent right in the city, from a licensed Canadian company, than to go outside. No one is going outside to place insurance in an unlicensed company and take the chance of their having no deposit in this country unless there is a great difference between the rates. Any reasonable difference between the rates would not be sufficient to influence me or any other insurer in this country to go abroad for his insurance. These New England Mutuals have prevented a lot of fires in this country, they have lessened the ratio of fire losses and Mr. Morrissey himself said in the committee that the Canadian companies have learned from the New England Mutual and are working on the same lines themselves in regard to inspection of risks, and endeavouring to reduce losses so as to be able to reduce rates. It, therefore, seems to me that in the natural course of events the licensed insurance companies will get nearly all the business in Canada, because they will so reduce the difference in rates that no one will go abroad for insurance.
The question is have we the power to make a law of this kind or does it come under provincial jurisdiction. I notice that a few days ago a similar question was
6701 MAY 15, 1909 6702	
brought up in the legislature of Quebec. It seems that they have a law there regarding insurance which has been amended slightly during this session. I shall quote from this paper remarks made by the Hon. Mr. Weir, Provincial Treasurer of Quebec, who says: The chief clause was explained by Hon. Mr. Weir, the Provincial Treasurer, as follows:- The Insurance Act prohibits foreign insurance companies from doing business in the province of Quebec, and manufacturers and companies are prohibited from insuring in foreign insurance companies that are not licensed by the province, except under one circumstance, if they can prove to the satisfaction of the Provincial Treasurer that they are unable to obtain insurance within the province at ordinary premiums. The managers of Quebec insurance companies have represented that there is no such thing as an ordinary premium; that there are special premiums for special classes of insurance. We are, therefore, replacing the word ' ordinary ' by the word ' reasonable/ This means that, if the present Quebec statute is intra vires, no person in that province is allowed to take insurance in a foreign company not licensed in Quebec unless he can prove to the satisfaction of the provincial treasurer that he is unable to obtain insurance within the province at a reasonable rate. It will be seen that this covers exactly the ground proposed to be covered by section 139 of this new Act. I think it is a great pity that this Bill should be proceeded with in this House at this late stage of the session. It is very necessary that we should have such an Act in Canada, it has been discussed long enough, and while I am glad to say that this Bill is very different from the report of the Insurance Commission and is in a fairly reasonable shape now, at the same time I am sorry that we have got to pass it at the end of the session when there is no chance of properly discussing it. However, this is the only section of the Bill about which there was any contention or difference of opinion when the committee concluded its labours. Personally I would like to see this section dropped from the Bill and also subsection (c) of section 70 as I have said. If, however, this principle is to be adopted by the government, then I say frankly that I think this clause has been knocked into pretty fair shape. Mr. MILLER. I would impress three things on this committee: In the first place the committee were at a loss to know how to get over this very difficult question, and the plan adopted, which appears in the section now before the committee, was regarded as a happy solution. It was suggested by the manufacturers who were present at the committee, it was accepted by the insurance men and was in fact a com-	promise upon which they had practically agreed between themselves. I do not want to emphasize Mr. Kemp's words any more strongly than I ought to, he spoke in an off-hand way without thinking or meditating very long on what he was saying, but still I heard"him say that if the tax were fixed at thirty per cent, he would have no objection. At that time there had been no proposition to fix a maximum percentage, which makes it better from the point of view of the insuring public. . The next thing I would like to impress is that any company in the wide world is perfectly free to come to Canada and do business if it will comply with the conditions of the Canadian law, pay a deposit and take out a license. It is not out of consideration for the companies which refuse to comply with our laws, but out of consideration for the insuring public, the manufacturers particularly, that the committee agreed to allow insurance to be effected by these companies under the conditions imposed by this section. The third thing is that the chief expense to Canadian companies in carrying this class of business is not the losses they have to pay, because they almost entirely prevent loss, but the large salaries they have to pay to the very expert inspectors whom they employ. 1 would point out that anything we can do which will tend to drive business to Canadian companies, to increase their volume of business, makes it possible for the Canadian company to reduce the rates and carry insurance at a rate not greater than that charged by the American companies, ine only reason why American companies can and do secure this business at a somewhat lower rate than the Canadian companies is because of the larger volume of business. Anything we can do to increase the volume ofYbusiness of the Canadian companies would have the effect of enabling them to reduce their rates. Mr. BLAIN. Would the hon. gentleman state the amount of insurance held by New England Mutual companies in Canada and on what class of property? Mr. MILLER. I cannot give the amount, because these companies are not bound at present to make any returns whatever to the Canadian authorities, but the class of business they cover is _ the best Canadian business, such as factories of stone or brick with a first-class roof and a sprinkler system; and they insist on having, in nearly every case, a water supply on the premises clearly and entirely distinct from the municipal supply. No matter how good may be the municipal fire protection, they insist on an independent source of supply. It is the very cream of the business that goes to the American companies. The insuring public, who have not the very first-class risks, are compelled to place them with the Canadian companies.


Richard Blain: Would the hon. gentleman give the amount approximately?


Henry Horton Miller: I have nothing on which to base an estimate.


Mr. THOBURN.: The parties insuring in these American mutual insurance companies carry, as a rule, very heavy insurance; and while 15 per cent on the premium may seem very low, it amounts, in the aggregate, to a very large sum. I have a case in point which will give a fair idea as to the extra charge caused by the imposition of 15 per cent on the premium. I do not say for a moment that the American insurance companies should come into this country free. I am too good a National Policy man to agitate that. At the same time let us have this insurance at as reasonable rates as possible. If the rates can be reduced, let us reduce them. Let me say that American insurance companies deserve great credit for having reduced the rates for fire insurance in Canada to the extent they have. Although not insured in the American companies, I have had, however, a great deal to do with the Canadian fire insurance companies, and as far as straightline companies are concerned, I have found them very difficult to deal with. In fact, I am carrying no insurance with these companies. I have to place my risks with the Canadian Mutuals and I cannot understand why straight line companies cannot carry a risk in Canada as reasonably as the Mutuals. The case I have in point is that of a firm which carries $400,000 of insurance with these American Mutuals, paying a rate of 60 cents per $100. On that amount of insurance, the premium would be $2,400. To impose an additional 15 per cent on the premium will cost that firm $360 additional. That would buy $60,000 more insurance with the American Mutuals, so that while the 15 per cent looks small, you see what it may amount to. As a rule, all insurance policies in Canada with the American Mutuals, are for very large sums, because you have to expend a very large sum in equipping your mills with suitable fire appliances before you can have your buildings satisfactory to these companies.


William Stevens Fielding: One good thing we shall accomplish by the discussion of the Bill is that our own companies will find it necessary to adapt themselves to such cases as my hon. friend^ describes. If nothing else comes out of this discussion, there will be a better understanding arising from it. The representations made by property owners are such that they will challenge public attention and make the companies realize that they must make special efforts to deal with that class of business.


Henry Horton Miller: 


Robert Laird Borden: There does not seem to be much question about this except as regards the amount of the tax, and I would be prepared to accept the judgment of the committee on that point, who have looked more carefully into the matter than any one not on the committee could hope to do at this stage. I would suggest that we should pass the resolution, but would like at the same time that the consideration of this question might be held over until Monday. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) is detained by illness. He told me that he had a number of representations to make with regard to this matter, and my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Foster) has, I believe, something to say on the same point.
Resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to, and referred to Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 97)-to amend the Act respecting insurance.
On section 12,


Herbert Brown Ames: I would like to ask if the minister can give us any assurance that the supporters of the government in the Senate will favour an opportunity being given to those who consider themselves aggrieved by this Bill to be heard in the Banking and Commerce Committee of the Senate. This Bill represents the result of a good deal of labour on the part of members of this House who have served on the committee that dealt with it, but if it will make some difference to the attitude we all take in regard to it in this House, whether we are really to consider this a finality or not, if it has to go to the Senate, opportunity should be given before the Banking and Commerce Committee of that body to those who desire again to bo heard on this measure.
.Mr. FIELDING. I am hardly in a position to make a statement as to what the Senate may do. As far as the House is concerned, the attitude of the government will be that, while inviting discussion, they have no desire to press the Bill unduly. If any number of gentlemen in the Senate want the Bill sent to the Banking and Commerce Committee of that body, the government has no objection. No doubt that committee will be asked (to consider it.


Richard Blain: I take it that the government would be favourable to an opportunity being given in the Senate for the hearing of those who desire to be heard on the subject.


William Stevens Fielding: Certainly, we would offer no objection whatever. * But application would have to be made by some members of the Senate.

On section 31,
Annual statement of company's business -foreign companies.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would this apply to those companies that we have been talking about, foreign companies that do sprinkler insurance in Canada?


William Stevens Fielding: These general provisions would not. They are required by section 139 to make returns of a certain character.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But it says, ' companies incorporated or legally formed elsewhere than in Canada.' Are these companies * legally formed ' ?


William Stevens Fielding: That is a form that has been in the Act for a long time. It refers to companies having a legal organization of any kind.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But if the company is legally formed, it must, under this section, make a return.


William Stevens Fielding: For this purpose, yes. But the other companies to which the hon. gentleman has referred would not. If the hon. member will read section 139, he will see that we provide that, in the case of unlicensed companies, no penalty shall be imposed if certain things are done-if they make certain returns, pay these taxes, and so on.
On section 55,
Advances to agents forbidden.


William Stevens Fielding: I move to substitute the word ' Canadian ' for ' such ' in the first line of this section.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On sections 56 and 57,
Salaries of officers and agents, and salary agreements.
Haughton Lennox: If it is intended to confine these sections to Canadian companies, it might be more clear to put in the word ' Canadian ' instead of ' such,' as in section 55.


William Stevens Fielding: I think it would be better to amend the sections in that way. Of course the distinction is that we cannot control the foreign companies whose charters are obtained abroad, but we can control our own companies.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
At one o'clock, Committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.
On section 68,	[DOT]
George Halsey Perley: I wish to say a few words in connection with this clause and a few
others of a similar tenor. I wish to draw attention to what I consider a change in the spirit of our new legislation as compared with the old. I refer to the powers of the superintendent. Of course, I cannot express too strongly my regard for the present superintendent, who, I am sure, will do properly whatever he has to do in this connection. But as this law will be in force many years, I wish to say a few words regarding this change. In section 68 the superintendent is given great powers. If it appears to him that any company has placed a value upon its real estate which is too great he can call for valuators and have that value changed. Subsection 2 further provides:
2. If upon any examination of a Canadian company's affairs it appears to the superintendent for any reason desirable that a complete and thorough audit of the books of the company should be made or if a company makes a written request for such audit, the superintendent may nominate a competent accountant.
According to this, the superintendent may nominate a competent accountant to go through the books of the company, if for any reason he thinks that desirable. That is a power which I think ought to be lodged in the minister and not in the superintendent. In section 77, subsections 2 and 3, which I need not read, it is provided that the superintendent may make all necessary corrections in the annual statement of any company and shall be at liberty to increase or diminish the liabilities given in that statement, and there is no appeal except to the Exchequer Court. In the old Act that would be done through the minister. Under section 44, which is also in the old Act, the Treasury Board may upon the recommendation of the minister, appoint actuaries and valuators to value and appraise the company's liabilities and assets, which provision _ is right and proper. Under section 109, which is the same as in the old Act, if the reserve of any company falls below the proper basis, the superintendent shall report to the minister who may direct him to compute the reserve or have it computed under his supervision. Section 116 is in the same spirit. It provides that the companies shall make attested returns of their condition and affairs at such times and in such form, and attested in such manner, as are prescribed by the minister. It seems to me that the spirit running through the old Act is more in accord with our institutions than that of the new sections. The superintendent is given great authority in the new sections compared with the old; and while I have no desire to obstruct the Bill, I wish to place my views before the House and shall abide by its decision.


William Stevens Fielding: The minister will still have to be held responsible, in the constitutional sense, for his officers, no matter how we may frame the section. The reason for the change is this: If there was any criticism of the Finance Department at all in this matter, it was that the superintendent did not have sufficient power. When asked why he did not do certain things in certain circumstances he said he had not the power. We are endeavouring to give him larger powers, but not with any desire of relieving the minister. S >
much of the Insurance Department work is clearly technical that it seems to me, in order that the superintendent may do effective work, we should allow him a free hand to do it properly. If he has to refer everything to the minister,i there will be unavoidable delays, and whoever may be the superintendent or the minister, these powers will be used moderately and prudently and only for the public good.
On section 7,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would ask to have this section stand and also section 139 as there are some hon. members not present who desire to speak on it.


William Stevens Fielding: I am quite agreeable.
On section 98,


Haughton Lennox: The question raised some time ago as to medical men being qualified to be directors. Perhaps the minister will inform the committee as to that.


William Stevens Fielding: There was some consideration of that, but the committee were unanimous, I think, in recommending the present form. We had a number of representations from medical men who seemed to think that their privileges were being interfered with. There is nothing in the Bill to interfere with the right of the company to employ a medical referee or to pay him whatever may be considered proper by way of salary or other form of compensation. The point is that officers of the company, other than certain chief officers mentioned -such as the president, the vice-president and the manager-are not eligible to be members of the board. The view of the committee was that as the relations between the company and the medical referee were, without giving offence, those of master and servant, he who is the servant should not be the master. The medical referee, however, may still sit as an adviser of the board, just as a solicitor might do, but he would not be qualified to be a member of the board. There was no intention of legislating ,against medical men, but it was thought that the officers of the company, other than the chief officers mentioned, should not be directors.


George Halsey Perley: On section 139,
Insurance in unlicensed companies.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This'is the section which was to be allowed to stand along with section 70.


William Stevens Fielding: I would move to strike out subsection 4 of section 139 as being unnecessary. Then, the remainder of the clause will stand.


Haughton Lennox: What does the minister say to allowing that to stand as a notice of motion for the present?


William Stevens Fielding: The whole section can stand, except that I want it clearly understood that I do not want subsection 4 to
be passed.


Haughton Lennox: Yes, but, as to the act of striking it out


William Stevens Fielding: The whole section can stand; I have no objection.


George Halsey Perley: What about the revenue?


William Stevens Fielding: It will go into the Dominion treasury. This is practically an appropriation clause, and I doubt that the House, under the present proceeding, could pass it. It is a disposal of the public revenue, and I think that anybody taking the point could have it struck out.
On section 175,
Liability in case of loans by companies to directors or officers.


William Stevens Fielding: I move to strike out the words ' or clerk ' in the second line, and to insert the word ' or ' before the word ' officer.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.	t
On section 177,
No loan to directors or officers.
William Stevens Fielding: I move a similar amendment, that the words ' or clerk ' be struck out and that the word ' or ' be inserted before the word ' officer.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Progress reported.
George Halsey Perley: Is it proposed to bring this on again Monday morning?


William Stevens Fielding: I would be glad to adapt myself to the convenience of any hon. gentleman; the House has been very considerate. If any hon. gentleman wished it brought on at any particular hour I would be happy to accommodate him. For the present, we will simply put it on the order paper for Monday morning.


GOVERNMENT LOANS.
[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
€709

Resolved, that it is expedient to authorize the Governor in Council to raise, by way of loan, in addition to. the sums now remaining unborrowed and negotiable of the loans authorized by parliament by any Act heretofore passed, such sum or sums of money, not to exceed in the whole the sum of fifty million dollars, as may be required for the purpose of paying maturing loans and obligations -of the Dominion of Canada, and for the carrying on of publio works authorized by the parliament of Canada.	_
That the sums of money to be raised by way of loan on any Act founded on these resolutions, shall be raised in accordance with and under the provisions of that portion of chapter 24 of the Revised Statutes of Canada relating to the publio debt and the raising of loans authorized by parliament; and that the sums so raised shall form part of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
William Stevens Fielding: 
Haughton Lennox: What is the rate of interest of this temporary loan of $11,000,000?


William Stevens Fielding: It was at various rates of interest. I gave the figures at an earlier stage; they will be found in the ' Hansard.' They were issued from time to time at various rates in the money market; I think the highest was 4 per cent, some of them were lower.


George Halsey Perley: I hope the minister, in view of the large amounts we will probably have to borrow in other years, will try to make a long loan instead of these short loans. I must say that the expense of making short loans is very considerable The money market is in good condition this year, and it will be wise to make a long loan. As respects this old 4 per cent loan which can be left for many years without being paid off, it seems to me it is very unlikely that we can borrow money at a net rate of interest lower than that during these years when we have so many loans to make.


William Stevens Fielding: If the market condition was such that we could borrow at 3i per cent, my hon. friend as a business man, would say that we should do it, and that will be done only if the market condition is favourable. As to the comparative expense of long loans and short loans, I quite agree with my hon friend that a long loan is more desirable. If I might be allowed to refer to a previous debate, the hon. gentleman severely criticised the policy of short loans, notably the policy which began in 1904, and in the very same sentence spoke warmly, but not too warmly, of the judgment. of my late deputy minister (Mr. Courtney?. It is an interesting fact that the particular short term loan that my hon. friend thought rather imprudent was negotiated by Mr. Courtney himself in London. I do not say that for the purpose of removing any responsibility from the minister; he must take the responsibility, but I mention it as an additional reason why perhaps, all things considered, the short loan was at that time the best that could be done.


George Halsey Perley: That only shows that even a good man can sometimes go wrong.


William Stevens Fielding: Oh, no.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I suppose the Bill will not be finally disposed of to-day?


William Stevens Fielding: No, the third reading will be held over until Monday.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the invitation for tenders be for the whole sum or for portions of it according to the judgment of the Governor in Council or the Minister of Finance.
Mr.	FIELDING. The probability is
that this will be done on the London money market and much will depend on the conditions. If it is d. em d best to issue a. large sum at once we shall do it. If after consulting with our financial advisers, there appear to be any reasons why it should be divided into two parts, it will be divided, according to the condition of the market and the advice we get from the financial experts with whom we consult in London.


George Halsey Perley: What does the minister intend to do about sinking funds?


William Stevens Fielding: I stated in the budget speech that although for some years the policy of sinking funds had not been followed it seemed wise to revert to that policy and that in the case of future loans it would be adhered to.


George Halsey Perley: I think the minister is wise in that, and I hope that policy will be invariably followed in the future.
Resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to.
Mr. FIELDING moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 191) to authorize the raising by way of loan, of certain sums of money for the public service. He said: This loan Bill is exactly in the words of the resolution we have just adopted. I would ask the House to advance it to the point I have just suggested, reserving the third reading until Monday.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first and second times and House went into committee thereon.
David Henderson: Will the sinking fund apply to the entire $50,000,000?


William Stevens Fielding: To any loan that is issued thereafter; that is my intention.


David Henderson: How will the minister invest the sinking funds until the bonds mature?


William Stevens Fielding: These bonds are placed on the market and can occasionally be purchased. The general practice is to buy the bonds of the Dominion if they are available, and the practice of the past will be followed. Indeed one of the advantages of a sinking fund occasionally is that it makes a market for your own bonds.


David Henderson: I understand that the sinking-fund now available to retire certain bonds is invested in our own securities, Mr. FIELDING.
that is we have been investing our sinking funds by buying our bonds and in this way have just so much less to pay.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes. As far as possible we will continue to do that,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the nature of the book-keeping operations in calculating the interest on the sinking fund?


William Stevens Fielding: The sinking fund is held by trustees and if the bond be not cancelled it goes into the sinking fund and you simply credit the interest to it as if it was in the hands of the public.


David Henderson: A sort of cross-entry.
Bill reported.


DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the second reading of Bill (No. 165), respecting the Department of Labour. He said:	In
presenting some days ago the resolutions upon which the Bill is founded I stated that upon the second reading I would give to the House the reasons which have induced the government to introduce this legislation. From certain remarks which on that and other occasions have fallen from the lips of some hon. members, I understood that there were in the minds of some of our colleagues some misgivings as to the advisability of such a measure. For my own part, I think the only criticism that can be offered is that we have delayed too long, that such a measure should have been introduced years ago. This legislation, in our judgment, is rendered necessary by the ever growing dignity and importance of labour questions and labour problems. The word ' labour ' is rather a complex term. Itr* has many significations, but so far as this legislation is concerned, we understand by labour the relations between wage-earners and wage-payers. It will not be disputed that for generations and generations the wage-earners had scarcely any standing in the community. The only right the law acknowledged to the labouring men, was that they could sue in a court of law for the miserable pittance paid to them. As to the other rights of labour, as to the dignity of labour as a class, the views of the civilized world, up to perhaps fifty or sixty years ago, were very crude. But some sixty years ago the advance of civilization caused quite a revolution to take place in the relations between wage-earners and the wage-payer. At last labour has been advanced to the dignity of a class in itself, and quite as important in the economy of society as any other class. Labour has been the cause of prolific legislation in all civilized nations from that day to the present, and Canada has not been behind other nations; indeed we may claim to be as advanced if not more advanced in this respect than many others of the more civilized nations. Some years

ago, pursuing the idea which I have just indicated, the parliament of Canada thought it advisable to organize a Department of Labour. It was in the nature of an experiment, and when the proposal was submitted to the House, some did not suppose that it would be conducive to much real good. But, whoever at that time entertained this idea has since revised his judgment. The experiment has proven eminently successful, and were the same legislation to be introduced to-day I doubt if it would meet with any opposition. It is sufficient for us to bear in mind what has been done by the Department of Labour since its organization to enable us to agree that its creation has been more than justified by the results, because it has been successful not only in alleviating the condition of labour itself but in making the relations between the wage-earners and the wage-payers more satisfactory than they ever were before. In our judgment the experiment of nine years ago should now be carried out to its full fruition by the establishment of a Department of Labour presided over by a responsible minister of the Crown. I should say that this has been asked for by the labour organizations of the country. In 1906 the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada which met at Victoria, B.C., that year adopted the following resolution:
That this congress is pleased to express its approval of the action of the Canadian government in establishing a Department of Labour, and also its recognition of the work accomplished by the department in the interests of the industrial classes in Canada, during the six years of its existence. The congress is, however, of the opinion, that while it may have been expedient, pending such time as the organization of the department was being effected 'and its position established, to assign the portfolio of Minister of Labour to a member of the government holding another portfolio, the time, has come when both because of the increasing extent and importance of the work of the department, as well as to secure a fuller representation of the views and needs of the industrial classes in the government of the country, the Department of Labour should be represented by a Minister of Labour, whose duties will be confined to the interests of that department, and this congress is of the opinion that the creation of a separate portfolio of Minister, of Labour would receive the hearty endorsation of the working classes of Canada from one end of the Dominion to the other.
At the congress of the same body held the following year at Winnipeg this resolution was adopted -
That this congress records its appreciation of the valuable (services rendered to the workingmen of Canada by the Dominion Department of Labour since the establishment of the department in 1900. The congress believes that the continuous growth and expansion in the department's work during the seven years, of its existence is an evidence of the increasing importance of this branch of the administration. Whilst recognizing the
able manner in which the present Minister of Labour and his predecessors have discharged the duties of their office as minister of the department, the congress believes that the scope of the department's work and its efficiency and usefulness would be greatly increased were a Minister of Labour appointed who would give undivided attention to the work of the department. In the interest of the country as a whole, no less than of its working classes this congress would recommend that the Dominion government add to the present portfolios that of a Minister of Labour who shall be assigned control of the Department of Labour as a separate and distinct branch of the administration.
In 1908 at the congress of the same body held in Halifax a resolution to the same effect was carried; and at the National Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, held in 1907, this resolution was passed:
That the government be urged to separate the Department of Labour from the Post Office Department. This has become necessary in the opinion of this congress owing to the great increase of business in the Department of Labour, and, further, a Minister of Labour, acting solely in that capacity would be in a better position to give greater attention to the demands of the workmen.
At the congress held in 1908 at Quebec a similar resolution was adopted. In the opinion of the government this is a legitimate demand which can be paid heed to, and that is why we introduce this legislation. The House is entitled to know what will be the cost to the country of this proposal. The only cost that can be involved by the creation of this new department will be $7,300 per annum; $7,000 the salary of the minister and $300 in part payment of the salary of his secretary. I suppose that under such circumstances the House will have no hesitation in endorsing the enactment of this legislation and I therefore move the second reading of the Bill.
Robert Laird Borden: To the proposal to create a Minister of Labour whose duties shall be solely confined to the affairs of that department I have no special objection to offer, subject to certain considerations to which I shall call attention. In Canada as in every civilized country the relations of what are called the labouring classes with the rest of the community are of vital concern to all, and the ability of the people of Canada or of any other country to find a wise and just solution of the various social and economic problems which are pressing upon the attention of the civilized world, is one of the tests of their capacity for self-government. I realize that the questions-I might say the problems-attending labour conditions are worthy of the deepest and most earnest consideration of Canadians, of their representatives in parliament, and of the members of the cabinet. But there is an-

other consideration to which I think attention might be called. We are a somewhat sparse population of about 7,000,000 covering a territory of great area, and we have already provision made in the statutes of Canada for 14 members of the cabinet, and a solicitor general as well. Without making the slightest attempt to cut down the number of the existing cabinet ministers the government now propose to add another, so that in respect to the number of cabinet ministers which this country enjoys we shall, I think, surpass the record of the whole civilized world. Does my right hon. friend recall the echoes which floated through the air before 1896, comparing the number of cabinet ministers in Canada with the number in the United States? Does he remember the vigorous language of his colleagues in those days, men who now enjoy his confidence as members of his government, and who then were very solicitous to know why the people of Canada required twelve or thirteen ministers of the Crown while the people of the United States could get along with seven or eight members in their cabinet. Are these considerations present to the mind of the government at the present time? Let us look abroad a little. Australia has seven ministers of the Crown, with a population of about five millions and a whole continent to govern, with very difficult conditions in many ways, with problems, I am sure, more difficult than a government has to deal with in Canada. New Zealand has a cabinet of eight ministers, Tasmania has a cabinet of five ministers, France has a cabinet of twelve ministers, and the United States, with conditions more analogous in many ways to ours, gets along very well in governing a population of about 90,000,000 with a cabinet of nine ministers. I have not observed, in any remarks the right hon. gentleman has seen fit to address to the House, any statement of the reasons why we in Canada require a cabinet of sixteen ministers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Eighteen.


Robert Laird Borden: There are so many I have really lost count of them. The Department of the Exterior and the Department of Mines do not involve any addition to the number.


David Henderson: They will in a year or two.


Robert Laird Borden: At present there is a President of the Council, a Postmaster General, a Minister of Agriculture, a Minister of Trade and Commerce, a Minister of the Interior, a Minister of Inland Revenue, a Minister of Customs, a Minister of Justice, a Minister of Militia and Defence, a Minister of Marine and Fisheries, a Secreary of State, a Minister of Finance, a Minister of Railways and Canals, a Minister of Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
Public Works and a Solicitor General, to whose already stalwart ranks is to be added a Minister of Labour. Are we in this country so absolutely deficient in capacity that we require sixteen or seventeen ministers of the Crown to govern a population of seven millions, and are the people of the United States so absolutely superior to us in ability and capacity and everything else that contributes to good government that they can properly and well govern ninety millions of people with a cabinet of no more than nine? It does seem to me remarkable, at a time when the revenues of this country are not in a particularly flourishing condition, that the Prime Minister should not have seen fit to turn his attention to that consideration. Are there not some of these departments that might be consolidated? When we create a ministry of Labour, could we not consolidate two of these departments under one minister? I think some of the ministers are not overworked in their administrative duties at the present time. In the United States, I imagine, labour problems are quite as serious as they are in this country. Any person who has studied conditions in the United States and in Canada during the past fifteen or twenty years will realize the truth of that statement. In the United States they have displayed good business judgment in uniting in one department commerce and labour, which are closely related to each other. Therefore I will ask the Prime Minister, when we get into committee to give us the true reasons why the people of Canada require so much governing, while the people of the United States get along with so little, so far as the number of the cabinet is concerned. Since hon. gentlemen opposite came into office they have added two ministers to the cabinet, the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Inland Revenue, who were previously merely controllers. .1 would be inclined to think that we ought to endeavour to approximate to conditions as they are in Great Britain, where there are many administrative officers who are members of the 'government, but not members of the cabinet, like our Solicitor General. Neither the Attorney General nor the Solicitor General in Great Britain is a member of the cabinet. The affairs of the mother country, so far as administration is concerned, go on exactly in the same way whether the one party or the other is in power. When a new government comes in, if there is any change of policy, that of course is made manifest; but the real business of the country is carried on by the permanent officials, men trained for many years in the business of government and having a secure position in the Civil Service of the country. To these men is entrusted a great deal of the administrative work which is performed here by ministers of the

Crown. While we cannot hope, nor perhaps would we desire, to approximate too closely to that, still we might make some approximation to it, and if we did so, it would be very easy not only to avoid increasing the number of ^portfolios we have at present, but to reduce the number in the future. These details can be discussed when we get into committee on the resolution; but in the meantime I thought it no more than my duty to bring to the attention of my right hon. friend some considerations which undoubtedly were in his mind before 1896, but which he seems to have strangely forgotten since sitting on the treasury benches.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Robert Laird Borden: What does my right hon. friend the Prime Minister say as to the comparison between the conditions here and those in the United States?


Wilfrid Laurier: This question which has been brought up by my hon. friend, is not as old as the hills but is as old as confederation. The comparison between the number of portfolios in Canada and in the United States has been a matter of controversy between the two parties ever since I came to parliament. The difference is very radical, and my hon. friend is aware of it as well as I am. The systems are absolutely different. In the United States the position of a cabinet minister is purely executive and not legislative. He does not sit in Congress, and his duties are absorbed altogether by his executive functions. Even the legislation of that country is not prepared by the cabinet. A minister of the American cabinet may go before one of the Commissioners of Congress or the Senate, if he wants a Bill passed, and discuss it with them, but the legislation rests finally with the Senate or House of Representatives. Take for instance, the Civil War when Mr. Chase was secretary of the treasury and the duty devolved on him of raising funds tol carry on that tremendous struggle. What he did was to give his ideas and suggestions to the Committee of Finance of Congress, but he was in no way responsible for the legislation w'hich followed. But our system is very different. Ours is the British system. My hon. friend said that in his opinion we should approximate as much as possible to the system followed in England, and I certainly agree with him, and wish we could. But in that case we should have, as in Great Britain, a number of parliamentary secretaries. _ But we have no such assistants to our ministers. My hon. friend referred to the fact we had created new portfolios since we came into office. Well, when we came
uto office we found that, in consequence of the legislation introduced some years before, the collection of customs and inland revenue was placed in the hands of two controllers. Some years previously also the late Conservative government created the Department of Trade and Commerce. That was created in 1890 or thereabouts. It was a new portfolio, and at the same time the collection of customs and inland revenue was placed in the hand^ of two controllers. I appeal to the older members of the House-my hon. friend had not a seat here then-whether it be not true that the creation of these two officers, the controllers, ever gave satisfaction. It never gave satisfaction to the nartv then in office, and we found it did not give satisfaction, and that it would be much better to place the collection of these revenues in the hands of responsible ministers. My hon. friend suggests that we might perhaps suppress one portfolio or amalgamate a couple of others. Well, my hon. friend will some day, not in the immediate future, have the responsible position I now occupy, and he will find that while it is very easy to criticise when in opposition, it is quite different when he thinks of putting these theories into practice as a responsible minister. He has alluded to some of my friends who, at the time, thought we had too many ministers. He may perhaps find some of the men here to-day who had not experience of office at that time; but even before I had that experience, I never expressed that opinion and always thought that, in accordance with the British system we had not too many ministers. So long as our ministers have to be executive officers and also responsible for legislation and have to sit in parliament, I do not think it possible to adopt the American system, which is subdivided into legislative and executive departments. The two systems are so radically different that one is deceived by comparing the small number of executive officers who are advisors of the president with the numerous officers who are advisers of the Crown. I have always believed that the British system is superior, and if we come to the costs of the two systems, it will be found on the whole that ours is not the most expensive.


Robert Laird Borden: When my right hon friend compares our system with the British he should bear in mind that the British government performs all the functions essential to the government of the whole empire and in addition does all the work within the British Islands for a population of 45,000,000, which is done hy the local governments in Canada. So that if you take the personnel of our government at Ottawa and add to it the personnel of all the provincial governments throughout Canada, you have a number which

would be startling in comparison even with the large number of members comprised within the British government. When my right hon. friend draws the distinction he has drawn between our system and that of the United States I would not be inclined to think that the American system entails any less labour on the members of the United States Ministry. In the United States it is true the ministers do not sit in Congress. When the constitution of that country was framed, the men who framed it were looking to the ideals of British statesmen of the 18th century, and these ideals were absolutely to divorce executive from legislative functions. They looked to expressions of opinion along that line which had been uttered in Great Britain, not only by public men but by constitutional writers, and they framed their constitution accordingly. The net result is that a member of the cabinet_ of the United States must see that legislation affecting his department goes through Congress, and to do that he must associate himself intimately and frequently with the chairmen of committees. Instead of doing that work by having a seat in Congress, he has to do it by constant association with the chairmen of committees, so that I do not see that an American minister is in any better position or has any less tax on his time or energies than is entailed on the members of this government. But if the United States and Britain are not illustrations to which we can directly and confidently appeal, what about the Commonwealth of Australia, which manages to get along with seven ministers for a population very little less than our own and having problems of government at least as great as any we have to face? Australia can effectively carry on its government with seven cabinet ministers whereas we are supposed to require at least 16. I have no doubt that there may be some force in what the right hon. gentleman has said, namely, that it is easier to criticise than to perform, but that may be said almost of every reform ever attempted. It is a great deal easier to point out a reform than to effect it, but that is no reason why the necessity of reform should not be urged nor why an honest attempt should not be made to bring about the reform if it be a good one. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can give the House any information as to who is intended to receive the new portfolio.


Mr. PATERSON.: Before the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) makes any statement, I would like to say a word. I think this is the first proposition that has been made, since this government came into power, to add to the number of members of the government. And I may say that, perhaps, comparing ourselves with other Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
countries whose circumstances are so different, is hardly the best way to judge of this matter. Since this government came into power, our population has increased, I suppose, by fully one-half. Therefore, it seems to me that it is not exactly a startling proposition a new portfolio should be proposed now. I speak from recollection, but I have been in the House a long time, and I think I am right when I say that the number of members of the government now is precisely what it was when the government came into power. It is true there are two cabinet ministers more than you had then, but at that time there were two controllers, who were members of the government, though they were not members of the cabinet. It is true that the change involved the raising of these to cabinet rank, which, however, they had occupied previously. It was a great mistake to place the two departments, as was done, under the Department of Trade and Commerce, and the change which raised the two controllers to full rank involved only an increase of $2,000 a year each.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know whether they have ever occupied the position of cabinet ministers before.


William Paterson: Certainly. I speak from memory, as I say, and this is a matter of twelve or fifteen years ago. But, speaking subject to correction, Sir John Macdonald proposed a new portfolio of Trade and Commerce, and parliament sanctioned it. The matter was left in abeyance for two or three years. When it was brought into effect-I do not recollect whether that was done by proclamation or how it was done, the Department of Inland Revenue and the Department of Customs, whose heads had been cabinet ministers before, were subordinated to the Department of Trade and Commerce, and had to transact their business with the cabinet through that minister. Of course, it was a most foolish arrangement. The minister at the head of a department has to deal with all sorts of intricacies. I do not want to magnify my own department, but I suppose that any one can understand that many difficult and complex questions arise in the management of a department of government. The minister has to deal with the council and with the Treasury Board. When the head of a department had to go to a Minister of Trade and Commerce and try to get into his head all the ins and outs of a difficult question (one that, perhaps, the head of the department himself had spent two hours in trying to master) so that the Minister of Trade and Commerce could explain it to his colleagues in the cabinet, it was, of course, simply an unworkable scheme. My leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) had opposed it from the beginning,

and it was thoroughly understood that ii we came into power again the old order would be restored and these would be made full cabinet positions, so that the heads of the Departments of Customs and Inland Revenue could attend the cabinet meetings and attend to their own business. That was done the first session after we came into power. Ak I said, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce was established, and the Inland Revenue and Customs subordinated to him, a Solicitor General was appointed, who was a member of the government. That office has been continued. So, I think I am right in saying that there is the same number of members of the government that there were twelve years ago when this government came into power. In considering the proposal to add to the number, I think that, rather than compare ourselves with other countries, we should consider the change in our own circumstances. With the growth of the Dominion, with the great extent of country opening up in all directions, with an increase of fully half in population, there is a great deal more to be done. I do not think a cabinet minister who attends to his duties finds time hanging heavily on his hands. I think, as my leader has said, that, if the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) in course of time, becomes the head of the government, he will find it difficult to reduce the number. It may be that departments could be combined and equally good work done, but I do not see how that is to be accomplished. When a minister is absent from his department now, either through ill-health, on account of official business, or from whatever cause, and another minister is temporarily in charge to give the same attention as he does to his own department, he must depend upon his deputy. But, if a minister fulfils the duties of his department, I think he will find full occupation for his best powers.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think there is any possible objection to consider the example and practice of other countries in a matter such as this. We compare our revenues, our fiscal system, our mode of government and practice of government with those of other countries-we are doing that all the time. I do not think it is out of place for us to make comparisons in respect of the matter before us with the United States, Great Britain, Australia or New Zealand-all these are fair subjects of comparison. I am at one with the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) in the historical matter he has gone into, except that I do not think that under the Conservative government the portfolio of Trade and Commerce ever existed while the Minister of Customs and Minister of Inland Revenue occupied cabinet positions.


William Paterson: I think the hon. member is right there.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think that population is a very safe basis in this matter. The Ministers of the Crown ought to be more concerned with the policy of the country, and, in that matter, there is not much difference between governing a country of five million and governing a country of twenty million. If population were a fair basis, we might expect to have a cabinet of 192 when we reached the present population of the United States- and, with all the optimism of the Minister of Customs, I think he would hardly regard that as a possible outcome.


William Paterson: It is the administrative work that makes the difference.


Robert Laird Borden: That is what I endeavoured to emphasize before. I speak with all deference, with the humility of one who has had no experience in carrying on the business of a department, but it seems to me that administrative work is carried on altogether too much by ministers of the Crown. That is not what they are there for. Their especial business is to direct the policy of the country. Administrative affairs can better be carried on by trained men of experience, brought in not as a matter of patronage, but solely for their qualifications for the work in which they are to be engaged; brought up -if my ideas are carried out-for the most part from one grade of the service to another, until they attain the highest possible position to which their abilities and capacities might entitle them. If more of the administrative work of the country were left to these men I think it would be better.


William Paterson: Cabinet responsibility.


Robert Laird Borden: That exists in Great Britain as much as here.


William Paterson: But they have these permanent under secretaries that we have not here.


Robert Laird Borden: They have permanent under secretaries, I know, and those permanent under secretaries occupy practically the position of our deputy heads. I do not know in what respect our deputy heads are not expected to perform the duties of permanent under secretaries. I am not speaking of parliamentary secretaries who cnange with every government, I am speaking of permanent under secretaries. I do not want to be misunderstood. I realize there is one consideration which must not be overlooked, namely, that in a new country like this, more especially in western Canada. it might be desirable, and I have no doubt it is desirable, that the political



head of the department ought perhaps to keep more m touch with the administrative work than is practicable in Great Britain. I realize there is a tendency in officialdom all through to get into a certain rut, and the existence of a rut in which officialdom might travel would be more detrimental in a growing country like this than in Great Britain. Though we cannot adopt the practice of Great Britain, I think we ought to approximate to it very much more than we are doing. But I say that Ministers of the Crown today, from my own experience and observation in parliament, are do'ing slavish administrative work that they ought not to be called upon to do, and if we brought about a better condition of affairs in that respect, I think we could safely reduce the number of cabinet ministers in Canada, I am not going to argue that undue burdens ought to be imposed on any man. I believe a great many of the cabinet ministers in this country are overworked; sometimes under our system, our somewhat absurd system, they are worked to the point of nervous breakdown. I have seen that myself in past sessions, I have seen it over and over again, and it is a condition of affairs that we ought to be free from; ministers ought as far as possible to be free from the work of administrative detail.
Some _ one will say, there is cabinet responsibility. Of course there is cabinet responsibility, but that does not mean that every one of these details ought to come before a minister of the Crown.- A minister of the Crown is responsible, under the system in Great Britain, for the minutest details of the administration in his department; he is politically responsible, but he does not know anything at all about them. When anything goes wrong in his department he is responsible therefor to parliament; and if he comes to parliament and points out that he entrusted the duty to an official in the ordinary course and in good faith, that he had been selected for his capacity, and ability, and integrity, and the moment that man has gone wrong the minister had investigated the matter to the full and punished that man either by degradation or dismissal, he has done his dut-j to thi public. That is the way matters are deelo with'in Great Britain, and it is in that way it seems to me that our affairs ought to be carried on in this country. I do not want the Minister of Customs to imagine for a moment that I propose by any remarks I have made that any greater burden of work should be placed upon any of the ministers of the Crown. I know that in addition to all the administrative work, which is very great, which involves details that they should not be troubled with, they have a very exacting political duty to per-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
form as well, and no man's strength ought to be taxed beyond a reasonable point.


William Stevens Fielding: The difference between the British and American systems are so great that really no comparison can be made between us and the United States. The whole systems of government are widely different, and I think no fair comparison can be made. I admit, however, that comparisons may be made between Great Britain and the great commonwealths of the empire. Now, with regard to our system, I can sympathize warmly with the view taken by the leader of the opposition that ministers of the Crown are burdened with a great many things which they feel it desirable they should be relieved of. I do not know how we are to accomplish that except it is by adopting the British system of parliamentary under secretaries. The hon. gentleman says truly that the permanent ser-retaries in Great Britain correspond practically to our deputy he,ads here. Therefore with respect to that class of position we have the same organization; I grant that. But between members of the cabinet and the permanent organization there is another large body of gentlemen under the British system. In one of the latest books on the subject, I find that the cabinet at present -there is no fixed number by statute, but it varies slightly from time to time-I find the names of nineteen gentlemen who are in the cabinet of Great Britain. I find under the head of Ministry, and immediately following these, there are the names of 32 others who are members of one or the other branch of parliament, and who are deemed to be members of the ministry and appear under the head of Ministry.
Now that is a tremendous organization, and these gentlemen attend to a great many details that we are obliged here to deal with directly. If we had that system of under secretaries, then the ideal condition described by my hon. friend, that the members of the cabinet should direct the policy and leave the working of it out to others, that condition might be realized. But to-day under our system the members of the cabinet must not only consider, mature and direct the policy of the country, but they must themselves carry it out in a manner that will enable them to be answerable to parliament, not merely answerable in the particular constitutional way my hon. friend has referred to, but they must be prepared to give an intelligent reason for all these things. That intelligent reason is now given in England, not by a member of the cabinet; it is given by the under secretary. That is an ideal system, but it costs something. We might be able to reduce the number of cabinet members to some extent, but I am sure that if we did that we would be obliged to adont the British svstem of under secretaries. It is a desirable system, and I

hope some day that we shall he able to adopt it in Canada. But certainly one of the arguments in favour of it would hardly be that of economy. I think it would be a more expensive system than the present one. But I would not condemn it on that ground, because, I agree that the present system is open to some criticism, because it does impose upon the ministers of the Crown labours which are more arduous than they should be expected to perform.
Now there are one or two other features which lead towards a large cabinet in Canada, and they cannot be ignored. Population is not by any means the chief consideration. With a territory like that of Canada, the extent of our country is a very important consideration. We have a vast territory, with no considerable part of it empty. The western country is rapidly filling up, and each section of the Dominion feels that it is entitled to representation in the cabinet. We do not go so far as to say that every province must be represented, though that was the condition at the beginning of confederation. But we take the view that every large division of the country, the east, the west, the centre, the maritime provinces, the Pacific coast, that all these groups ought to be represented, and that makes towards a larger cabinet- than would be necessary if we considered population alone. Then there is another consideration which we are all familiar with, but which no one has mentioned yet. We are a people of different races in Canada, and it is deemed to be the part of wisdom that these different races should if possible be represented, not only in parliament but in the cabinet. I trust the time may come, some of our young men may live to experience it, when these considerations of east and west will have less weight than they have to-day. jf trust there will come a time when considerations of race and religion will have less weight than they have to-day. But we must frankly recognize these conditions to-day, and we know that in the best interest of all Canada it is well that in making up a.cabinet you should have regard to these things, as we know them in the past. On reflection it will be seen that for the good government of Canada we must have a larger cabinet than perhaps would be required by any other country of the same population.


David Henderson: 
Wilfrid Laurier: That is a good reason for increasing the salaries of other ministers.


David Henderson: Of course I am powerless in that matter. But I can at least propose to do something to bring about what I consider an equitable arrangement. We have this year passed etimates for salaries for the coming year in the Department of Labour. We have provided for the following officials in that department:
1 Deputy head	$ 5,000
1	First division, subdivision	A:-
Secretary	 2,800
2	Second division, subdivision	A..	..	3,7008	Second division, subdivision	B..	..	11,0001	Third division, subdivision	A..	..	9504	Third division, subdivision	B..	..	2.2001	Messenger at $650	
6501	Packer and sorter at $500	
500Allowance for private secretary..	30019	$27,100
To this list we are now adding $7,000 for a minister. With all this retinue of officers I think there will be very little left for the minister to do. I appeal to the government to reconsider this question and, .in deference to the men who have been members of the cabinet in the past, not start out a new man with the same salary as the older members receive.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: 1 have listened with pleasure to the declaration made by the

leader of the opposition who, while criti cising the increase in the number of cabinet ministers, frankly declares that he agrees with the principle of this legislation. In answer to the observations of my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) I would point out that the representation in the government of this country must be based to a certain degree on geopraphical divisions, and that in cabinet representation the great racial divisions of our people are taken into account. Let me ask the hon. gentleman if it would be fair to give to the head of the Labour Department a lower salary than the other ministers receive? Does he not think that the labouring c'asses of the country would not take very well to that idea? That of course is a sentimental argument, but, in addition to that there is the fact that during recent years the Department of Labour has assumed greater importance than in the earlier years of its history. The hon. gentleman has said that the Labour Department has been administered by the Postmaster General to the satisfaction of the public. I do not infer that the hon. gentleman is overanxious to unduly praise the present incumbent of that office and I accept the compliment, but I can tell my hon. friend that considering the great number of employees in the Post Office Department and the vast volume of daily correspondence which the Postmaster General has to attend to, it is practically impossible for him to give as much attention to the Department of Labour as it demands. Fortunately for the Department of Labour, since its inception it has had at its head Mr. Mackenzie King, a man of unquestionable ability, and under him competent and hardworking officers. Among the other duties of the Minister of Labour he has to institute inquiries on industrial questions; he has to look after the publication of the Labour Gazette monthly; he has to administer the fair wage policy on public contracts; he has to administer beside, the Conciliation Act of 1900, the Railway Labour Disputes Act of 1903, and the Industrial Disputes Act of 1907. The hon. gentleman says that with ail that work the Minister of Labour could absent himself from his office to go to Japan. I would remind the hon. gentleman that if the Minister of Labour went to Japan it was in connection with a labour question of the greatest importance, and on this subject may I give the House the latest figures which I have obtained from the Japanese consul and which show that during the last/ six months only 92 Japan-' ese came into this country, and in fact that more Japanese left Canada in that period than entered the country. This may help to illustrate the work we have accomplished as a result of the mission of the Minister Mr. LEMIEUX.
of Labour to Japan. Then the Industrial Disputes Act of 1907, has greatly increased the: work of the Labour Department as may be evidenced by a perusal of the very interesting report published this year. The hon. gentleman says that the cost of the department is not large and he apparently tried to minimize its importance by that comparison. True, the department is administered for about $60,000 a year, but that does not measure the efficiency or the utility of a department. I say that the Minister of Labour has more troubles and more anxieties when there is a strike or a threat of a strike in the coal fields of Alberta, or British Columbia, or Nova Scotia, than have the Minister of Inland Revenue and the Minister of Customs who are official collectors of the enormous revenues of this country. We find from the departmental report of last year that since the passage of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1907, we have had something like 52 boards of compulsory investigation instituted, in addition to a large number of arbitrations. The department had to closely follow these investigations and to send officers of the department to control so far as possible within their legal limits the investigations ordered. These investigations are becoming more and more numerous, applications are pouring into the department every day, and altogether the work is too difficult to be handled by a minister who has also to preside over the affairs of another large department. I may say, as regards the Compulsory Investigation Act of 1907, that out of 52 disputes 50 have been settled, thereby; saving to the public a large amount of money, preventing troubles and difficulties between capital and labour, and saving to the wage earners themselves many thousands of dollars. Therefore, I say again, it is not the amount of money involved in the administration of the department itself which should determine the voting of a salary for a Minister of Labour, but it is the difficulty of the problems which present themselves. To prevent strikes and lockouts, to see that the fair wage clause is properly applied in every public contract, to institute conciliation boards, to make inquiries into trade disputes, requires a man of ability, a man whose whole time is devoted to the work, who is the head of the department and has the responsibility as such. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition stated a mo ment ago that the Minister of Labour in the United States was also the Minister of Commerce. It is true that since 1903 there has been a separate Department of Labour in the United States, but the Bureau of Labour has existed there since 1384. But

this fact must also be 'borne in mind, .that in nearly every state of the American union there is a Bureau of Labour. The Minister of Labour at Washington for that reason has less to look after than here at Ottawa. In nearly all the states of the union there is a Bureau of Labour, where statistics are gathered, and where Conciliation Acts are administered.


Frederick William Borden: Are there not also in some of the provinces of Canada?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think there is one in the province of Quebec and one in Ontario. I do not think there are departments of labour in other provinces.


George Halsey Perley: Will the hon. minister tell us why it is that Australia can get along with seven ministers while we require fourteen or fifteen? Have they not the same labour conditions that we have?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The labour conditions in Australia are not the same as ours. The administration of the Compulsory Arbitration Act has cost the Australian government something like $600,000 a year, whilst the administration of the Compulsory Investigations Act of 1907 in Canada, with better results, I believe, has cost this country only $20,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A Department of Labour was created in 1900, and the duties of that department were assigned to one of the ministers, I think the Postmaster General, then the Hon. Wm. Mulock. By chapter 24 of 63 and 64 Victoria, in the statutes of 1900, the minister was authorized to establish and have charge of a Department of Labour, and we are now doing what it appears to me was done then.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It was only as an adjunct to the Post Office Department, not as . a second department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Under section 10 of that Act, the minister was to have the power to establish a Department of Labour, and the Governor in Council was to assign to some minister the work of carrying on that department. Yet we are to-day establishing a department for the same purpose and with the same name.


Wilfrid Laurier: The answer to my hon. friend is to be found in the last section of the Bill. The Act to which he has alluded is the Conciliation and Trades Act, which was passed in 1900. By section 10 of that Act the minister is empowered to establish a department. That Act was submitted to the Department of Justice, and this Bill was prepared by them in view of the clause to which my hon. friend has referred.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The question I want to ask is, did or did not the minister in 1900 establish a Department of Labour? If a Department of Labour was established in 1900, why is an Act required to establish a Department of Labour in 1909?


Wilfrid Laurier: There are in the Bill the qualifying words 'over which a Minister of Labour shall for the time being preside.' The Department of Labour provided for in the Act to which my hon. friend refers was the branch of another department, that of the Postmaster General. It is provided in section 4 of this Bill that the Minister of Labour shall have the administration of the Department of Labour so created.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You had the same thing before. By order in council you assigned the duties of administering the department to a minister of the Crown, who was called the Minister of Labour, and he has done the work of that department ever since. Why do you want to create a department which has already been created? Could you not as well, by order in council, assign the duties of the Department of Labour to any minister of the Crown?


Wilfrid Laurier: Not to a new minister.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is the only thing you are taking the powers to do now.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I remember distinctly when the proposition was made to establish a controllership of Customs and Inland Revenue, how hon. gentlemen opposite criticised it. I think the Minister of Customs is one of them, and Sir William Mulock and Mr. J. Charlton and the late Judge Lyster and the right hon. the Prime Minister, and especially the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright). They pondemned that proposition most vigorously because of the additional expense it entailed. They declared it was out of all reason, that there was* no need for it, and Mr. Charlton cited the United States as being governed by only six cabinet ministers whereas we required 12 or 14. It is rather amusing, in the light of these denunciations then, to see these same men, or at least those of them who are here today, defending the creation of another department and the consequent increasing expenditure. The excuse they give is that the country has grown, and I suppose every few years when we have a couple of hundred thousand added to our population, we will find another ministerial department created. The Minister of Finance gave as a reason that in Canada we have different races and must recognize them in the cabinet. If rumour be true, we will very soon go back to the old conditions that existed when we had a union of upper and lower Canada and a kind of dual representation, each province having a representative head

of the government, as in the case of the Dorion-Macdonald or the Macdonald-Dor-ion cabinet, and so on. Now it appears that the minister who is to be given the control of the Department of Labour is, because of his family history and ancestral line, to form one of a combination leadership of two, when the present Prime Minister leaves the boards. The combination mapped out is to consist of Mr. Mackenzie King as one leader, representing the traditions of his family and the element to which he belongs, and the other Mr. Lem-ieux representing the French Canadian race.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. King would represent the Germans.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the principle be recognized that we must have every race represented in this cabinet, what will happen in the future when the 47 different races to be found in Manitoba and the territories, shall each have its own minister? What size will the-cabinet be then? We shall have in the cabinet Doukhobors, Finns, Galicians and Jews, when their numbers are sufficiently numerous to enable each of them to insist on its claim. We may therefore soon look forward to the day when we will have twin leaders at the head of the cabinet. Instead of the Dorion-Macdonald, we shall have the Lemieux-King cabinet, but of course if hon. gentlemen opposite are determined on this I have no objection whatever.


Some hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I mean so long as the selection is made from that side and I am not responsible. I do not know what are the qualifications of the hon. gentleman who is coming in, beyond his family history, that entitle him to occupy so important and prominent a position and to be elevated over the heads of the many elder men of the party who have given longer service. Another piece of information I would_ like to have is the number of cabinet ministers to-day and the salary of each, also the number of departments. We would then know how much we are paying for cabinet ministers when this new department is created. Then there is the department of External Affairs, who is to be at the head of this, or is it to be under the Secretary of State?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Secretary of State then assumes the duties of two departments, but in a short time we shall no doubt have another minister created to take care of that department, and the excuse again given will be the development of the country and the increase of work. I would like to have the number of cabinet ministers land the salaries they draw.	1


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


Wilfrid Laurier: There are fourteen cabinet ministers now, and there will be fifteen, besides the Solicitor General, who is not in the cabinet. The salary of the Prime Minister is $12,000, the others get $7,000, and the Solicitor General has $5,000, but is not a member of the cabinet. There can be no doubt at all that, in the course of time, the number of cabinet ministers will have to be increased. In answer to the question from my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, as to why we should have fourteen ministers when Australia has only seven, I may say that I am not familiar with the conditions in Australia, but I know something of the history of this country since confederation was established. The best men of the country at that time-and the first government formed, was a coalition government, composed of men from both parties-concluded that they could not do with less than thirteen ministers. Since then we have had the Trade and Commerce Department created and the Solicitor General and now we are appointing a Minister of Labour. That the late Sir John A. Macdonald and the leading men of both parties, who organized confederation, thought they could not do with less than thirteen cabinet ministers, is a matter of history. As my hon. friend, the Finance Minister, pointed out a moment ago, the framers of confederation concluded that each of the four provinces had to be represented. The work of harmonizing the various provinces was not easy and in order to carry out confederation it was essential to have each province represented-not only the provinces, but the creeds and races. In order to form a homogenous people and conciliate so many different elements, the cabinet was composed of that number of ministers. When the policy of this country was started on that basis, does my hon. friend the leader of the opposition believe it will be possible to cut down the number of cabinet ministers by six or seven in order to reduce our cabinet to the size of the Australian cabinet? My hon. friend will see at once that it is impossible to do so. When you ask me, with so many ministers, why do you ask for another portfolio? I answer that the reason is that the labour element in Canada is such an important element, such a great factor in the life of civilized nations, that it must be taken into consideration. At all events, upon this we submit ourselves to the judgment of the country, that, when the labour organizations of the land ask that there should be a Department of Labour under the ministerial responsibility of one member, that is a suggestion and a request which ought to be granted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like the country to know what we are paying for cabinet ministers. Including the Solicitor Gen-

eral, who is outside of the cabinet and gets $5,000, the total for salaries is $115,000. They are rather an expensive luxury, and the country ought to know it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How much do the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway pay their presidents?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not talking about that, because there is no clause relating to the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Grand Trunk in the measure now before us. If you add the $37,000 of sessional indemnity paid to these ministers, you have a total of $152,000. That is liberal, I should think. I draw attention to this because of the strong adverse criticism of what was considered a very liberal expenditure under the former government, though it was so .much below the expense at this time.


David Henderson: If I understood the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) correctly, 'and I think I did, he intimated that the labouring class might resent the allowance of a salary of less than $7,000 to the Minister of Labour. I do not understand that the Minister of Labour is to represent only the labouring class.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No.


David Henderson: I think the Minister of Labour, like any other minister, will represent every man in the country. He must look to the interests of the employers of labour as well as those of the employee. Why should there be any 'resenting' or any feeling in this matter? I am afraid the Postmaster General was trying to create an unnecessary sentiment. I do not believe the working classes look at it in the light suggested and, in any ease, they would have no reason to do so. I think the Postmaster General, if I understood him aright, made a mistake in insinuating or intimating that the Minister of Labour was intended to represent only one class.


William Stevens Fielding: In view of what my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has said, I wish to add a word to avoid being misunderstood. I do not think there was any criticism in days gone by of the amount of the salaries of the ministers. There may have been some questions as to the number. I do not think the amount paid for ministers of the Crown is a veTy large one for the people of Canada. Except in the case of the Prime Minister, who did receive some increase, but less, probably, than he should have received, there has been no increase in the salaries of the cabinet ministers in many, many years. They are about the only class of officials in Canada who have not received an increase of salary. I am not allowed, as a minister, to propose an increase of salary, but if the day ever comes, when I occupy a seat on the other side of the House, I will take the
responsibility of advocating that the salary of cabinet ministers be increased.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not complaining of the increase of salaries to cabinet ministers


William Paterson: There has been no increase since 1873.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There were two controllers receiving $5,000, and they have been made cabinet ministers at $7,000. There is an increase, certainly.


William Paterson: They were cabinet ministers before the Department of Trade and Commerce was established.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But they did not receive the salary.


William Paterson: Yes, they did.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When Sir Mackenzie Bowell was Minister of Customs, he received the full salary of a minister. But when Mr. Wood was made controller of Customs, he received $5,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is what I say. He received $5,000. After that, we had the Department of Trade and Commerce


William Paterson: The Department of Trade and Commerce was a new office. The Act creating it lay in abeyance for a time, if 1 recollect aright. But when it became effective the Departments of Customs and Inland Revenue, which were full cabinet offices were subordinated to the Department of Trade and Commerce, and over each was a comptroller who was paid $2,000 less than the minister. The office of Solicitor General was created at the same time. When I entered the House in 1872,
I think I am right in saying the salary of a cabinet minister was $5,000 and the allowance of members $600. In 1873, Sir John Macdonald brought in a Bill increasing the salaries of the judges, increasing the salaries of cabinet ministers from $5,000 to $7,000, with the Prime Minister at $8,000, and increasing the allowance of members from $600 to $1,000. That ran without change for many years, when another increase was given to the members. Another increase was given to the members, and what it is now we all know. But, during all these years, from 1873 down to the present, the cabinet ministers have received the same salary. Besides, there is only the same number of members of government to-day that there were when tbis government came into office. There is a difference in that the Department of Trade and Com-mece is no longer over the Departments of Customs and Inland Revenue, but there is a minister at the head of each of these departments, which change was absolutely necessary.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the House unanimously agreed in the change. So far as I am concerned, I think that, if a new

department is created, the salary of the minister ought not to be less than $7,000. To fix it at less would be invidious and is not to be thought of, no matter who fills the office. Whatever criticism I may have of the members of the cabinet, as to their policy or administrative actions, I certainly do not think they are overpaid. If any change is made it should be in the way of increasing their salary and not diminishing it. I appreciate entirely the considerations put forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) with regard to the representation of certain interests in this country that may sometimes he regarded as divergent I think that could be done, perhaps-and I say this with all deference, not having had administrative experience-with no more ministers than at present, or even with less, and also with no greater cost to the country, even though the ministers should be given more adequate compensation for their services than at present. As far as I am concerned, I do not think their compensation is adequate, and if the government should bring in a measure to increase reasonably the salaries of the ministers of the Crown, I would be prepared to support it.


Adam Brown Crosby: It is with some timidity that I rise to say a word or two on the subject before the committee, but I cannot have it pass without having something to say. I approve of the lines of policy indicated by the leader of the opposition. It seems to me that Trade and Commerce and Labour might be combined under one department. Of course, I know that I am not thoroughly posted, but I am led to believe that there is not a great deal of work in the Trade and Commerce Department, and I agree with the leader of the opposition when he states that Trade and Commerce and Labour should go hand in hand. If that can be done I would be pleased to see it done. I believe in a labour department, I believe this government should have a labour department, and if we are going to add to its efficiency by making it a separate department and giving it a separate head, then let us do so. If by combining it with the Department of Trade and Commerce, we would detract from its efficiency, I would not like to see that done. The present government have inaugurated a method of settling strikes, and I must say, though I do not want to cast reflection upon anybody, that we have not benefited very much by the Conciliation Act known as the Lemieux Act. I know that if the Act is anything like the name, it ought to be very nice and pleasant; but it has not always been a benefit to those who have availed themselves of it. I know in the case of the longshoremen's strike in Halifax four or five years ago, in_ place of being an advantage to these men, it was a disadvan-


Robert Laird Borden: tage to them. I do not think there was a man who was engaged in the strike at that time who did not have to go back to work at actually less money than he had before the settlement. Moreover, they had to go back to their work without having secured the recognition of the union.
I believe a union is one of the leverages by which the workingman can hold his own against capital. If it is carried out properly, it is not only to the advantage of the labouring classes but it is to the advantage of the capitalist and the man who is an employer of labour. Then we had the dry dock strike in Halifax. There was no conciliation board there. A movement was made to appoint a board; it dragged ' along from day to day, from week to week, from month to month, almost into years, and there was no settlement. The men who endeavoured to strike on that occasion, many of them, had to leave Halifax and go elsewhere to seek employment. The union became a thing of the past. Then there was the Spring-hill strike. Three or four, conciliation boards, two or three at least, had to be brought together in that case, different judges had to be appointed on different boards, and after all they did not make a settlement. So you can go along the whole line. I do noit attribute this particular breakdown to any head of a department, or to the department itself. But I do say that we must have a Labour De-paritment, and we must improve it. I am quite in line with my leader when he says that if we are going to inaugurate a Department of Labour we must not make it a secondary department, but the minister of that department must stand on the same footing as every other minister, his salary must not be any less. I think we can say of him what the Prime Minister said a few days ago, when he quoted scripture to show that the man who was sent ito work at the eleventh hour got just as much as the one who began to work at the beginning of the day. My hon. friend the Postmaster General was referring to what had been done by the Labour Department in getsting the Japanese to go back to Japan. Now I would like the Minister of Labour to go to Japan as often as possible, if he can take all the Japanese out of Canada and conduct them back to Japan. If there was nothing else for the Minister of Labour to do I would like '.to see him going back and forth between Canada and Japan for the next year or two in order to clear out all the Japanese we have here.
I believe that the more effective we can make the Labour Department the beitter for the country generally. I hope to see the Conciliation Act brought into operation more often, I hope to see it improved, and

as long as I sit in this House I will be glad to give my assistance in that direction.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: A good deal has been said with regard to the salaries of ministers. I wish to say that ever since I came to this House, and particularly when the question came up of increasing the indemnity to members, I have been of the opinion, and I am willing to take the responsibility of saying so, that our ministers are not properly paid. Now in a way I object to the proposed title of Minister of Labour; and I have heard other members express the same opinion. He should not be called a Minister of Labour. Every minister of the Crown is a minister of all the people, no matter over what department he presides. Another practice of this government which I think is open to criticism is that of going outside the members of this house to get ministers. There may be times when that might be done, but in the present case I see absolutely no need of it. This is not such an important position as that the government must go outside of parliament to find a head of the new department. I know of at least two or three men sitting on the opposite side of the House who are entirely fit, both in experience and ability, to occupy the post of Minister of Labour. Therefore I think the government is open to criticism m having gone outside the House to seek a head of this department.
On section 3,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This means another deputy minister. I understood the minister to say that there would be no new expense involved in this legislation except the salary of the minister. But you provide a deputy minister.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He has been appointed already. He was appointed when the department was created an adjunct of the Post Office Department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Were there two deputies m the other department?


Rodolphe Lemieux: There was a Deputy Minister in the Post Office Department, and there was a deputy minister in the Labour Department. To-day we contemplate having one Minister of the Department of Labour. The deputy minister remains the same.


David Henderson: Who is the Deputy Minister of Labour?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. F. A. Acland. He was secretary of the department, and was promoted when Mr. King left the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand from the Postmaster General that a deputy was appointed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. King was acting as deputy minister of the Department of Labour in connection with the Conciliation Act of 1900. An appointment was provided for in that Act. There has been no change. Mr. King has left the department and is now a member. Mr. Acland, who was secretary under Mr. King, has been promoted and Mr. Brown has been appointed secretary of the department.


David Henderson: I thought he was assistant to the deputy minister.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The secretary is ranked as secretary of the department and assistant deputy minister. The reason is obvious. Sometimes there are two or three industrial disputes threatening at the same time. The deputy minister may be engaged on an important dispute and it may be necessary for the secretary to deal with another dispute and it is thought better to give him the title of assistant deputy.


David Henderson: It gives him more prestige?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.
Bill reported.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the third reading of the Bill.


David Henderson: I intimated that on the third reading I might test the opinion of the House on the question of the $7,000 salary to the minister. After hearing the expression of opinion of members I see that I am in a desperate minority and I shall not pursue my intention, although I still hold to the opinion I expressed. I wish it to be understood that I am not objecting to ministers getting better salaries. If we were discussing that question I might perhaps _ speak differently, but I do think it invidious to put this man, whoever he may be, at the head of this department, which, notwithstanding all that has been said, I do not regard as a department at all equal in importance to the Departments of Customs, Finance, Agriculture or Justice, and pay the same salary as the other ministers receive. I think it is unfair to the men who have been doing the hard work for the last ten or twelve years; it makes too soft a spot for the new man.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: who have so little to do, so that we could avoid adding at least $7,000 for another minister.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 175) further to amend chapter *92 of the Statutes of 1901, respecting the Canadian Patriotic Fund Association-Sir Frederick Borden-read the second time, considered in, committee, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 186) respecting certain aid-for the extension of the Canadian Northern Railway-Mr. Graham-read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon.
On the preamble,
George Perry Graham: By this Bill it is not proposed to grant any aid to the Canadian Northern Railway. It is to make clear a question that has arisen as to the securities of the Dominion and the securities of the Manitoba government. Under an Act of last session this parliament guaranteed certain bonds of the Canadian Northern Railway. On the property on which this guarantee was given, we took a first mortgage and as security, a second mortgage on the other lines of the Canadian Northern Railway. The Manitoba government gave assistance in the way of a guarantee of bonds, and on the lines on which they gave the assistance they took a first mortgage. On the same lines our mortgage comes in as a second mortgage. The question arose when the bonds came to be issued upon 199 miles which had been begun and not completed at the passage of the Act as to the priority of the securities. It is merely to make clear, as was the understanding, that the Manitoba government securities rank ahead of our security on that portion of the mileage not completed.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the minister read the section as amended?


George Perry Graham: Yes.
The said deed or deeds of trust shall also *create a mortgage or charge, next after the charges existing thereon-
Then comes in the amendment:
and the deed of trust by way of mortgage or charge securing the same, dated 30th Mav, 1904, confirmed by chapter 37 of the statutes of Manitoba of 1905, and the securities issued, and which may hereafter be issued, under the terms of the said deed of trust, upon all the lines and branch lines.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A question could be raised if this debenture stock had been scattered among third parties, but as a matter of fact it is in the bank and the bank has given its consent to this change.


George Halsey Perley: Is there any other charge on this road except the bonds guaranteed by the Manitoba government?


George Perry Graham: No; they have the first charge and we have the second.


George Halsey Perley: They have the only charge ahead of us?


George Perry Graham: Yes. They guaranteed bonds up to $10,000 a mile. Their mortgage includes the mileage already constructed and as year by year the legislature of Manitoba undertakes to guarantee a further issue of bonds on further mileage the original mortgage covers the mileage they may guarantee.


George Halsey Perley: The insertion of these new words looks as if there were some other [DOT]charge, because it says: ' And the deed of trust'. This deed of trust is really covering exactly the same mortgage?


George Perry Graham: The expression merely covers the $10,000 per mile.


George Halsey Perley: It is not well worded to express that idea. I think it would be better to use the words 'covered by the deed of trust' so as to show it was the same mortgage.


George Perry Graham: In order that there might be no mistake about it this time, I had Judge Phippen and Mr. Chrysler of Ottawa who are both experts, draw a Bill, agree upon its terms, and sign the original before 1 would accept it so that there could be no mistake.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


RAILWAY EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT ACT.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 164) to amend the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees Provident Act-Mr. Graham-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
George Perry Graham: The object of this is merely to allow Mr. Pottinger to be chairman of the Provident Fund Association Board. The Act says that the general manager shall be chairman, but under our new regulations there is no general manager, and we are changing the Act so as to allow him to continue to be chairman.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would like to call the minister's attention to a matter to which I have already privately called his attention, that is, the position of certain employees of the railway who are obliged to pay into the fund with no possibility of having their payments returned to them unless there is an amendment to the Act. These are men who have gone beyond the age of seventy, after which age the payments do not count, so that in the event of their retirement they would get no re turn. Some of them have not been more than ten years in the service or long enough to entitle them to participate in the fund. I call the minister's attention to it in the hope that he will deal with it in some way.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend's remarks are quite apropos. There is an apparent hardship to some of the older -members of the service who were compelled by the Act to come into the Provident Fund, but who mnder the same Act cannot get anything out of it. I have discussed the matter with the chairman of the board, who thought the Act would allow -them on retire ment to get back the money they had paid in. If there is not authority to -do that, I think we ought to get authority.


David Henderson: Would it not be possible to insert an amendment in this Bill that would cover this matter?


George Perry Graham: I think we had better not fry to do it now, but I think we shall be able to work it out later. No grievance will be suffered by the men because of the delay.


Mr. MADDIN.: When the change does come into effect, you will make it retroactive?


George Perry Graham: Yes, it will include the object my hon. friend has in view.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


RAILWAY SUBSIDIES BILL CORRECTION.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 174), to correct a clerical error in chapter 63 of the statutes of 1908, respecting railway subsidies-Mr. Graham

read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
George Perry Graham: As I explained the other day, the resolutions passed last session provided for a subsidy of $200,000 to the Vancouver, Westminster and Yukon Railway Company towards the construction and completion of a Tailway bridge across Bur-rard Inlet, as will be found on page 1414 of the Votes and Proceedings. When the statute based on the resolutions came back from the printer, there was no amount in it, the space being blank. This Bill is to correct that error.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


COLD STORAGE ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 147), to amend the Cold Storage Act-Mr. Fisher-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: As I explained when the Bill was introduced, its object is merely to change one word so as to provide that cold storage warehouses shall be eligible for the bonus even though they do not provide accommodation for all kinds of food products.
Bill reported.
Mr. FISHER moved the third reading of the Bill.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: How much money was spent last year in the icing of cars for cold storage purposes?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Speaking from memory, about $10,000 for the icing of cars and for making up the freight rate in a few instances. Our arrangement with the railways was to guarantee two-thirds of the freight on a car. In most cases the freight is sufficient to pay that, but occasionally there is a deficiency which we make up.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Early in the session I asked for a return showing the amount of food products shipped in cold storage.
According to the return brought down, the amount of stuffs going by cold storage is infinitessimal. I think it amounted to 1,500 barrels of apples only out of the 15,000,000 produced in the country. If that return indicates what went in cold storage, the country is getting no adequate compensation for the expense of that system.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have in the ships through Canadian channels four kinds of storage, namely cold storage or the refrigerator compartments, cool air storage, the storage ventilated by air holes, and the common storage. Very few apples go in the refrigerator service. They practically all go in the ventilated and cool air compartments. Butter all goes in the refrigerator compartments except in the winter. I do not think any cheese goes into the refrigerator compartments but into the cool air storage. Some eggs go in the refrigerators in very hot weather, but generally in the cool air compartment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: All the butter that went into the refrigerator compartments in 1907
was 66,968 packages, and 52 in the cold air. In 1908, 89,000 went in cold storage and none in the other. Apples, 6,105 barrels and 2,077 boxes went in cold storage and 1,000 barrels and 3,000 cases in cool air. Meats, 2,000 boxes went in cold storage and 29,000 in cool air, but the meats were

principally from the United States. Lard, none went from Canada at all. Fruit and vegetables, Canadian, none. Eggs, 398 boxes went in cool air. Beef, quarters, from the United States and pork, 267 boxes. The amount is so very small that it looks as if hardly any one used the cold storage.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. TEMPLEMAN moved that the amendments made^ by the Senate to Bill (No. 127) respecting commercial feeding stuffs be concurred in. He said: The only amendment of any consequence is to change the date of bringing the Act into force from October, 1909, to January, 1910. That is due to the fact that, under the Act, licenses have to be issued in the calendar year, and it was deemed inexpedient to have three months license for the balance of this year.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the interest on the sums of money advanced to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal for the construction of grain elevators and other terminal facilities, during the period of construction of the said facilities-such period to terminate as of such date as the Governor in Council shall fix and determine-should be charged to the capital account of the commissioners, and be paid out of the sum to bo advanced to the com mis*-sioners under authority of chapter 30 of the Acts of 1907.-Mr. Fielding.
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It was thought that by the statute providing for loans of money to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, the interest accrued during the construction of the public works should be added to capital account, but it was found that the statute did not provide for that. That was due to a clerical error, because interest on public works during construction is always charged to capital account. Take the railway accounts, it is provided that the interest on the money spent during the construction of a railway forms part of the capital. When the accounts come to he made the capital account is charged with the interest paid during construction.. It was thought in the case of the Harbour [DOT]Commissioners that the interest which had accrued during construction should be charged to the capital account, but the Department of Justice advised that, under the statute, that could not be done.
Resolution reported. Mr. SPROULE.
On motion that the resolution be read the second time and concurred in:


John Allister Currie: I take advantage of this opportunity to say that, if there is any way in which the Bill proposed by me for the weighing of grain at. the transfer elevator can be incorporated into law before the end of this session, I shall be glad to assist the minister in striking my Bill from the order paper. By this Bill I endeavour to save the grain men $50,000 a year. If the minister (Mr. Brodeur) would forward the measure, I think his action would be duly appreciated by those concerned.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The Bill referred to could be included in some measure dealing with the incorporation of the Board of Harbour Commissioners, but this is an Act for the Amendment of the Act to provide for further advances to the Harbour Commissioners, and it could not be incorporated in this measure.


John Allister Currie: Not in this one; I know that. I only took the opportunity of asking if there would be a way in which the measure could be made law this session.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It will have to stand over for this session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and resolution read the second time and agreed to.
Mr. BRODEUR moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 192) to provide for further advances to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first and second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I suppose the rate of interest is mentioned in some other Act; it does not appear here.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is provided in the statute. The rate is 3 per cent.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


EXCHEQUER COURT AMENDMENT ACT.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 151) to amend the Exchequer Court Act (Mr. Aylesworth), read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Appeal by Crown to Provincial Court of Appeal.
Charles Joseph Doherty: 
Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The committee will observe that there is nothing in the proposed clause with reference to amount. The idea, I may say, which is in my own mind, and with which this amendment has been drafted, is that it should be applied to'cases which, while involving, a small amount of money, might involve some important principle of law, and in which it would, therefore, be thought desirable on the part of the officers of the Crown that an appeal might be taken. An appeal to the Supreme Court would be more expensive and would bear, if it were successful, more heavily upon the defeated litigant than if the appeal could be taken to the provincial court. Notably, I might refer to cases which might be determined differently in different provinces. Take, for instance, an action, which is not at all uncommon and which, in the English-speaking provinces, we commonly refer to as an action under Lord Campbell's Act, where a man has been killed by some negligence for which the representatives of the deceased consider officials of the Crown are responsible-it might be on the Intercolonial Railway. If such action arises in the provinces to which the English common law applies, the conduct of the deceased, or a release which he may have given, or a contract which he may have entered into which would preclude him from recovering in case he had been injured instead of being killed, would be a good defence to the action brought by his representatives. In the province of Quebec, under the system which there obtains, such an action I am told is viewed as an independent action altogether, and the action given by law to the widow or to the family is one in respect of which a release which might have been given by the deceased during his lifetime, would be no answer. Such an action accordingly might have a different fate entirely, depending upon whether the accident had occurred and the action was brought in the courts of one province instead of another. In such actions sometimes the amount involved is comparatively small, while questions of law which are raised are of great importance. It has been felt, in the conduct of the litigation of the Crown, that it would often be desirable that questions of importance, legal questions of that character, should be passed upon by the appellate tribunal of the province instead of going
to the Supreme Court. The whole object of this amendment is to give the Crown that option in cases where it seemed proper to His Majesty's legal advisers that an appeal should be taken, and in which it would be greatly to be desired that such appeal should be disposed of by a tribunal of the province without going to the Supreme Court at all. That is the whole scope of this amendment and of the fact that no limitation is proposed upon the face of the enactment as to the amount involved.


Charles Joseph Doherty: One of the reasons given why it might be considered more desirable upon the part of the Crown that it should have a right of appeal to the appellate court of the province, would be that in cases of small amounts, it might involve less expense and entail less hardship on the other party. So far as that reason is concerned, it occurred to me that inasmuch as the Crown has a right of appeal as it now stands to the Supreme Court, whereas, the opposite party has no appeal in cases in which the amount involved is under a specified amount, it might perhaps be considered proper that some specific amount should be fixed with regard to an action in which the Crown should have its option. Because it seems to me, I say it with all respect, that at first glance it looks a little anomalous to give a right to one party to a suit which you refuse to another.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.: What is the difference now?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If I remember rightly, not having the statute before me, at present the party other than the Crown has no appeal from the Exchequer Court to the Supreme Court in cases where the amount does not exceed $500, whereas the Crown has a right of appeal even if the amount be under $500. If there be some important question of law involved the decision of which might affect future rights, or similar questions in other cases in which the Crown property is concerned, or in, which the amount might be larger, it seems to me it would be more logical to make a similar distinction as to amount in creating another case where the Crown is to to have an appeal which' the other party is not to have. And if the reason of making this distinction by this present Act is because, in cases, of small amounts where the Crown might have a substantial interest to appeal, it might be hard on the other party that he should be compelled to go before the Supreme Court and run the risk of paying all the costs involved in such an appeal. If these are the reasons on which it rests, why should not this exceptional right upon the part of the Crown to choose its appeal be limited to those cases where it

alone has any right to appeal? Then so far as the differences of law in the different provinces might make it desirable to go to the appellate court of the province rather than the Supreme Court, it seems to me that so far as this Act rests on that ground, if it is to be applicable in all cases including those in which the party other than the Crown has an appeal, those very reasons ought to be just as great in the case where the opposite party would be the appellant as where the Crown would be the appellant. I have no doubt this matter has been fully considered by the Department of Justice, more fully than I have been able to consider it; but on the face of it it looks a little anomalous and a little unfair to give the Crown exclusive choice of courts, whereas the opposite party having a right of appeal is limited to absolutely one court. Of course I have no doubt that the representatives of the Crown never desire to abuse it in that way. But you are running the risk of the party with whom the Crown is litigating feeling that he has been condemned by a court that the Crown selected, and that if he had felt called upon to take an appeal he would have had no choice at all. Suppose for instance a litigant in the province of Quebec thinks he would have a better chance under the Quebec law if he loses his case in the Exchequer Court, and the Crown by option takes him to the Supreme Court, he may think: ' Well, if I were to go to appeal I would have to go to the Supreme Court; but the Crown may take the choice of the two courts which seems to it most desirable.' I do not think, however, anybody representing the Crown would do that.
I only wanted to submit these considerations to which, as I say, I have no doubt the Minister of Justice has given much more thought than I have been able to do. But, when you are framing an Act, and find that you are giving to one party a remedy which you are refusing to the other party, at first glance there seems to be an unfairness about it. For myself I must confess that it does seem to me that the reasons the minister gives, while they might be sufficient if this Act applied to these particular cases of small amounts in which the party other than the Crown would not have an appeal anyway,-when applied to those cases in which both parties now have a right to appeal-are not satisfactory. I must confess that when you come to make this statute apply to all cases in such a manner that you are giving to the Crown in any case the choice of Court of Appeal, whereas the opposite party, where he has an appeal, is limited to one court, I have to confess that the reasons for making that discrimination do not at the moment seem to be absolutely conclusive.


Charles Joseph Doherty: 


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Of course I do not conceal that this Bill has been deliberately framed in its present language. It was not intended to confer upon the suppliant in a proceeding against the Crown any new or different right of appeal from that which already exists for him, and, I admit that at first sight that appears to be putting the suppliant in a position of disadvantage. But I think that, upon reflection, it will be seen that apparent disadvantage is not after all as real as it might at first be supposed. It is a first principle that the Crown can be sued only by its own consent, the King's writ does not run against the King himself. The Crown can be sued only in the special manner which is prescribed by the presentation of a petition of right and such a petition of right becomes effective only when His Majesty's representative gives his fiat permitting the petition of right to be presented, so that at the very initiation of any proceedings by a subject against the Crown, the consent of the Crown to being sued is an essential pre-requisite. Remembering that that principle underlies the whole administration of justice where the subject pursues the Crown for his remedy, when we come to consider the appeal which is given we will see that at the present time, the only appeal from the federal Exchequer Court is to the federal Appellate Court, the Supreme Court of Canada. I am not proposing to take away from the suppliant any right which he has, I am not proposing to restrict or to affect that right of appeal. In any action which the subject may prosecute in the Exchequer Court, if he has under the existing law a right of appeal, that right remains to him, notwithstanding the passing of this legislation, not in the least degree detracted from or lessened. But I am proposing to confer upon the Crown an alternative right of appeal. I am not proposing to confer upon the suppliant the same privilege.- It appeared to me that if a suppliant was unsuccessful in the court of first instance, if his claim was dismissed by the judge in the Exchequer Court and he was discontent, he might well be left to prosecute his appeal, if he were so advised, in accordance with the existing law. If his claim was small, but still he thought that he could succeed, he would not be interested in settling general principles of law which might be applicable to other cases, his only interest would be to recover the amount of his claim and he might therefore well be left to his present remedy by prosecuting what would be probably a more expensive appeal it is true but an appeal to the federal appellate tribunal. On the other hand, the Crown is often interested in establishing some question of law which would be ap-

plicable to a great number of cases, and in actual everyday practice we frequently find a case involving a comparatively small amount in which a judgment is pronounced in the court of first instance with which the advisers of the Crown are not satisfied but they hesitate to go to an appeal and to take their adversary through the expensive proceedings of an appeal to the Supreme Court, when if this alternative of going to the appellate tribunal of the province existed, that hesitation would be removed and at much less expense the question of law might be settled satisfactorily not merely with reference to that particular ease but possibly concluding a great number of other similar pieces of litigation. Just because the Crown -on that account is frequently interested in getting some question of general importance settled in an action which may be in itself of comparatively trifling importance, this alternative right of appeal would be certainly of great value to the Crown. It would not be of the same value to the private litigant, and I thought that, as I was not proposing to take anything from him by the proposed amendment, but only proposing to confer upon the Crown an additional alternative right of appeal, the proposition was free from objection on that ground.


Haughton Lennox: I think the Minister of Justice is a little too candid about this Bill to have it commend itself to the committee. The private litigant desiring to bring an action againist the Crown is pretty well handicapped under the general law which I think goes far enough in that respect. The minister tells us that the object of this Bill is in effect that if the Crown can get an advantage by seeking an appeal in a provincial court which it could not get m the Supreme Court of Canada, then it will be enabled to take advantage of the local law and obtain a verdict which it otherwise could not get. On the other hand, he proposes to retain for the Crown the existing right of appealing to the Supreme Court. Then, whenever the Crown finds upon investigating a matter that it can obtain a verdict favourable to the Crown, in one court or the other, the Crown can appeal to that court. This does not seem to me to be a fair way of treating the public. I do not understand why the Crown with all its powers should have these peculiar advantages. It is candidly admitted by the minister, giving the illustration which is familiar to us, and which was actually invoked in some cases not long ago, Lord Campbell's Act as against the law of Quebec, and says that the very object of this Act is to enable the Crown to cause that appeal to whichever court is most likely to be favourable to the Crown against the man who has already obtained a verdict. I do not think that this is honest or creditable to the country. J ust as it is discreditable for suitors to cast about to see which judge is most likely to give a favourable verdict, it is discreditable for the Crown to take advantage of the pro-position the minister submits. I cannot see that- this is just legislation in the view in which the minister presents it to the committee.


James William Maddin: It is only fair and right that a suppliant in asking for a fiat to proceed against the Crown, should know exactly what tribunal it is possible for him to go before in order to have his -rights determined. He should know before he ventures into litigation what court or courts will have jurisdiction over his case. As the law stands now the litigant knows exactly that if he fails before the Exchequer Court then in certain cases fixed by statute he has a right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and in certain other cases, broader than the suppliants, the Crown has a right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. And so the solicitor of the suppliant is in a position to give him an opinion on the law, but should this amendment carry and the right be vested in the Crown to select whichever of the two tribunals it shall see fit, then the solicitor can never instruct his client with any degree of certainty, because he will be obliged to say that if the case is determined according to the law of the province you will succeed, but if the Crown exercises its right to select the Supreme Court of Canada you will fail. As the law stands the litigant knows what tribunals have jurisdiction, and to insert this amendment- is unfair to the litigant. I submit that this legislation should not pass.


Robert Laird Borden: There may be some reasons why it would be more in the interest of the Crown or the subject to go to the provincial court than to the Supreme Court, but I have always entertained the opinion that the rights of the Crown and of the subject should be correlative and that if you give the Crown the right to sue the subject you should give the subject a corresponding right to sue the Crown. I think that a great deal of the old theory of prerogative is inapplicable to the conditions in this country; it certainly is not applicable to these cases in which the Crown undertakes to carry on the business of a railway company. If the Crown is t-oi be invested with the right to appeal either to a provincial court of appeal or to the Supreme Court of Canada I must confess that I can see no good reason why the subject should not have the same right. When the Minister of Justice introduced this Bill he rather put it on the ground that the Crown was too much oppressed by poverty to stand the expense of an appeal to the Sup-

reme Court of Canada, but surely the hon. gentleman must have intended that as a joke. However, the ground he now puts forward is that there may be laws applicable to a certain case in controversey in a province which should rather be entrusted to the determination of the court of appeal of that province than to the Supreme Court of Canada. If that is a consideration in favour of an appeal on behalf of the Crown to a provincial court of appeal, why is it not an equally good reason in favour of an appeal by the subject to that court? Under the law as at present if the subject matter of dispute amounts to a certain sum either the one party or the other can appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the rights of the parties are precisely the same in that respect. Under this Bill it is not proposed to increase the rights of the subject, but it is proposed to increase the right of the Crown by giving the Crown the option to appeal either to a provincial court of appeal or to the Supreme Court of Canada. I must confess that I cannot see any sound principle on which such legislation can be founded. I would not see much objection to it if the subject were invested with the same rights as the Crown although even then it might be debatable whether there is any good reason for it. But it does seem to me rather a novel principle that you create a right of appeal in the Crown of which you deprive the subject.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: It is dangerous for any one to be more Catholic than the Pope, and I am afraid that in this matter I am more Conservative than the recognized leader of the great Conservative party^ I think it is one of the most valuable" rights of the Crown that it should not be liable to be sued except upon the advice of its own attorney general. It is all very well to say that the rights of the subject and of the Crown should be co-relative and coequal, but there is reason for the established order of things which has prevailed for centuries in British dominions. The attorney general is not personally interested; he is not dealing with interests which are his own, and I think the experience of the past has demonstrated that he can safely be trusted not to advise the withholding of a flat without which an action cannot be brought against the Crown unless the case is of extreme character. I should certainly not be prepared to give up that right and privilege of the Crown wherever British rule prevails. It is a rule established by the wisdom of centuries and I think it is a good rule. It is with the idea of carrying out that general principle that this amendment is introduced. It is an anomalous thing I concede that we should be proposing to permit an appeal from a federal court to a provincial court, and just because it is an anomalous thing I should not be willing to give to the subject the option to exercise Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
that right at his pleasure. I think it is very probable that option would be extensively utilized were it given to the subject. If it is given to the Crown, and to the Crown only, I think I am safe in saying that it will be very sparingly acted upon. It will be in very few cases, and only in cases where important questions of law arise, that the alternative of going to the provincial court will be chosen by the advisers of the Crown. But there are cases in which it has been in practice felt that it would have been preferable if, in view of the special questions which arose in the particular litigation, there had been the possibility of going to the provincial appellate court instead of to the Supreme Court of Canada. I am not able to appreciate the feeling of my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) that this amendment would introduce uncertainty into the administration of the law. See how it would shape itself practically. A supnliant has a claim against the Crown, and he consults his solicitor in regard to it. Assuming that the present amendment is the law of the land, his solicitor tells him: ' You must bring your suit in the Exchequer Court, where it will be tried by one judge. If he decides against you, and you do not see fit to accept his judgment, your only chance is by appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada.' There is no uncertainty in the position of the suppliant in that respect. On the other hand, the solicitor says to him: ' If you succeed before the Exchequer Court, the Crown has a right of appeal, and may take the choice of two tribunals, either our own provincial Appellate Court or the Supreme Court of Canada, I cannot tell you which of these tribunals the Crown will select, if it takes any appeal at all.' It may be that there will be differences of result in litigation, depending on individual judges before whom the litigation comes for decision. I suppose that is a necessary consequence of human nature. Upon that the legal adviser, in discussing the question _ with his client, can only speculate and give to him his own best ideas of what the personal equation in the different judges or different courts of the country will lead to. Upon the general question of the law applicable to his case, no effect whatever is had by granting to the Crown the alternative right of appeal.


James William Maddin: If it were at all possible to make the uncertainty clearer than I did, I think the Minister of Justice has done that in his remarks. When a litigant's case gets to the point at which he asks his solicitor's advice, his solicitor will tell him, as the Minister of Justice has said: 'You are obliged to take your action into the Exchequer Court, and if you fail there and de-! sire to appeal, you are obliged to take your

appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Thus far there is no uncertainty. If you succeed in getting judgment in the Exchequer Court, you are obliged to defend that judgment in whichever one of the two tribunals the Crown chooses to appeal to. There is the element of uncertainty. The Minister of Justice has made that as clear as the noonday sun. But it has always been the practice of the Crown, in issuing a fiat to bring an action, to say: 'We will play fair; we will give you a fair deal.' Under the law as it now stands the litigant knows exactly into what courts he will be called, where his rights will be determined. But under this amendment, it amounts to this, that the Crown says to the litigant: ' We will grant you a fiat for a petition, and you may bring your case, but if you succeed in the Exchequer Court, we will consider the question involved, and if we think we cannot beat you in the Supreme Court of the province, we will try it in the Supreme Court of Canada; and if we think we cannot beat you in the Supreme Court of Canada, we will try it in the Supreme Court of the province; but in the meantime, although granting you the fiat, we will not take you into our confidence and tell you which of the two tribunals you will have to face.' That is the element of uncertainty and unfairness. You can easily appreciate that a case might arise in which, after it had been determined by the last court of appeal, the litigant would say: ' If I had known that the Crown, in the event of appealing, would have taken it to the Supreme Court of Canada, I would never have submitted to the fiat.' That element of uncertainty and conjecture should be eliminated, and the proceedings should be made regular so that the litigant would know all the tribunals before which his case would go.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not inclined to agree with my hon. friend the Minister of Justice that there is any departure from past Conservative doctrine in the attitude I have taken this evening. It was a Conservative government which first made the Crown liable in this country for the negligence of its servants upon public works, where that negligence caused damage to any third person; and I think the tendency of legislation, not only before 1896, but since 1896-because my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals has been carrying out some legislation of the same char-acter-^has been towards giving the subject what I call co-relative rights in the assertion of claims in the courts of this country. He has spoken of the safeguards thrown around the subject by his being able to depend upon the advice of the Attorney General, who has no personal interest. I admit that is a safeguard, and I am not putting forward any 214
other claim that would bear any other construction. But sometimes I have noticed, even since I have been a member of this House, that it is not the Attorney General of Canada who determines whether or not a fiat shall be granted, but the minister in charge of a particular department, and it sometimes even appears that the matter has not gone before the Attorney General at all. There are applications today outstanding in the office of the Postmaster General, if I am not mistaken, from some twelve or fifteen men, for permission to sue the Crown in respect of mail contracts which were cancelled by the former Postmaster General, Sir William Mulock, and I was never led to believe that the Attorney General's advice was very much invoked in those cases, although I spea-k subject to correction. After all, what is there in this prerogative that we should be so much afraid to give the subject the right to sue? He cannot effectively assert his claim against the Crown until it has been passed upon. He stands, if you grant this writ, exactly in the same position as the Crown. The claim of either the one or the. other must await the determination of the courts, with the full right of either to appeal to a higher court where such appeal is allowed. It is proposed to depart from that. I do not know that there is to be found in the old doctrine of prerogative anything like this. The Minister of Justice says that this is an anomaly, and in that I entirely agree with him. It is a very great anomaly, but he thinks it perfectly proper that that anomaly should be acted upon in favour of the Crown while it is not in favour of the people. Call it an anomaly, if you will, to give both the Crown and subject the right of appeal, but it is most extraordinary to give the Crown alone the right and deny it to the subject.
I do not think the legislation is founded on sound principle and am still unconvinced by the argument of the Postmaster General iMr. Lemieux). We ought to tend more and more in this country to give the subject the free right of appeal to the courts enjoyed by the Crown.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not wish to discuss the merits of the Bill but merely to sav a word or two on the remarks of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition about these mail contracts which were cancelled years ago and concerning which a petition of rights was filed. If I remember well the facts-and they came before me a few .months after I became Postmaster General-they are as follows: In 1896, my predecessor, Sir William Mulock, examined into a series of somewhat large mail contracts which had been renewed without tender, and decided to cancel a certain number. The contracts were cancelled, ' new tenders were called for and new con-



tracts awarded. In the Post Office Act there is a section which provides that all mail contracts of above $200 are subject to tender, there were 15 or 20 of those contracts which had been renewed without the necessary authority, and by calling for new tenders the Postmaster General of that day saved quite a large amount to the public exchequer. In every contract there is a clause providing that the Crown may at any time cancel it, but this clause is never acted upon except in particular cases, such as the ones I have just mentioned, so that if the fiat was refused in those cases, the Crown had certainly a right to Tefuse it.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not at all concerned as to whether these men had a good claim or not. They were advised by counsel that they had and therefore were entitled to assert it in the courts. If the Crown did not desire to be harassed with 15 or 20 actions, it could have selected one as a test case; and if it thought the men were not responsible for costs, it could have made the condition that they should give security before going into the courts. But when advised that they had a good claim, thev should have been granted the opportunity to assert that claim in the courts.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I would like to add, with reference to the claims referred to, that when a claim is made for the recovery of monev against the Crown, the application for leave to present a petition is referred by the Department of Justice to the department interested for instructions and advice. But with regard to the contracts alluded to, while it is a fact that during the eight months when I was Postmaster General I heard of these claims, it is equally the fact that they were then nearly ten years old and that no formal application of any kind to revive them or ask that they be considered came before me; and during the three years, or nearly so, in which I have been Minister of Justice, those claims have never in any way been submitted to me for consideration but appeared, as I always supposed them to be, claims which were disposed of more than ten years ago.
I am not familiar with the details, but with regard to the administration, by me at any rate, of the privilege of advising His Majesty's representative on the important question as to whether permission should be given for the presentation of a petition of right, I have only to say that I share entirely the views expressed by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, namely, that the petition of right ought to be granted practically always. I have advised, in the three years I hava'been in my present position, the granting of petitions of right in possibly hundreds of instances; and in so far as I recollect, there was but a single one in which I did not give that advice.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And in that case the circumstances were of such a character that if I were to mention them before the committee, I am quite sure they would cause irresistible laughter. They were so abominally absurd that they were not worthy even the consideration of reading the papers presented.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no desire to be understood as criticising in any way the administration of the Minister of Justice in respect of the matter I have mentioned while he was Postmaster General. I understood that it was disposed of by Sir William Mulock when he had that portfolio._ He assumed the responsibility for it in this House and it was the subject of debate on two occasions in two different sessions.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


CRIMINAL CODE-AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 148) to amend the Criminal Code-Mr. Aylesworth.
Allen Bristol Aylesworth: There were two sections of this Bill which were not disposed of when the committee was last in session, and there are two others with regard to which I wish to say a word. So perhaps the two which stood over for further consideration might first be disposed of. Section 508a is the section which deals with the unlawful printing, or being possessed of plates for printing, pirated musical compositions. Some objection was offered by the member for one of the divisions of Montreal, and the section stood over for further consideration in the absence, for the moment, of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) who is charged with the administration of our copyright law. I pointed out, on the previous occasion, that this section is substantially a reprint of the imperial legislation on the subject, and that the circumstances, which have been shown to exist in possibly more than one city in Canada, seem to call for some such legislation as the present proposition.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Section 508a I have marked as ' Carried ' at the last meeting.


Haughton Lennox: It was understood, when we were going through the Bill, that we were to be allowed to speak on any matter under the Bill. When this section 508a was under consideration, I called the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) to an amendment which I read. I subsequently sent a copy of the amendment to the minister. I should be glad to know what he thinks with reference to adopting that amendment.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I have given such consideration as I am able to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for

South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox). I must say that I see no objection to it, and I think it might be of value. At the same time, I have not had the opportunity of discussing it with the Minister of Agriculture, and I am not speaking his views but speaking merely for myself.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I note what the Minister of Justice says. The matter has not been brought before us, but I do not see any objection to a similar amendment being put in. I should not like to undertake to draft it on the spur of the moment, but perhaps the Minister of Justice will do that.


Haughton Lennox: I submitted a draft, which I might read as it appears at page 6541 of the TJnrevised ' Hansard ':
Every person who, after the registration of any dramatic work, publicly performs, exhibits or represents, or who in any manner causes or aids or abets the public performance or representation in whole or in part of such dramatic work without the consent of the proprietor (unless he proves that he acted innocently!, is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of not less than $100. and not exceeding $500, or thirty days' imprisonment, or both, in the discretion of the court, and on the second or subsequent conviction to imprisonment with or without hard labour for six months.
I pointed out-the Minister of Agricul-culture (Mr. Fisher) probably was not present-that there were dramatic works said to be of great merit and commanding royalties as I am advised, as high as $500 or $600 a night. Irresponsible parties will pirate these productions and produce them before the public. It may be a long time before the authors or owners get a knowledge of the matter, but, even when they do, the parties being financially worthless, there is practically no remedy.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Merely hearing the amendment read, of course I cannot pretend to judge of its form, but I understand from the Minister of Justice that the form is all right.


Haughton Lennox: It harmonizes with the' Act pretty well.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I might next mention section 739, which was adopted by the committee at the previous sitting. A practical difficulty with regard to the wording of this section has been pointed out by one of the translators. It seems that the present section 739, in the French version, is very unhappily translated, with the result that the words mentioned in the proposed amendment to be stricken out do not appear in the French version, and the translator accordingly would have a good deal of difficulty in applying the proposed amendment to the present French version. To put 2144
the matter upon a proper footing, I have redrawn the whole clause, and propose to substitute for the present wording of this amending section in the Bill as printed, the provision that section 739, paragraph (b) be struck out and the following substituted-and the substitution then is a repetition of the old clause in English, of course, omitting the words which the printed amendment propose to strike out, and putting it in a position where it can be, and I trust will be, effectively and properly translated.


James William Maddin: The words are to be found in the paragraphs (a) and (b). Are they being struck out of both or only out of one?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Only in (b).


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 750,
Allen Bristol Aylesworth: This clause was left over on a previous occasion. It would seem that the only substantial variation in it from the present law is in the latter part of sub-paragraph (a) and in the latter part of sub-paragraph (c). These deal with entirely separate things. The latter clause deals with the procedure on appeals from summary conviction, and the latter half of paragraph (a) makes special provision in regard to the province of Nova Scotia, in respect of which I think all the members will agree that a remedy ought to be provided. In some of the judicial districts of Nova Scotia there are as many as four counties, and the Supreme Court in that province has held that an appeal from a summary conviction of a magistrate in any one of those four counties must be heard in the first court which sits in that district, although that court might not be for the county in which the conviction was made, and the result of course would be practically that parties and witnesses might have to travel a great distance to reach the court at which their appeal would be heard. To remedy that it is proposed to provide that in Nova Scotia an appeal shall be to a sitting of the court in the county where the cause, of information, or complaint arose, and that that appeal shall be had to the then next court, or to the then next but one, according to whether fourteen days have elapsed after conviction before the sitting of the court. To that amendment I understood the hon. member for Cape Breton, who I think was the only member who referred to it on the previous occasion, gave his entire approval.
The other matter is of more general consequence. It is a point in respect to which the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) has within the last day or two complained to me, and upon which he entertains decided views. Under the law as

it now stands, and has stood since 1905, an appeal may be had from a summary conviction without the giving of security. That alteration in the practice was made in 1905. Prior to that time the rule had been, in appeals from convictions made by a magistrate, exactly as is, generally speaking, the rule in civil causes where the unsuccessful party desires to take an appeal to a higher court, and where, unless he is prepared to satisfy the judgment which has been rendered against him, he must give security that he will abide by the result of the appeal, or allow execution to proceed notwithstanding his appeal. In 1905 the law in regard to the practice of appeals [DOT] from summary convictions was changed, and all that is requisite under the existing law is that notice of the intention to appeal shall be filed and served upon the successful party, and then, if the appeal is from a conviction adjudging imprisonment, the appellant must remain in custody until the appeal is heard, or else enter into recognizance to abide by the result of the appeal. It has been pointed out to the Department of Justice by the Attorney General of the province of Saskatchewan, and also by the Attorney General of the province of Alberta, that in practice that conditiqn of the law sometimes works out to the very great disadvantage of the complainant who has succeeded in establishing his complaint before the magistrate. Take for instance, the case of an order for payment of wages which may have been obtained by a servant against his employer. The employer is not content, and lodges an appeal from the summary decision of the magistrate. He must in the meantime, under the existing law, make payment or suffer execution. Presumably he would be in a position to pay. The complainant servant gets the amount ordered, and may never be heard of when the appeal is lodged before the appellate court. There is no provision that an appealing defendant in the case of an order for payment of money may get a stay of proceedings, there is no provision enabling him to givei security that he will abide by the result of the appeal, and pay the amount if the appeal fails. There seems no reason for that, and I am proposing accordingly to amend this section by inserting the words ' or order1 after the word 'conviction' in the first line of subsection (c). Then I am also proposing to add to the present subsection (c) all the words which appear in the printed Bill after the word ' court ' in line 10. I desire that the committee should appreciate the effect of the proposition that I am making. The effect of it is to restore the old law which existed always in Canada from the days of confederation and before confederation, until 1905, and to require the appellant, if he is dissatisfied with the de-Mr. A YLESWOUTll.
cision of the magistrate and wants a stay of proceedings upon appeal, to give security. It seems to me that is the uniform practice of all our courts in civil causes. I cannot understand why it ought to be different where there is an appeal from a first decision on a conviction before a magistrate. While that certainly is the way the matter strikes me, the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) has expressed to me very strongly an opposite view. I think it was he, who, in 1905, before I became a member, introduced a Bill which changed the law in that respect. He feels very strongly that the change which was made in 1905 was in the right direction, and that it would be wrong now to return to the old order of things. It is a question for the consideration of the committee whether an unsuccessful litigant before a magistrate, who wants to appeal before the court of quarter sessions, ought or ought not to be required to give security for the amount involved if he wishes to have proceedings against him stayed.


James William Maddin: I submit that subsection 9 is an absolutely necessary and proper provision and should meet with the approval of the committee. Subsection (c) has the effect only of changing two notices to one. The present law was passed as an amendment in 1905 and provides by section 750 that within ten days after the conviction the applicant shall give a notice of his intention to appeal and five days before the sittings of the court, a notice setting forth the ground of his appeal. I pointed out the other evening in committee that in the maritime provinces, at least in Nova Scotia both the mainland and Cape Breton, a large number of persons lost their appeals and in some cases were obliged to pay costs and in other cases were not on account of the amendment having come into effect shortly before some meetings of the county courts. Why should that be changed? Of course it may be urged that it is better to give one notice than to give two, but four years ago the practice was established of giving two notices. They can be made out and served contemporaneously, but I submit that there is no good reakon for making it incumbent upon the appellant to set forth the ground of his appeal within ten days after the conviction because he may have an opportunity of going into the matter a fortnight or three weeks afterwards and discover entirely new ground. He has now from the day of his notice of appeal until within five days of the meeting of the Court of Appeal, within which to give the notice setting forth the ground of appeal. That gives him every opportunity of preparing the ground of his appeal and ample notice to the other party of the grounds of his appeal.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What has he now?


James William Maddin: He gives five days' notice before the Court of Appeal meets, setting forth the ground on which the Court of Appeal meets. He gives notice within ten days after conviction of his intention to appeal. This amendment provides that within ten days after the conviction he shall give notice of his intention to appeal and also setting forth the grounds. It is really making one notice instead of two, but it has the effect of restricting the setting up of the ground of appeal to ten days. That is not so material. The material point is that it is changing the law which has become established. I need hardly point out that copies of these amendments do not reach the practising barristers of Canada or the magistrates whose duty it is to enforce the law or in many cases the county court judges, until a session of the court may have been held with the amendment on the statute book. The result must inevitably be that litigants who are now engaged and anticipate within the next three or four weeks or three or four months taking an appeal, not having knowledge of this amendment, for which there is no good reason, will give their notice of appeal within ten days after the conviction and relying on the practice that five days before the appeal court meets, which in Cape Breton is in December, they will be able to give the usual notice; but after doing that they may be met in the Court in December, by some lawyer w'ho is fortunate enough to be a member of Parliament with this amendment. I submit it is not fair to litigants and to practising members of the bar who are not in touch with proceedings of this kind in parliament. As the law now stands, it must be perfectly satisfactory and some good reason should be shown for changing it. I have no criticism to make on subsection (c) down to the word 'court' in the 10th line, but from that point to the end of the subsection is a proposed addition, in other words a restoration of the original provisions of the code as passed under the late Sir John Thompson in 1892. There was an amendment in 1905 to that section and with regard to the conditions precedent to appeal. The conditions were, as pointed out in the first ten lines of this section (c), that the appellant, if appealing from a conviction which adjudged imprisonment without the payment of a fine, was obliged tc remain in custody or cognizance under form 51 of the code. That was the only condition in which he was obliged to give a reconnaisance. Why should he be obliged to give a reconnaisance if there was a fine on him? In 1905, we departed from the old custom of reconnaisance to
which it is now proposed to return. We departed from it for good purpose. Although I did not read the discussion which then took place, I presume it was done in order to remove the great hardship that rested on a large number of people who remained subject to convictions under the Summary Convictions Act and who were unable to have their wrongs redressed. I have known of hundreds and hundreds of cases, and I am but a young man, where a fine varying from $5 to $15 has been imposed on a person absolutely innocent and that person, under the old procedure previous to 1905 and under this procedure, if we adopt this amendment, is obliged either to put down the amount of the fine, $1 we will suppose, and $25 to $30 for probable costs or he is obliged to enter into a reconnaisance with two sufficient sureties all because there is a conviction on the records against him by a local justice of the peace.
This, mark you, is the most inferior of our inferior courts with powers to convict, and in nine cases out of ten the man has been brought to court without a warning or a verbal complaint and appears, however innocent, on a summons. If the man can enjoy his liberty and can be brought before a magistrate on a verbal complaint or in obedience to the written summons, why, after the hearing, when a penalty is imposed on him of $1 and he wishes to question the righteousness of that conviction, should he be obliged to go to jail in default of finding a recognizance or posting a sum of $25, plus the amount of fines, conditions, which it is practicallv impossible for nine people out of ten who go before a justice, to comply with? Only very trifling matters come before a justice of the peace under the Summary Convictions Act, and if a man be fined, say, one cent which is not unusual, or a dollar, which is a very common thing, why should he be required to put up at least $30 or give bonds or go to jail pending an appeal? I submit that subsection (c) should remain as it has remained since 1905. The practice is uniform and established, and I fail to appreciate what complaint theTe can be from some of the western provinces that it does not work out right. Taking the examples cited, how could a servant sue his master under the Summary Convictions Act of the Criminal Code? To state that would be simply to confuse criminal procedure Avith civil procedure. So how this thing would work out. Sam Slick says that 'J. P.' means judgment for plaintiff, and in 9 cases out of 10 the magistrate imposes a small penalty, which is oftentimes 50 cents or a dollar w'ith costs which run from $3 to $12. Now, the man fined may be a newcomer in the country who has a family and who may be working for an industrial concern,

and under this amendment he must put up $30 to appeal or he must give bonds or go to jail whereas the likelihood of his leaving the country is practically nil. Then, where there is merely a money penalty inflicted for some trifling offense for which a warrant would not issue and for which a person would not be arrested in the act, he is forced to go to jail or furnish $30 in cash or recognizance if he wants to appeal.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I do not think my hon. friend and I will differ with regard to subsection (b). Under the existing law the appellant must give notice of his intention to appeal by filing within 10 days in the office of the clerk and serving the respondent with a copy, a notice setting forth the conviction and the court appealed to. Then he shall also at least five days before the hearing of the appeal serve a notice setting forth the grounds- of s_uch appeal. I was pro-posing to dispense with that second notice which I thought was valueless. An appeal from a summary conviction is simply a second trial of the man and, all the hearing has to be gone through anew, so that under the circumstances it. does seem useless to require that notice. However, if any one attaches importance to the giving of reasons for the . appeal I am not in the least set in my idea that it is not of any value and I should be quite content that it be provided for in the statute. It is only putting another burden upon the appellant though it serves no useful purpose to the successful litigant. If there is any special importance in the requirement that the appellant should state his reasons for appealing let him do so in the original notice. I feel confident that 9 times out of 10 the reasons given would be, because the decision is unjust or against the weight of the evidence, and that there will be precious little information in it. I am proposing to dispense with that second notice given four or five -days before the hearing of the appeal.


James William Maddin: If the Minister of Justice will strike out these words in the 42nd line, 'the grounds of such appeal,' I shall be satisfied, even with the amendment. That will leave the law practically as it stands now. It was only to avoid confusion that I objected to the amendment.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: If my hon. friend will pardon me, I have fallen into an error unwittingly. The Bill requires the grounds of appeal to be given, so that the whole effect of the change is that whereas the old or existing law required the notice of appeal to be filed and served within ten days of the decision, and the grounds to be given, five days before the hearing, I am now proposing that the grounds should accompany the filing -and service of the original notice.


James William Maddin: 


James William Maddin: That is just the point I am finding fault with, as leading to confusion. I agree with the statement of the Minister of Justice that there is no reason for stating the grounds of appeal. I submit that the law as it stood previous to the amendment of 1905 was quite satisfactory, and the law as it stands now is quite satisfactory; but if you go on every second or third session changing the procedure, you will only increase the confusion.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: To meet all objections, I am willing to strike out the words, 'and the grounds of such appeal.' Then any one who has complied with the existing law will be rectus in curia under the new law.
Section as emended agreed to.


Mr. SUTHERLAND.: I would like to suggest to the committee and to the minister an amendment which would come in as section 247a of the Code. Section 247 reads as follows:
Every one who has in his charge or under his control anything whatever, whether animate or inanimate, or who erects, makes or maintains anything whatever which in the absence of precaution or care, may endanger human life, is under a legal duty to take reasonable precautions against, and use reasonable care to avoid such danger, and is criminally responsible for the consequences of omitting, without lawful excuse, to perform such duty.
Under that section and some other analogous sections in the code, there is a recognition of the obligations on the part of the Dominion parliament to protect life against undue risk arising from the introduction of anything whatever which, in the absence of precaution and care, may cause injury or death. The proposed amendment reads as follows:
Section 247 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding thereto section 247a.
Every person w;ho transmits, or is a party to the transmission of electrical current of a higher voltage than 50,000, otherwise than upon a right-of-way not less than 60 feet wide, securely fenced on both sides, and under the exclusive control of such person, shall be guilty of a criminal offence, and in the case of a corporation shall be subject to a fine of not less than $10,000.
Provided, however, that this section shall not apply to crossings of railways, public highways, waterways and farms and other necessary crossings if reasonable precaution and care are used in making such crossings.
This amendment is intended to give some measure of protection against this increasing danger of people being killed or in jured on coming into contact with electric wires. On the 6th of May last, a man was killed near Beamsville as a result of coming into contact with a live wire on one of the transmission lines leading to Toronto, and a few days previously a boy was kill-

ed in Niagara through touching the live wire of a temporary transmission line running across the poles of a company whose works had been disarranged by the ice jam on the Niagara river, and we hear of other accidents from day to day. According to the best electrical experts, no proper device has yet been secured to guard against this great and growing evil. It is a danger which is especially serious during thunder storms, because the lightning is attracted by the strong current along the wires. The only practical safeguard suggested is that where high voltage is used it shall only be transmitted- over a private way properly fenced. Then the only element of risk is the imprudence of people who attempt to get upon such a way. It has been suggested to me that some such amendment as I have proposed would be a very proper one in the public interest.
I may say that the hon. member foT Welland (Mr. German) had intended to introduce this amendment, and I am doing so rather at his suggestion. I would ask the Minister of Justice and the committee to think it over. It seems to me to be one essential in the public interest.


James William Maddin: Section 247 of the code already covers a matter of that kind. It is a general punitive clause that provides punishment when not otherwise provided for.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The proposition which my hon. friend submits is one, the effect of which ought to have more mature consideration than it would be practicable to give it at present. I do not know how far reaching this amendment might prove to be. One would have to be acquainted with the actual conditions in this respect to a greater extent certainly than I am. The proposition is to make it an offence punishable by a very severe money penalty in the case of corporations, and punishable perhaps otherwise in the case of individuals, who may be a party to the transmission of electric current of a higher voltage than
50,000	otherwise than upon a right of way of a certain width and protected in a certain manner. I do not know whether my hon. friend is in a position to tell us whether or not a voltage higher than 50,000 would affect existing transmission lines. I do not know what the voltage is upon the lines that are fed from Niagara Falls and much less am I able to speak with regard to other portions of Canada. The proposed amendment, in so far as it would provide protection to life and property, is one which certainly should commend itself to this House. We see accounts in the newspapers daily of the most frightful accidents happening from broken wires charged with electric current carried at a high voltage; and I am sure that we all would welcome legislation which might make for the protection of people who are walking around with such dangerous wires overhead; but
the extent to which this amendment, if adopted, might interfere with existing conditions in different parts of the country is something which I certainly should like to have the opportunity to inquire into. I would, therefore, suggest to my hon. friend that, having placed this proposition before the country, possibly the object he has in view would be better accomplished if the enactment of that provision were left for consideration until another session.


Mr. CAEVELL.: I quite agree with my hon. friend in the object he has in view, but the difficulty is that a voltage of 2,300, which is the ordinary voltage in the transmission of electric current in our cities or towns, would kill a man just as quickly as the other. For that reason, I cannot see much benefit to be obtained by penalizing a company which transmits electricity at 50,000 volts and saying nothing concerning one which transmits it a less voltage. There is exactly the same danger to life, and, I think, to property, at 10,000 volts that there is at 50,000 volts. If my hon. friend will direct his attention along the lines of safety of all sorts of electrical transmission lines possibly by double lines or something of that kind, by making it almost physically impossible for these lines to break down, it would probably be a great benefit to the public at large. I think he will come to the conclusion on consideration that the adoption of this proposed amendment would not accomplish the object he has in view.


Mr. SUTHEELAND.: I am disposed to fall in with the suggestion of the Minister of Justice. I have not, myself personally, given the amendment a great deal of consideration. I believe it is along right lines, and even to the length of what has been suggested by my hon. friend. I would withdraw the amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.


Haughton Lennox: The other night, I mentioned an amendment that the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. J. D. Eeid) wished to move, and he has asked me to move it. I have submitted it to the minister:
That schedule to Bill (No. 164) to amend the Criminal Code be amended by introducing immediately after section 228a in the said schedule the following:-
Section 297. By striking out the word ' seven ' in the second line thereto and substituting the word ' twenty-five.'


Frederick William Borden: Increasing the penalty for kidnapping from seven years to twenty-five years.


Haughton Lennox: Yes. It is a very serious offence, and it is generally thought the penalty should be increased.
Mr. AY'LESWOETH. This amendment was suggested by the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. J. D. Eeid) when the pre3-

ent Bill received its first reading. I have bad an opportunity since of considering it, and I am very sure that every member of the committee will agree that no punishment short of capital punishment, and perhaps not even short of that, could be too severe for any one who would wilfully commit the offence in question here. So far as I am concerned, I heartily approve of the proposed amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Allen Bristol Aylesworth: There is one section in the printed Bill, section 887, which was passed when the Bill was considered on Wednesday evening, but since then several members of the House, especially from the province of Quebec, have called my attention to this provision, and have urged that it should be reconsidered. I hope the committee will allow me to move that it be reconsidered. And if that motion is adopted, I will propose to strike this section out of the printed Bill. Let me state the effect of it: Under the existing law, section 887, an accused person in the province of Quebec may apply to the court to change the place of trial in any case to be heard before the Court of King's Bench on the criminal side, where there is not going to be a sitting of the court in that particular county at the regular time. There are instances, I understand, in which, on account of there being very little business to be done, the courts in some of the rural districts are not held for purposes of criminal business in some of the counties except at long intervals, and, in such cases, the accused person has now, under section 887 of the Act, the option of applying for a change of the place of trial to some other county. The Department of the Attorney General of the province of Quebec desires that the Attorney General should have a like option and power, in such cases, to apply to have the place of trial changed, just as the accused person may do. Accordingly, this amendment introduced into section 887 the four words 'the Attorney General or' in lines 29 and 30 and again in lines 35 and 36. Now, a very considerable number-twenty, I suppose, at least,-of members from the province of Quebec feel very great objection to that provision, pointing out that it would make it possible to deprive an accused person altogether of the advantage of being tried among his own neighbours and in a place where his character might stand him in good stead. It was thought, in these circumstances, and on giving it more mature consideration, that the existing law had better remain as it is, and that this amendment proposing to give the Attorney General the option of applying to change the place of trial should be abandoned.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: With your permission I move that section 887 be struck out of the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: An amendment of the Criminal Code by Bill (No. 4) was promoted by the hon. member for (Montreal, St. Lawrence) (Mr. Bickerdike), and it was amended in committee. It was an amendment to section 292, and it was to add the following paragraph:
Assaults and beats his wife or any other female and thereby occasion her actual bodily harm.
That is the form in which it went through committee. I move that these words be inserted in the Bill at the end of line 33, page 2, so that it will be printed along with other amendments.


Haughton Lennox: So that there may be no confusion, I understand my hon. friend (Mr. A. K. Maclean) to say that he wished the amendment to be inserted immediately after 228a, and that appears to be right according to his number. But my amendment put in a moment ago, before I knew that the hon. member was going to introduce this, was an amendment of section 297, and it reads to come in immediately after this section (228a). The hon. member's amendment, coming in as it does, the two will conflict.


Henry Horton Miller: The hon. member's (Mr. Lennox's) amendment to follow?


Haughton Lennox: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the Bill is reported, I desire to bring to the attention of the Minister of Justice a telegram that I received yesterday afternoon. It is unsigned. Possibly he has received one of similar purport. It is to this effect:
British Columbia Methodist conference-urges immediate legislation prohibiting race track betting. Coast cities already being flooded with undesirable persons from the United States.
I do not know whether the minister has had a similar communication, or whether the matter has been brought to the attention of the government


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I do not know whether the hon. gentleman who has just read the telegram has given his own views on the subject matter.


Robert Laird Borden: I was inquiring more particularly whether the matter had been brought to the attention of the government, and if so, whether they proposed to take any action.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: This is a matter upon which there has been a good deal of discussion, and about which there are divid-

ed opinions. It lias been discussed in the newspapers and by resolutions of various bodies, and in that way has been brought to my attention for years back, I may say ever since I have been a member of this House. But just because it is a question about which opinions differ so widely, I thought it would be of advantage if we had the opinion upon it of every member of the committee.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me that if the conditions are such as described in this telegram some action ought to be taken. If there is any doubt on the subject, I think it would be a wise thing, to say the least of it, to have the subject of such legislation referred to a special committee of the House, and possibly it would have been wise to have done that earlier in the session. It is not a subject that has engaged my attention very much, but I have had representations from time to time with regard to it. I thought it right to lay the representation of these gentlemen before the government in order that the matter might receive some consideration from this committee. If the conditions are such as are described in this telegram, it seems to me some action by parliament would be wise, and indeed necessary.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


DISTRICT COURT JUDGES.
[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed Resolution:
Resolved, that in the opinion of this House it is expedient to provide for the payment to one additional countv 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.
Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The purpose of this resolution is to carry into effect legislation which has been passed by the legislature of Ontario during the recent session and action of similar character which has been taken by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the province of Alberta. The legislature of Ontario provided in the recent session for a fourth judge foT the county and division courts in the metropolitan county of York which includes the citv of Toronto. There is now one judge of the county court and two junior or assistant judges. Every one who is acquainted with the condition of things in Toronto and the county of York will know that the work is not only heavv, but is continually increasing, especially in the courts for the recovery of small amounts, the division courts of the county and of the city. The Ontario legislature has moreover during the
past session largely increased the jurisdiction of the county courts throughout the province, taking from the high courts the trial of a very considerable number of actions where the amount involved is under $1,000 and transferring that jurisdiction to the various countv courts. The effect of that legislation will be to increase the already existing congestion of public business in these courts in Toronto and in the county of York and in that view the provincial legislature asks for the appointment of an additional judge for that court. The district judge in the province of Ontario is to provide a second or assistant judge for the district of Thunder Bay and Rainy River. The growing cities of Fort William and Port Arthur, with the very widely scattered and none the less increasing population of that territory in the province, has, in the opinion of the Attorney General of the province and of the provincial legislature, made it requisite, for the due administration of justice, that a second judge should be provided for that district. This resolution affirms the expediency of acceding to that view and providing the necessary salaries.
The province of Alberta is in like case. Under the general statute of the provincial legislature of that province with regard to district courts, the Lieutenant Governor in Council is empowered to establish new judicial districts as necessity for them is made manifest. Such an (order in council has been passed establishing a new judicial district in the northern part of the province, the Peace River section and the portion of the province north of Edmonton, and to provide the salary for the judge of that court this resolution is introduced. The figures in the resolution are those of the existing statute as to county and district judges.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the resolution carries, I might call the minister's attention to the fact mentioned by the hon. member for Terrebonne a day or two ago that two judges of the Superior court in the province of Quebec are under a certain discrimination, if that term may be used, inasmuch as their salaries are $500 less than the salaries of the other 16 judges, of the same court in that province. I have not his remarks under my hand but I recollect that he read to the House a letter from the late Minister of Justice, Six Charles Fitzpatrick, now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, in which Sir Charles Fitzpatrick stated that this discrimination was entirely the result of accident and it appeared from a copy of the resolution produced as originally introduced into this House by the then Minister of Justice, that the salaries of the 18 judges were to have been placed oil exactly

the same footing.	In some way the
resolution and the Bill as eventually passed provided that there should be a certain salary, $5,000 I think, for 16 judges and a salary of only $4,500 for the remaining two judges. It appeared also that the two judges whose salaries have thus been reduced are the judges of the districts of Gaspe and Chicoutimi and that the work of the judges in these districts is very large, a great many cases coming under their consideration.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: This question has been brought very urgently to my attention each year during the past three years, by my hon. colleague the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) whcfse constituency of Gaspe is affected, and by the member for Chicoutimi and Saugenay (Mr. Girard) and I have been told by each of them that when the increases of judicial salaries were being made four years ago the resolution which was introduced into the House on the subject made provision for putting these two judges in Quebec upon the same footing as to salary as the other rural judges of that province. I am sure I have no idea how it came to pass that if the resolution introduced in the House contained figures putting the salaries of these two judges upon the same footing as those of their brother judges in the rural districts of Quebec, the statute did not follow the resolution. I can only say with reference to the matter, it being one about which I have personally no knowledge in the world, that investigating the history of these judicial salaries I find as far back as I have been able to go, and I think probably ever since there have been judges for either of those districts in the province of Quebec, the salary has been just $500 less than the salaries of the other judges in the rural districts of Quebec. The reason for establishing that difference fifty or more years ago when it was first created I am unable to give. I surmise it was thought that there was less work in those more sparsely-settled portions of the province, either that or it may have been that the cost of living was not so heavy in that portion of the province. That, however, is merely surmise on my part. The present statute does not discriminate against these two judges in any other sense than that it maintains the difference of $500 between their salaries and the salaries of their brother judges. That difference has always existed. It has been very strongly uged upon me by the gentlemen representing these constituencies that that difference ought to be swept away, but I feel a very great, and I think not unnatural reluctance to reopen at any point that very vexed question of judicial salaries which I found when I entered this House, very fortunately for me, had been settled the year before. It is a qustion about which there are perhaps Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
as many opinions as there are members. I have been very strongly urged from different quarters not merely with regard to these two salaries, but with regard to a very considerable number of salaries of judges. But I have thus far been able to present a resolute front to the efforts which have been made to induce me to propose a measurable increase of the salaries of our judges in the country. Speaking as a lawyer I am free to say that I think our judges are underpaid, that they ought to get more, and that if the country wants the best of judicial service the country will have to pay for it exactly as they have to pay for any other commodity that they want to buy. But I am quite aware that these views are not shared by a large number of the members of the House who are not of the legal profession, and I thought that so long as I remained in the position which I now occupy I might hope not to trouble myself or to trouble the House with the question of increasing judicial salaries at all,.'


Charles Joseph Doherty: This resolution provides for the salaries of additional judges the necessity for whom has been declared by the legislature of Ontario and of another province. I understand that the legislature of the province of Quebec has enacted legislation providing for three additional judges in the district of Montreal. I would like to inquire if there is any intention on the part of the government to provide for the salaries of these three judges. The same reason seems to exist for making such a provision in the one case as in the other.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: This resolution does not contain any reference to the province of Quebec. I ought to say, however, since my hon. friend (Mr. Doherty) has brought the question to the notice of the committee, that the subject has not gone without the most anxious consideration on the part of His Excellency's advisers. The situation of judicial work in Montreal and the surrounding district seems, if I may be allowed to say so, unfortunate and peculiar. It is said, and I think it must be said it has been shown, that the judges who are engaged in their work in the city of Montreal, are not only struggling under a very great quantity of work with which they are trying to keep pace, but are not able to overtake the work that is put upon them, and that they need help. But the question is whether or no the proposition to increase the number of judges is the solution of the difficulty which ought to be made. I have been told, I do not know how true it may be, but I have heard on what appears to be good authority, that while the judges of the city and district of Montreal are favoured with abundance and superabundance of litigation and other judicial work, many of their brethren in

in the immediately surrounding parts of the province are in exactly the opposite condition, and that if there were a little rearrangement of judicial strength, and a little better utilization of the judges who are already appointed and under salary in that province whereby the services of a few of the rural judges from the-immediate district might be utilized, the whole difficulty could be solved without the necessity for increasing the number of judges at all. In the hope that a conference and discussion with the Attorney General of the province may lead to a solution of the difficulty along these lines rather than upon those which he is proposing by his legislation to increase the number of judges, we have thought it not advisable, at the present session at any rate, to propose the appointment of any new judges in the province of Quebec.
Resolution reported, read the second time, and agreed to.	[DOT]
Mr. AYLESWORTH moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 193) to amend the Judges Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first and second times, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved second reading of Bill (No. 109) to amend the Government Annuities Act, 1908. He said: This is a Bill -which, has been passed by the Senate designed to amend in some not important particulars the Annuities Act of last session. The Act at present limits the amount of an annuity to $600 and provides that a joint annuity of a husband and wife shall not exceed $600. The general reason for the limitation is that the Act is not designed to provide large annuities, but such moderate annuities as may come within the grasp of the mass of our people. One clause of the present Bill provides that where a husband and wife prior to their marriage acquired annuities, they should not by reason of their marriage be prevented from having the benefit of separate annuities. A suggestion has been offered to me by an hon. member who is not at the moment in his place, that we should allow husband and wife to obtain even after their marriage separate .annuities, and when the Bill goes into Committee I will propose an amendment to that effect. It is argued that a brother and a sister would' be permitted to have separate annuities and that there is no reason why a husband and wife should not. In our modern legislation the husband and wife are permitted to have separate property interests, and we have come to the conclusion that there is no reason why a husband and wife should not have separate annuities of $600 each. To section 3 I propose to add a subsection to permit a married man to convert a portion of his annuity, not exceeding one-half for the benefit of his wife. Section 12 provides that where the last survivor of a joint annuity dies before the annuity becomes payable, the moneys paid in shall be returned to his heirs with 3 per cent, interest. The amendment now proposed is that if there be an agreement with the minister for other disposal of the moneys, that agreement shall prevail. It has been found by the officers of the department that some cases have arisen, and many such might arise, where there is no person for whom the annuitant wishes to make special provision, or who could receive the moneys in the event of the annuitant dying before the time for the payment of the annuity is reached; and it is proposed that if he wishes to waive his right in that respect and by reason of such proceeding get the benefit of a larger annuity, he may do so. If there be an agreement with the minister, that shall take effect; but if there be no agreement the Act will give the benefit of the money to the man's heirs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, considered in Committee, reported read the third time and passed.

Henry Horton Miller: There is a public Bill on the order paper relating to the water-carriage of goods which has been before the Senate a couple of years and every one understands it. If the House will consent, I would ask that it be proceeded with.


William Stevens Fielding: We cannot proceed without the unanimous consent of the House, and on the understanding that this will not involve our taking up other public Bills, I have no objection.
Mr. MILLER moved second reading of Bill (No. 105) relating to the water-carriage of goods.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
Robert Laird Borden: I think we should simply report progress, as there are not many members present, and some hon. members may have something to say about the measure.


William Stevens Fielding: The committee may report progress and the Bill will go on government orders for Monday.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
House of Commons, $352,395.24.
["I do not think it will be'late. The Bills standing on the Order Paper have reached a stage at which they probably will not cause protracted debate. No doubt we shall reach Supply at a moderately early hour."]
Mr. SPEAKER.: The increases are made up as follows:
Debates staff, formerly paid out of appropriation for debates:-
Hansard reporters	
Hansard translators	
Increases to officers and clerks by order of Board of Internal Economy, 14th July, 1908	
New appointments: Saucier, $1,200: Troop, $1,200; St. Louis, $1,700;
Lalonde, $800	
Increases under new Civil Service
Act	
Statutory increases, 1909-10, including promotion of A. H. O'Brien as law clerk, $300; and J. K. Foran as assistant law clerk, $500. Office of the clerk of the Crown in Chancery:	Difference in amount
paid by House of Commons and Privy Council in the salaries of these officials, consequent upon their transfer to this department. Messrs. Matthews and Dickson, formerly paid out of appropriation for committees, &c., now to be paid out of appropriation for salaries

Deduct salaries of Messrs Me- '
Cord, late law clerk (deceased),
$3,500; and Tessier, transferred to Department of Public Works, $1,500	 5,000 00


Haughton Lennox: Does Mr. O'Brien occupy the same position as that previously occupied by Mr. McCord?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Yes, he succeeded him as chief law clerk.


Haughton Lennox: Mr. McCord had a salary of $3,500.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Mr. O'Brien was appointed under the schedule 1903 by which the incoming law clerk had to be appointed at a salary of $2,800, and the Civil Service Act will bring it up to $4,000.


Haughton Lennox: He is just getting $2,800 now.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: He will get the increase of $150.


Haughton Lennox: Though I do not advocate high expenditures, it seems to me that $2,800 for a man who has to exercise judgment and professional ability to the extent that the law clerk of the House of Commons must do and such as, I believe, Mr. O'Brien is capable of exercising, is' relatively to other salaries which are paid, exceedingly low. I do not profess to have Mr. FI ELDING.
studied out the Civil Service Act to know how it comes about, but I should think that this was not an adequate salary for an efficient law clerk as I understand Mr. O'Brien to be, and that it is not a fair salary having regard to the salaries that are paid in many other branches of the services. There must be some way of accounting for this-as it seems to me-injustice. There is some mistake about the classification or something else, and, in my opinion, it should be remedied.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will be taken up on Monday?


William Stevens Fielding: The insurance Bill remains in an unfinished condition. We may take that up on Monday morning. In the afternoon, the Civil Service Bill remains to be considered. Then we will take up the remainder of the items in Supply.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There will be some debate on going into Supply. It may be inconvenient if the motion comes on late.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think it will be'late. The Bills standing on the Order Paper have reached a stage at which they probably will not cause protracted debate. No doubt we shall reach Supply at a moderately early hour.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.35 p. m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 17, 1909.