Mr. H.: H MILLER (South Grey) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 8) to amend the Interest Act. He said: The effect of this Bill will be to compel mortgagees to accept payment of overdue principal on mortgages on real estate upon receipt of one month's notice or one month's interest in lieu of notice.


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

Right Hon.   S@: By your leave Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the attention of the House to an incident which took place yesterday. On motion to adjourn, a debate was started by my hon. friend from York, N. B., (Mr Crocket) and you, Sir, expressed the opinion that such a debate was irrelevant on a motion to adjourn. This opinion of yours was questioned by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and I agreed with the hon. gentleman in the opinion he expresed. On looking into the matter I find that your opinion was the correct one, and that so far as I am concerned, I was in the wrong. The point has been decided several times. I find, in this parliament. In 1899, Mr. Speaker Edgar ruled as follows, as reported in 'Hansard' of May 29 of that year :
If the hon. member wishes my ruling, I mav say, that I have stated to the House several times my view of the motion to adjourn. There are three kinds of motion to adjourn the House ; I mean to say that they have three different effects. One is a motion to adjourn the House made while a debate is going

on. That is in order to give a member who has already spoken in that debate, or any other member, an opportunity to speak again on the subject under discussion. Another kind of motion to adjourn the House is the motion that is made by the government to close the sitting of the House. That is really not a debatable motion. The other kind of motion is such a one as has just been made by the hon. member for York, N.B., that is a substantive motion to adjourn the House in the interval of the proceedings, which motion may be moved by an hon. member in ojder to bring up a particular important or unimportant public question.
I may say that we have a new rule with regard to private motions, which was adopted eight years ago. In 1901, on February 18, Mr. Speaker Brodeur also decided the point, and his opinion is recorded in these words:
I may tell the hon. member that on the motion for the adjournment of the House, the only question to be discussed is whether the House should adjourn now or not. When the orders of the day are called, if a formal motion for adjournment is made, not by a member of the Cabinet, but by some other hon. member, in order to bring up a Question tor discussion, he has a right to discuss that special question; hut on the motion tor the adiournment. of the House, which is the one made now, I do not think there can he any debate except on the question whether the House should now adjourn or not.
I understand that this opinion has been expressed twice by Speakers of the House, so it was come to after careful consideration with the Clerk of the House, at that time Sir John Bourinot, who, as we know, was quite an authority on the subject. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I regret that I questioned your ruling, and I confess that you were in the right and I was in the wrong.


Mr. B. L. BOEDEN.: So far as I am concerned, I am not at all convinced by the Prime Minister.
all deference to the views which have been expressed by Mr. Speaker Edgar and Mr. Speaker Brodeur, and with all deference to the opinion which has been vouchsafed by the Prime Minister and by Mr. Speaker, l would like to look a little into the English authorities to ascertain whether that point cannot be made good.



QUESTIONS.


Mr. PAQUET asked:: 1.	How many employees of the Intercolonial have been dismissed since the appointment of the commissioners charged with the administration of the affairs of this railway?
2.	How many employees of the Intercolonial have been dismissed at Montreal and Camp-bellton since the establishment of the commission ?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: I want to ask the hon. gentleman to be patient in regard to answers to questions of this character. It will take days to get this information. It -has to come from Moncton, and sometimes from various other stations along the line. But I have asked for the information by wire.



NATIONALITIES OF IMMIGRANTS TO CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOSTER-by Mr. Geo. Taylor-asked :
What is the total number of persons from the five largest national contributors who have settled in Canada for each year from lS'JO to 1909, inclusive?
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: The total number of persons from the largest five national contributors who have settled in Canada for each year from 1897 to 1909, inclusive:


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I am not surprised at that.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I am not surprised that my right hon. friend is not surprised, because he has never been able to convince me. My idea, which I submit with all deference, is that any hon. member can argue that the House should not be adjourned until he has obtained some information upon a public question which lie presents. That seems to me to be a very reasonable view. The proposal is that the House shall adjourn. The hon. member who desires to discuss an important subject says: 'It is not desirable to adjourn the House at present, but it is time for the government to give information upon a particular point as to which I desire information, and I do not consent that the House shall adjourn until I have obtained that information.' In that way he is arguing strictly and definitely upon the point of immediate adjournment; and with
British Isles.	United States.	! Galicia. 1	Italy.	.c3 'oo 09 3 Ph1897....	11,383	2,412	3,917	t	t1898....	11,608	9,119	5,509	t	t1899....	10,660	11,945	6,700	398	8,0851900*...	5,141	8,543	4,992	957	1,2871900-01.	11,810	18,055	4,702	4,710	1,7201901- 02.	17,259	26,461	6,550	3,828	3,7711902-03.	41,792	49,473	8,382	3,371	7,2391903-04.	50,374	45,229	7,729	4,445	2,8001904-05.	65,359	43,652	6,926	3,473	3,2341905-06.	86,796	57,919	5,656	7,959	4,4591906-07.	55,791	34,659	1,652	5,114	2,9761907-08.	120,182	58,312	14,268	11,212	7,4931908-09.	52,901	59,832	6,644	4,228	4,210541,056	425,611	83,627	49,695	47,286
* Six months, t Not recorded.
Note.-The particulars asked for are not of record prior to 1897.


Sir WILFRID  LATTRTER@: 



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC-COST OF SECTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOSTER-by Mr. Geo. Taylorasked:
1.	What is the cost per mile to date of the Grand Trunk Pacific from Winnipeg to Edmonton?
2.	What amount per mile is estimated to complete this section?
3.	What is the same information as respects -the section from Winnipeg to Lake Superior J unctio^i ?
4.	What is the exact mileage of each section?
5.	What has been expended to date on the Moncton-Quebec section ?
6.	What is estimated as necessary to complete this section, and what is the exact mileage ?
7.	What has been expended to date on the section from Edmonton to Prince Rupert, and what is now estimated as necessary to finish
it?
8.	What is the exact mileage of this section?
Hon. GEO  P.@: GRAHAM (Minister of
Railways and Canals). This question is divided into three parts. I could give reply to a portion of it now, but I would prefer if the member for North Toronto could *wait until to-morrow, when I will answer it altogether.



WATER LOTS ON ST. CHARLES RIVER.

Mr. MONK asked:: 1.	Are the two water lots on the St. Charles river situate in front cadastral lots Nos. 5S2A and 583B, of the parish of St. Roch, in the county of Quebec, the property of the Quebec Harbour Commissioners, under the statutes governing that body?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: We have written to Quebec to get the information, and it has not yet reached us.



INDIANS OF ST. PETER'S BAND.

Mr. BRADBURY asked:: 1.	Has the attention of the government been called to any dissatisfaction on the part of the Indians of St. Peter's band regarding the manner in which it is alleged they claim to have been improperly treated by speculators or others in the matter of the land allotted to them by the government in connection with the surrender of their reserve at St. Peter's! If so, is it the intention of the government to take such action in the premises as may prevent any injustice to the said Indians?
2.	Has the government been made aware of any claim on the part of the said Indians that they have been deceived into signing away their lands for less than one-third of their real value?
3.	If so, is it the intention of the administration to take proceedings to punish any parties that may be proved guilty of such deception of the Indians?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):: 1.	The attention of the government ^ has been called to dissatisfaction on the part of several Indians of the St. Peter's band 5
in regard to non-payment of the purchase price of their lands, but inasmuch as the Indians refused to allow a clause to be inserted in the surrender preventing alienation without the consent of the department, and thereby assumed to deal with their allotments as ordinary citizens, the enforcement of any agreement for the sale rests with the courts and not with the Indian Department. Section 103 of the Indian Act provides that Indians may sue for debts due them or in respect of any tort or Wrong inflicted upon them, or to compel the performance of obligations contracted with them.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.



WRECK OF STEAMER ' HESTIA'-CONDITION OF LIGHTS.

Mr. MONK asked:: 1.	Is the Proprietor Ledge buoy in the Bay of Fundy listed officially as having both a light and a fog signal?
2.	For how long before the wreck of the steamer ' llestia ' was the buoy marking these dangerous ledges without a working light or fog signal?
3.	Had the defective condition of this buoy been reported to the department? If so, on what date, and by whom?
4.	What officer of the department had charge of said buoy, light or automatic whistle?
5.	What period of time elapsed between the report received at the department on the condition of said buoy and the giving of the orders to repair?
6.	Why was not the buoy in working condition at the time of the wreck of the steamer ' Hestia ' ?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	Yes.
2	and 3. St. John agency' of the department was advised January 22, 1909, by the lightkeeper at Gull Cove that the light was out. The acting agent thereupon notified shipping interests and advertised in local papers on 25th January that light was out. The department at Ottawa was not aware of the irregularity. Whistle was found defective 7th November, 1909.
4.	The buoy in question is part of the equipment under the care of the St. John agency of the department.
5	and 6. Light was reported out January 22, 1909. On January 23 and subsequent dates, orders were given by the acting agent, to relight, which orders were not carried into effect on account of adverse weather conditions also press of work in connection with more important aids to navigation.



WATER SUPPLY FOR DOMINION GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGHES-by Mr. George Taylor-asked :
1.	Does the supply of water for the Dominion government buildings come from the Ot-

[Stage Direction]
tawa city supply? If so, how many gallons daily are consumed?	*	_ _
2.	How many persons use or are privileged to use the water?
3.	Is the government aware that an analysis of Ottawa city water pronounce it contaminated?
4.	Have the government experts yet investigated the system of purifying water by ozoniz-ation in use in Lindsay, Ontario? If not, will the government have an inspection made?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	(a). Yes.
(b). As there are no meters on the supply, this question cannot be answered.
2.	About 3,500 persons are privileged to use the water.
3.	No. The department has received no notification from the Ottawa city health officer.
4.	No information in the department.


VACANCY ON BOARD OP RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS.
Mr. ROCHE asked:: Is it the intention of the government to fill the vacancy on the Board of Railway Commissioners, caused by the death of the late Mr. Greenway? If so, when will the appointment be made?	, ,


George Perry Graham: The matter is still under consideration.


EXTENSION OP BOUNDARIES OP MANITOBA.
William James Roche: Is it the intention of the government to introduce a Bill for the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba during the present session of parliament?


Right Hon.   S@: By a resolution adopted in this House on the 13th of July, 1908, this House authorized the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba, out of the Northwest Territories, to an extent therein specified. On the 26th of February last the Prime Minister sent to the government of Manitoba for their consideration a Bill to increase the boundaries of Manitoba as defined in said resolution. Until the government of Manitoba has signified its acceptance of these boundaries, and until the Dominion government and the provincial government have come to an understanding as to the financial conditions consequent thereon, the government has no authority to introduce any legislation to give effect to the above resolution.


MAIL CARRIAGE-GRENVILLE STATION TO GRENVILLE VILLAGE.
Mr. PERLEY asked:: 1.	How many times and on what dates during the last fifteen years lias the Post Office Mr. HUGHES. '
Department called for public tenders for carrying the mails between Grenville station and Grenville village, in Quebec?	_
2.	When does the present contract expire?
3.	Is it the intention of the department to advertise for fresh tenders for the renewal of the service? If not, why not?


Right Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (for the Postmaster General):: 1.	Twice-12th November, 1897, and 27th October, 1905.
2 On the 31st December, 1909.
3.	No. The present courier was offered and has accepted a renewal for a further teipn of four years.


VETERINARY SERVICE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA.
Mr. J. D. TAYLOR asked:: 1.	Have there been since the_ 1st January, 1909, any vacancies in the Dominion Veterinary service for British Columbia?
2.	If so, what persons, if any, have been appointed to fill such vacancies; and what have been the dates of their respective appointments and the dates upon which they have entered upon the duties of their office?
3.	Is the staff complete at present?
4.	Is there an official list of men eligible for appointment, by reason of having passed the required examination or otherwise? If so, is it the intention that preference shall be given to those whose names appear on said list?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	Yes, there was one vacancy caused by the resignation on April 30, 1909, of T. Bowhill, F.R.C.V.S., who was engaged in a pathological investigation of the disease known as Red Water in cattle, and who occasionally also acted as a veterinary inspector.
2.	Inspector Tamblyn. who has been in the service for nearly five years, was transferred from Midway to perform the inspection duties above referred to. Dr. Seymour Hadwen, of the Pathological staff of the Health of Animals Branch, who at the time of Mr. BowhilPs resignation was on leave for the purpose of taking a special course of instruction in Europe, was, in October last, sent to Vancouver to carry out the investigation of Red Water.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) Yes (b) Yes, except in the case of persons who, to the knowledge of the department, are unsuitable for the proper performance of the official duties required.


ARMED VESSELS ON THE GREAT LAKES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGHES-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	What war vessels or training ships has
the United States government upon the Great Lakes ?	...
2.	What war vessels or training ships have State governments upon the Great Lakes?
3.	What are the armament, tonnage and men of each?

i.	Which of these ships passed the Canadian canals ?
5.	Did any pass without permission of the Canadian government?
6.	Where are these vessels located?
7.	Has the province of Ontario any training ships on the Great lakes.
Wilfrid Laurier: I informed my hon. friend from Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington) yesterday that, pending diplomatic action, it was not desirable to bring the information to the House at this moment.


SOUTH AFRICAN SCRIP.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGHES-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
Has the government under contemplation the amendment of the law relating to the issue of South African scrip during this session, so as to recognize a considerable number not technically entitled under the present law to scrip?
Frank Oliver: No.


CANADIAN FLAG.
Mr. JAMESON asked:: 1.	Is there an officially authorized Canadian flag? If so, what is the design thereof, and when did same receive official saction?
2.	If not, is it the intention of the government to take necessary measures to provide a distinctive ensign?
3.	Will the proposed Canadian navy fly the British or Canadian flag?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	The red ensign of His Majesty's fleet, defaced with the Canadian coat of arms in the fly. Authorized by Admiralty warrant of the 2nd February, 1892, to be used on board vessels registered in the Dominion, and, the blue ensign of His Majesty's fleet, defaced as above, for use on board vessels belonging to or permanently in the service of the Dominion. This flag is authorized by the King's Regulations, no special war-rent being required.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	The matter is under consideration by the' Admiralty.


VISIT OF GENERAL SIR JOHN FRENCH.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGHES-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Has the government any data regarding a visit to be paid to Canada during 1910 by General Sir John French?
2.	If so, is it intended to have as many militia camps as possible inspected by General French during his visit?
Right Hon.   S@: There is no official information on this subject yet.
DISCOVERT rOF PETROLEUM IN THE WEST.
Mr. HUGHES-by Mr. Taylor-asked:
1.	Has the government any reliable data that petroleum has been found in commercial 5i	[DOT]
quantities in the Canadian Northwest? If so, what are the details?
2.	Does the government charge a royalty on each gallon of oil produced in the Northwest?
3.	Is a pipe line now under construction from near Fort MacMurray to Edmonton?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):: 1.	While evidence, which would appear to be reliable, has been obtained to show that petroleum in considerable quantities has been discovered in the Canadian Northwest, it would appear that further development will be necessary to establish the discovery of this product in large quantities.
2.	The regulations provide that a royalty, at such rate as may from time to time be specified by order in council, will be levied and collected upon the sales of the petroleum. No royalty, however, has yet been fixed or collected.
3.	The department has no information.


THE ROSS RIFLE.
Mr. WORTHINGTON asked :: 1.	Was a special issue of rifles made to the last Bisley team from Canada or to any of the members thereof? If so, of what manufacture, the mark thereof, was such issue a free issue, or was it made on repayment; how many rifles of that mark were manufactured, and on issue to Canadian corps, or rifle associations, on the date of sailing of the Canadian Bisley team from Canada, giving names of corps or associations and number on issue to each?
2.	How many have been since manufactured, and to whom issued?
3.	Was any certificate given to this Bisley team or any member thereof that the issue of rifles with which they were supplied was the service weapon of Canada, and was on issue to certain corps of the active militia? If so, by whom was such certificate given and what was the nature thereof?
4.	Are all parts of the Ross rifle now manufactured in Canada or British possessions? If not, what parts are now manufactured outside of Canada; where manufactured, in what stage of manufacture when imported and are customs duty paid thereon?


Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence):: 1.	Yes. Ross Rifle Mark 11**. Issue made in regular way, in accordance with the regulations, the rifles remaining government property.
8th Royal Rifles-10; Bisley Team-25, being the first rifles delivered of the order for 500 of the same mark.
2.	465 issued as follows:-23 to permanent units, 87 to non-permanent units, 2 to rifle associations, 10 to school of musketry, 3 to Dominion Rifle Association, 12 to individuals, 328 in ordnance charge, being distributed to best shooting regiments in each district at the discretion of the D.O.C.
3.	No.
4.	The manufacture of these rifles is proceeding on the same lines as during the past few years, all the work being perform-

ed and the material procured in Canada so far as possible.


CHARGES AGAINST MAJOR AND CART. DELARONDE.
Mr. WORTHINGTON asked:: 
Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence):: 1.	Yes, against Major Stuart E. de la Ronde, sr., and Captain Stuart E. de la Ronde, jr.
2.	Yes, a Court of Inquiry was convened by the District Officer Commanding Military District No. 4. The only instructions issued to the court for its guidance were, that it was assembled for the purpose of inquiring into and reporting upon certain charges made against Major Stuart E. de la Ronde, Sr., and Captain Stuart E. de la Ronde, Jr., No. 5 Company, C.A.S.C., by Lieut. A. A. Pinard and Lieut. C. D. Spittal, No. 5 Company, C.A.S.C.; that the evidence was to be taken on oath," and that witnesses would be warned to attend.
3.	4, 5, 6. The whole case is under the consideration of the Department of Justice.


ARMED VESSELS ON THE GREAT LAKES.
Mr. EDWARDS moved:: For a copy of all orders in council, reports, documents, correspondence and papers from January 1, 1897, to January 1, 1907, relating to the passage of United States warships or training ships through the St. Lawrence canals and the Great Lakes; also, for a copy of all orders in council, reports, documents, correspondence and papers on the subject from March 30, 1908, to the present time.


Right Hon.   S@: There is no objection at all to the first part of the motion which reads as follows:
' For a copy of all orders in council, reports, documents, correspondence and papers from January 1, 1897, to January 1, 1907, relating to Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.
the passage of United States warships or training ships through the St. Lawrence canals and the Great Lakes.
There is no objection to that being granted. I would ask my hon. friend not to press the other portion of his motion which reads as follows:
Also, for a copy of all orders in council, reports, documents, correspondence and papers on the same subject from March 30, 1908, to the present time.
The reason is that this matter is now the subject of diplomatic action. I, therefore, move to strike out the last part and I suggest that the motioh as amended be adopted.


William Cameron Edwards: I have no objection in view of the explanation of the right hon. gentlemen. Perhaps later on, after the information has been brought down, the latter part of the motion may be adopted.
Motion as amended agreed to.


PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.
Mr.  F. D.@: MONK (Jacques Cartier)- moved:
That a Select Committee of this House be appointed to investigate the different systems of proportional representation adopted or suggested elsewhere, as an improvement upon our present method of election, with power to extend said inquiry to all the various forms of the proportional representation, laws proposed or in force; and with power to send for persons and papers, and to report from time to time.
He said:	This is a motion which was
presented to the House last year and was adopted in the form in which it was now renewed. There was something in the beginning of the motion presented last year which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) desired to be changed. There was a modification made in the motion and I present it now in the form in which it was finally carried by the House last year. The motion last year was adopted, I think, at a late date in the month of March and very soon after the motion had been adopted before the committee was named, or the motion could be acted upon, it became evident that the session was going to be considerably abridged for various reasons. In consequence of that, after having conferred with my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) it was determined to take no action upon the motion of last session, it being considered that there would be no time for the committee to sit and take evidence before prorogation. There were at that time additional reasons for deferring the inquiry. There had been a movement in England for the constitution of a commission of inquiry into the question of electoral reform generally and particularly into this ques-

tion of proportional representation and pending the report of that commission, it was thought advisable that we should not proceed with our inquiry. Since that date a roval commission of eight members has been named in England with Lord Richard Cavendish as chairman. That commission has concluded the taking of evidence and I have no doubt that within a month the final report of that commission will be in the hands of the public in England. Through the courtesy of the members of the commission I have been furnished with advance sheets of the evidence so that that evidence, will be available for our own committee. At the same time an investigation was in progress in France having for its object specifically proportional representation. That commission has since made its report and if I am not mistaken it is being considered at this moment by the legislature of France. Recent papers publish reports of the debates upon the report of the commission which is very full and there is a very remarkable speech by Mr. Paul Des-chennels.one of the members of the commission. Thus, our committee will now have the advantage of having before them the results of these two very important investigations.
After the explanations which I gave to-wardsjthe close of the last session, it will not be necessary for me to again set out the merits of this question. Several members of the House at that time took some interest in the question and I shall not take up the time of the House by traversing the same ground again. Since the adoption of this motion at the last session there have been a great many discussions on this subject which has become a very burning question in England, France and other countries, particularly in the United States, and all that has been written upon the subject will be available for this committee. I have also ascertained that there are witnesses in this country who are experts in the matter of proportional representation and would be able to give evidence of local interest and of a local character showing how the system might advantageously be applied in this country.' There are men who have studied the question in all the provinces and who will be easily available to. give evidence before that committee as to the utility of proportional representation in our own country. The subject has great actual interest and invites attention, and I feel that we should take it up so as to gather all necessary information on it.
Proportional representation, as the House knows, has been adopted in New Zealand, Tasmania and Australia, and it is embodied as a principle in the new constitution of the South African confederation, and will probably have in practice a greater expansion than it is designed to have by the constitutional enactment recently adopted in the imperial parliament.	_
It is very necessary for us to be equipped with that information and to have before us all the evidence which would enable the House to take up the question as a practical question. We are all aware of the abuses that exist in connection with the present electoral system, the ' one man, one constituency ' system, with the plural majority only. Wo ihcivo adopted many laws since I have been in parliament to correct these abuses, but, so far as I am aware, the legislation designed for that purpose has not been at all productive of the results that we anticipated. I submit to the House that the real remedy lies in a radical change of our electoral system which would root out the cause of the evils, which as long as the cause remains will continue to dxist in' this country. I therefore submit this proposal with confidence to the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, if I understand aright, the action of my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) this session is more diligent than his action of last year. I understand that the reason for not proceeding with this committee last session, although it had been granted, was partly because he wanted to have the benefit of the information which was being collected in Great Britain. That information has not yet been collected, the report of the commission to which the subject has been entrusted has not yet been made or received.


Mr. MONK.: Only the evidence.


Wilfrid Laurier: Only the evidence. And although we have not yet received the report of the English commission my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) now suggests that we should adopt the motion.
I have no objection to that, although we may have to wait for some time if we are to have the benefit of British experience before the committee. As to this I have nothing to say; we assented to the motion last year and we are prepared to assent to it this year also. It so happened last year that when my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) brought his motion I could not be in the House. I had looked into the question for my own information and had come to the conclusion in my own mind that there was some merit in the system of proportional representation which he suggests. I have not the figures which I had collected last year, but if I remember them aright, so far as the province of Ontario is concerned, if at the last election we had had the system of proportional representation there would be more Grits in this House than there are to-day. Of the total vote cqst in Ontario outside of the city of Toronto in

1908, there was a majority of Liberal electors and yet the result was to give a majority of representation in the province outside of the city of Toronto to the Conservative party of some five members. The Conservative majority from Ontario in this House is now about ten. Five are elected by Toronto, the other five being from different parts of the province and yet, if I remember aright, there was a large majority of Liberal votes over Conservative votes in the province outside of Toronto. Thus the result was to give to my friends on the other side of the House-on the wrong side of the House-a majority of five. In Toronto we could not carry one single seat, Toronto is a very fine city-I have the greatest admiration for the city itself and for the people of Toronto. The people of Toronto are a fine people, they are educated and progressive in a great many ways, but I regret to say that in political matters they seem to be hopelessly blind. It is perhaps more their misfortune than their fault and I sympathize with them. And, although the majority of the people of Toronto are on the wrong side of politics I am glad to say there is quite a proportion of Grits in that city, but they cannot succeed in electing a single member to this House. Probably it is in view of this that my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) takes such a warm interest in the question, and I would be inclined to agree with him that such a condition of affairs as exists in Toronto should cease. Now, the question of proportional representation is not new in this country and it is not new in Ontario. Some twenty years ago the government of Sir Oliver Mowat passed a Bill which embodied this principle and as a consequence Mr. Joseph Tait, a gentleman well known to my hon. friends on the other side of the House, was elected as a Liberal member for the Ontario legislature, but although one would think such laudable legislation would have the support of gentlemen opposite, that law was repealed and there is no longer a Liberal member from Toronto in the Ontario legislature any more than there is in this parliament. From what little attention I have been able to give to the subject of proportional representation I think that while it may be satisfactory in countries with the governmental systems of Switzerland and the United States, it may not altogether be adapted to nations under the British system of parliamentary and responsible government. However, I am not prepared to discuss that question now ; I like to approach it with an open mind, and we have no objection to the committee being granted.


Wilfrid Laurier: 


Robert Laird Borden: I have given a little attention to the subject and while no doubt the result of proportional representation is fairer in one way, yet, it may possibly lead to a difficulty in carrying on government by party where the popular vote is pretty nearly equally divided. For example, if the system had prevailed in Canada previous to the last general election the Prime Minister would to-day find himself sustained by a majority in this House of about three members instead of 47 or 48. No doubt the same consideration [DOT]would apply to the conditions before 1896, when the Conservative government was in power with a substantial majority, although the popular vote was pretty equally divided. I have no doubt that my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) has considered that difficulty. The government of the country must be carried on by one party or the other, and where the popular vote is nearly equally divided the system of proportional representation might lead to difficulty. Now, I wondered a little why the Prime Minister did not tell us of some of the results in the province of Quebec under our present system of representation. We have eleven members on this side from that province. Their quality is so excellent that I am bound to say that in that respect the Conservative vote of 130,000 in Quebec is very ably represented. But, if these 130,000 Conservative voters in Quebec had proportional representation, instead of having eleven Conservatives in this House we would have 28 or 30. Of course, if that illustration had occurred to my right hon. friend he would have mentioned it. I sympathize with the right hon. gentleman with regard to Toronto;- I think he himself has told us that while the people of that city are on all occasions prepared to cheer for him, they are not prepared to vote for him, and I am inclined to; think that condition will continue in the future notwithstanding that he did lay out the electoral divisions in Toronto in the firm hope that he would elect three supporters; an aspiration of his which has not been satisfied and as to which I tender him my sincere sympathy. However, the subject of proportional representation is well worthy of consideration by this House and I do not doubt that in its consideration we will receive a great deal of assistance from the report and evidence on the subject which are shortly to be presented to the Imperial House.


Mr. RICHARD BLAIN (Peel).: I would direct the attention of the House to the fact,-and especially I would direct the attention of the Prime Minister to it-that one of the Conservative members from Toronto' in the Ontario legislature had a majority greater than the combined majorities of all the Reformers who were elected to that legislature at'the last election.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When I spoke in the House on this subject last year I presented a statement compiled by an expert mathematician-a statement which was endorsed by other experts-showing how many members, under a system of proportional representation should be assigned to each province on eacli side of the House. I will be frank enough to say that although I sent my right hon. friend a copy of my speech on that subject, I doubt if he did me the honour of reading it. As regards the situation in Toronto; there is no doubt that proportional representation would remedy the very unfortunate state of affairs there from the point of view of the Prime Minister. I believe there are in Toronto a few Grits, but since I have been in parliament I have never seen them represented here. Whereas under a system of proportional representation some relief would be given, and might possibly have the advantage of having one representative in this House. The chief advantage of proportional representation is that it provides representation for a minority who, under the single member constituency system, are never represented in this House. Some have never been since confederation and have naturally lost all interest in public affairs. The question raised by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition is one of great importance and which has been considered by all those who have carefully studied it. Under the system, which is being promoted by the English proportional representation league, there might be some danger of the contingency referred to by my hon. friend. That league promotes the idea that every man should have one vote. In a constituency where there are several members to be elected, he has but one vote and gives that to one candidate, but he indicates on the ballot what are his second, third and fourth preferences. There is no party under that system. You have a certain number of candidates and the elector has but one vote with the preference I have indicated. On the continent, however, they have the list system. In Finland, where they have proportional representation, they have the list system, also in Belgium, New Zealand and Tasmania, and where you have the list system, you also have the party system, and there is no danger of that happening which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition apprehended a moment ago. The moment you introduce election lists, you have parties, and when you have parties, you have almost the certainty that there will be a sufficient majority for one party to enable it to govern. As a matter of fact, proportional representation has existed in Belgium, Finland and other countries for several years, and its results have been most satisfactory. These countries would never dream of reverting to the old system which they consider obsolete and manifestly
unjust. The difficulty pointed out by my hon. friend has not so far been felt in any of these countries. In each there has always been a sufficiently strong majority to enable government to be carried on without difficulty.
My right hon. friend Sir Wilfrid Laurier has said that the system has been tried in this country. In that he is wrong. There was a time when they had in Toronto a system different from the present, but which was not at all proportional representation. In fact, it was a denial of it. There were three members for Toronto and each elector had two votes. That what was called a limited vote which, like the cumulative vote-another system of that kind- was absolutely in contravention of what is known as proportional representation. The name is unfortunately very long, but in France and Belgium they have a much shorter name. The main object of proportional representation is to provide that the people shall be faithfully represented in parliament, but under the present system such faithful representation is not obtained. Under the present system, parliament is not at all a mirror of the wishes of the people. I am extremely gratified that my right hon. friend has seen fit to accept this motion, but when he says that there is some merit in this great movement, characteristic of modern times, to reform the electoral system all over the world, he greatly depreciates its value. This is not merely a movement in which there is some merit. All writers everywhere are agreed that the present system has fallen short of what was expected. When a deputation in England waited on Mr. Asquith and asked for this commission, the prime minister replied that a point on which everybody was agreed was that the present system is unjust and arbitrary and a remedy must absolutely be found. Under those circumstances, we ought to try and take our place among the advancing nations which seek improvement.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: Whereas it appears from our published criminal statistics, that crime is increasing alarmingly among the young, and
Whereas it has been proved by experience and testimony that the placing together of all classes of convicts in our penal institutions is highly detrimental to the improvement and reclamation of the younger offenders; and
Whereas it is now strongly asserted and believed that classification and segregation of convicts undergoing punishment according to their ages, aptitudes, degree of criminality and prospects of moral improvement have been productive of most beneficial results;-

Resolved, that it is desirable to ascertain by the appointment of a special commission or by reports obtained upon the subject from wardens and inspectors, what means could be adopted in Canada to insure a judicious classification and segregation of the convicts in our penal institutions and reformatories.
He said: Last year, towards the close of the session, I drew the attention of the House and the government to this matter on the second reading of the Bill to amend [DOT] the criminal law. The object of that Bill was to create a new offence, and I thought the opportunity a favourable one to call the attention of the government to the fact that for a number of years we have been increasing the number of offences under the criminal law, but have neglected to pay sufficient attention to the convicts themselves. The object of this motion is to point out the necessity of improving our penal system in accordance with modern ideas. The House is no doubt aware that all criminal statistics to-day establish the fact that crime is increasing all over the country. In spite of what we call our advancing civilization, in spite of the millions that have been spent for some years past in the improvement of education, primary education particularly, and in spite of the apparently great results that we have attained in that line, crime is increasing in mi alarming degree. And another point of importance is that it is increasing particularly among the young. In speaking on this subject last year, I pointed out that, of a convict population in our country of about 1,400, there were over 800 under the age of thirty, and of these a very large proportion are under the age of twenty-two. And this ratio of the young to the whole criminal population is increasing rather than decreasing. What can be the cause it is difficult to say. The reports of the parole officer of this government are very carefully prepared, and the House will find that that officer seems to attribute the increase of crime, and especially among the young, to the temptations that are met with in our large cities. For crime in the rural districts is not on the increase, whereas the majority of the convicts come from our larger cities, and the larger the city the more crime seems to increase there. Montreal, for instance, seems to furnish almost the entire convict population of our great penitentiary, but in the rural districts there does not seem the same temptation or provocation to erime. I have not yet had opportunity to examine carefully this year's report on penitentiaries, but in the brief examination I have given it, I have been unable to find the exact statistics of the ages of the convicts. Still, I venture to assert that the proportion of the young will be about the same as last year. The convict population in our country has increased to over 1,600 this yeaT from 1.400 last year.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Our present system of penitentiaries is obsolete-it has been universally condemned. If one reads the modern authors on penology, or follows the reports of the great prison congresses that have taken place-seven or eight have been held already, and one is to take place next year in Washington-he must know that the system of herding together all criminals, young and^ old, hardened and accidental, as in our penitentiaries, is absolutely condemned. In speaking on this subject last year, I quoted several authorities. I shall not take up the time of the House in quoting them again or even in giving others, for upon this question all authorities are agreed. Tallack, who is the standard author in England on penal systems, was among those I quoted last year, as well as a number of leading authorities in the United States. I referred to a very able article in ' The Month,' the review on penitentiaries, going to prove that the system which we now follow in this country is absolutely condemned, and that throughout all the countries of the world they are endeavouring to change it, and in France, England, Belgium and the United States these changes are being successfully made. In these countries there is classification. When a man arrives at the penitentiary, his antecedents are looked into, his own idiosny-crasies are studied, everything is taken into consideration, and he is not herded with other criminals indiscriminately, hut men of experience decide where he is to be put. It is a fact well known to every person who has had experience in penitentiaries that the hardened malefactors in these institutions contaminate those who come amongst them. It is also a fact, a very sad one, that this contamination spreads very rapidly amongst the young, those who, but for its influence, might easily be saved. All authors on these subjects tell us that the old system of penitentiaries is a hotbed of vice in which those who might be saved are made criminal for life. The question is whether we ought not to follow the example of other nations and try to- adopt the system of segregation and classification. This system does not exist in our penitentiaries at present. When I brought this matter to the attention of the House last year, the Minister of Justice pointed out that some steps had been taken by the government to remedy this deplorable state of affairs. A year or two ago parliament passed the Juvenile Delinquents Act, to which reference is made in this year's report of the parole officer. That Act is a step in the right direction, there is no doubt. But, in the first place; it applies only to delinquents under the age of sixteen. There is a vast number of convicts who are outside the influence of this Act. In the second place, this Act, to be called into effect, re-

quires the co-operation of the province. And, although the provinces of the Dominion are slowly moving in the right direction, Manitoba alone, up to the present time, has conformed to' the conditions of the Act and established a Juvenile Delinquents' Court. And, as I have suggested, the criminally inclined who are over the age of sixteen and who, up to the age of thirty, you may say, in many cases might be reclaimed and prevented from becoming hardened criminals, cannot be reached by this Act-I speak of the class who in England are called juvenile-adult criminals, a class that is increasing every day. So, the idea which prevailed up to the middle of last century that the prison should be a dungeon where all who were guilty of offences against society should be herded together and treated without judgment or discrimination and almost without charity, is now entirely exploded. And, with an increase of crime which is mysterious and abnormal, and which goes on especially among the young, I think we should make a great effort in this country to adopt the improved methods suggested. I pointed out last year that the next great prison congress was to take place in 1910, and, under special invitation of the American government, it is to be held in the city of Washington. Probably more than forty nations will be represented at that congress. I suggested that it would be very, important for us to be represented at that convention and to try to benefit by the information which the convention will bring out and the admirable lessons it is certain to teach.
The idea that I have tried to bring out is not new in Canada. I am informed that Sir John Thompson, when Minister of Justice, had in mind a project under which classification and segregation should take place. The idea of Sir John Thompson at tnat time was to have a penitentiary for extremely young and easily reclaimable convicts at Alexandria, I believe, and at the penitentiary at St. Vincent de Paul the government would put the more difficult cases, and finally, those for whom there is no improvement possible would have been placed together in the penitentiary at Kingston. But that idea was never carried out so far as I know. When I spoke of segregation, I would like to remind the House that it is not solitary by any means. Solitary confinement is one of the harshest punishments that can be inflicted upon any convict, and certainly leads to no improvement whatever. But by the word ' segregation ' is meant the placing of a convict who may be reclaimed under special conditions and in special circumstances, where every possible effort will be made to restore him to a proper moral condition, and then send him back to society a cured man, if I may use that expression.
Now in the United States that system has been largely experimented upon, and adopted with the most beneficial results. Everybody has heard of the great penitentiary at Elmira, in the state of New York. The results obtained there by careful scientific application of modern principles have been marvellous. As much as eighty per cent of the convicts there have been liberated, and have actually turned out to be excellent citizens. That is an established fact to be found in the statistics referring to that penitentiary. In the Massachusetts female reformatory-and female convicts, as the House knows, are very likely to become recidivists-the results have also been extraordinary. So it seems to me that the government ought to take steps in that direction here. During last summer I visited the penitentiary at St. Vincent de Jfaul, I have visited several establishments of that Kind, both in Europe and on this continent, and I wish to say that the penitentiary of St. Vincent de Paul appeared to be one of the cleanest and the best equipped penal institutions I have ever seen. But as I say, I was informed that there is no provision there for segregation. In fact, getting information from the leading officials there, I was told that they could themselves see every day the unfortunate results of the herding together of criminals, and that a change might be effected without much expense. Classification and segregation according to modern teachings could be carried out at that penitentiary, with some cost at first, of course, but no very great cost. It is right to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that statistics in the United States establish that once the change is made, the cost of maintenance is not greater than under the old system, and in some cases indeed it is less. So that the objection of expense does not exist.
Now, Sir, as to the remedy. I suggest in this motion that the government should obtain a special report from its inspector, from the parole officer, and from the wardens, on this particular point. They are all experienced and competent officers, and if their attention was drawn particularly to this matter in their report they could give ample information to the government and to the House. I submit that the question is important enough, the change contemplated is great enough, to warrant the government in instituting a Royal Commission, naming one commissioner at least who is an expert in these matters, and there are some in this country, who would fully investigate the whole subject, visiting the penal establishments in the United States that are the most advanced in the world, some of them, upon this particular subject. Then it seems to me it would be in order for us to improve our present

.system, and endeavour to diminish in some degree the dreadful increase of crime which is referred to in every report.


Hon. A. B. AYLESWOKTH (Minister of Justice).: I am sure that every one will agree thoroughly with my hon. friend in his view of the importance of the subject he has brought to the attention of the House to-day. As I am quite willing that the resolution he has proposed .should be adopted, I might content myself with a silent acquiesence in his proposition. But the nature of the subject he has discussed, and the circumstance that the penitentiaries of the Dominion are under the charge of the department of which I am the head, make it seem necessary, at all events not improper, that I should say a word or two on this motion.
Every one who has thought about it at all, I think, will recognize that the whole question of dealing with prisoners in our penal institutions is one of very great practical difficulty, and such thought as I have been able during the last few years to give to the subject, has led me about to this position, that the only men who are able to deal with such a subject at all satisfactorily, are the practical men who are in charge of our prisoners;' and that there is not very much use in attempting to theorize upon present conditions or to deal practically with questions that one is not thoroughly acquainted with. I have no doubt whatever that very great advantage would result from obtaining the fullest possible information on this subject, and the resolution which is in your hands being one directed to the obtaining of such information, I think it well it should be passed, as it is only a question, if it is a question at all, of the means by which we should get before us the information that is desired. When that information is before us, we should all be in a much better position, I think, to discuss the question of what changes, if any, ought to be made in the management of those institutions, than by any possibility we could be at the present time.
But let me point out one or two considerations that occur to me in dealing with what is here proposed. I will assume, every one must agree, that the reformation of the offender ought to be, and is, one of the objects, perhaps some may think a principal object, in imposing upon him the sentence of the court. I suppose every one would agree also in the view that, ordinarily speaking, it is the beginner in crime who will be the most likely to receive benefit of a reforming character from recognition of the fact that crime it attended with consequences that are unpleasant when punishment is inflicted. There is certainly less hope of reforming the conduct or the character of the hardened offender.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If one remembers the division of our penal institutions between the jurisdiction of the provinces and of the Dominion, it will be seen that, taken in the large, the hardened offenders are those that we in the control of the Dominion penitentiaries have to deal with. Every criminal who is sentenced to two years or more of imprisonment, is liable to be sentenced to the penitentiary -is ordinarily, if not always, sent to the penitentiary. The young and the new offenders are, in almost each instance, unless the offence is very unusual in its character, sent to jails, to reformatories, to provincial prisons which are entirely under the control of the provincial authorities and there, more certainly than in the penitentiaries, would be room for the application of the principles which are indicated in this resolution and which my hon. friend has been advocating.
Of course, I do not mean to say that you can draw any hard and fast line and put all the criminals upon one side or the other of that line. The man who was seeking to classify would have to do it according to his best judgment of the character of the offender coupled, I suppose, with some consideration, at any rate, of the nature of the offence for which he was under sentence and there certainly are to be found many hardened old offenders who have behind them a long career of crime in the provincial institutions, happening to be convicted of some trivial or smaller offence and so punished by a sentence of less than two years' imprisonment. One can readily see, if there is communication between prisoners, the danger that my hon. friend adverts to from the younger and less experienced man coming under the influence of some one, who, perhaps, from entirely false ideas of things, he rather looks up to as a model or hero in crime. In our penitentiaries there is certainly less room for that. There are plenty of first offenders in the penitentiary, men who, perhaps, commit but one crime in their lives. The crime may be very serious in its consequences-forgery, manslaughter, or arson -some offence which does not arise -from the fact that the man has become a hardened criminal, but is the onei slip or the one instance in the whole life of the man where he has gone wrong. That man serves his time and. very possibly returns to society and becomes a reputable citizen. That particular kind of man certainly does no harm to the others in the penitentiary and very likely is not much harmed, if at all, by those who are there along with him. He very likely feels himself above those who are there as men who have entered upon lives of crime, who are habitual criminals and there is the less danger of his being injured by association with these or the more hardened class. But, it must not be forgotten, in thinking about this

subject, that there is not supposed to be any communication at all between convicts, one with another, in our penitentiaries. Each convict has a separate cell, each man goes about his work during the day under the continual supervision of a guard who has charge of a gang of convicts and whose duty it is to see that there is no commui-cation between them. According to the regulations of these institutions and according to the efforts of those in charge there is not intended to be, and there is not supposed to be, any room for the pollution of the morals of one by the degradation of another. There is absolute segregation, individualization and no communication supposed to go on of any character whatever. The practical work of classifying would be, as I have tried to indicate, a matter, certainly, ol very considerable difficulty. It might be a very desirable thing. It vrould certainly be a desir

able thing if there was going to be the injury that I have adverted to by communication between different sets of prisoners or by individuals meeting in any sort of social intercourse. That, how'ever, is something that is prohibited. While we have in our six penitentiaries under Dominion control some 1,500 to 1,600 men the great majority of these convicts are not. in for a first offence, and a very large percentage of them are men who have made up their minds to live by criminal courses and are entitled by their behaviour to be regarded as habitual _ criminals. These are men who are not likely to be reformed, even if benefited at all, by anything in the way of classification or segregation that possibly could be applied to them. The wider field for the operation of the principles of penology to which my hon. friend has adverted is with the more juvenile offenders, with those who are in the^ provincial jails, in the! various reformatories and in institutions of that character which are under the control of the provincial legislatures altogether. In speaking of this subject unden similar circumstances last session, or the session before, I reminded the House of the fact that we had taken one step, perhaps not a very great step, but yet an important one, in the direction which my hon. friend desires in the passing of our Juvenile Offenders Bill. But, it seems rather a comment upon the usefulness of that measure and upon the pressure which was exerted by many benevolent and right minded people to procure its passage when I say that only in one community in this whole Dominion has advantage been taken of the provisions of the Bill an<J that the city of Winnipeg is the only place in Canada where that Act, though it was passed two years ago, has been put into force and where they are enjoying the benefit of it, if it be a benefit. With regard to the practical course to be taken in this matter, in order to secure the
information, I would suggest to my hon. friend that probably the best way to obtain it would be by the experience of the wardens and the inspectors. We have our six penitentiaries each with its warden and deputy warden. If there were a meeting between the six wardens, the two inspectors, and possibly the six deputy wardens, with an interchange of ideas on this subject, I think that probably all the information and suggestions towards any practical course which could be advanced would be obtained equally well as, and possibly better than, by the appointment of a commission. I would suggest to my hon. friend that the -words providing for the appointment of a special commission might be eliminated from the resolution which would be_ left as an expression of the opinion of this House that it is desirable to ascertain by means of reports on the subject from the wardens and inspectors whether or not some such practical course as my hon. friend desires might, with advantage be taken.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES (Victoria).: I would suggest that as both the warden and the deputy warden are executive officers, who naturally view matters from the standpoint of discipline it might be well to take officers of the institution who look on the other side of life. Why should not the chaplain be in a better position than the deputy wardens or even the wardens for this reason that the executive officers are often inclined to look on the harsher side of the prisoner.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I think it would be better to have the chaplain than the deputy warden, because it might be difficult to spare the warden and the deputy warden at the' same time.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The point mentioned by the Minister of Justice that in the penitentiaries convicts are not allowed to have intercourse with one another is true. The 1 rule is there, They are not supposed to speak to each other and certainly at St. Vincent de Paul the discipline is as carefully preserved as it possibly can be. But the answer to that is that they do communicate, that 500 men guarded, I suppose, by about 20, communicate unceasingly, and the wicked contaminate those who might be preserved. That is a fact in every penitentiary in the world. How it is done it is very difficult to know, but they find means to communicate and the evil work goes on. It is true, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) says, that a large part of the work devolves upon the provinces. Some provinces I think have advanced upon others in the care of their

criminals, particularly the young, but we have the penitentiary population under our care and I pointed out last year that out of 1,400 convicts 800 were under 30 years of age, and probably 500 or 600 were admittedly being contaminated. We have the care and the responsibility for these prisoners and I do not think that the fact that the treatment of criminals is divided between the two jurisdictions exempts us from our share of improvement. When I was at St. Vincent de Paul the high officials there told me that in spite of every precaution communication took place without the knowledge of the officials and the Catholic chaplain who has been there for thirty years, an old college mate of mine, told me that that is the grave, the serious point, the contamination of those who are not particularly wicked. I see my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Hughes) is not here at the moment. Our views on religious matters apparently coincide because I was going to suggest that possibly the chaplains in the penitentiaries might be added to those who might be called on to report because everything that has been said in the penitentiary reports in favour of improvement has come from the chaplains. Last year two Anglican chaplains pointed out the desirability of this improvement, and as a matter of fact the danger of evading the task in the case of the wardens, inspectors and others, experienced although they may be, is that they are naturally inclined to be conservative in the sense that they do not desire any change. Mr. Beauchamp, prefect or warden of the penitentiary of St Vincent de Paul told me his own views had tended towards reform. But they the officials might be disposed to desire the maintenance of the status quo, otherwise I would be quite prepared to adopt the minister's suggestion, and I hope that before next year, or at any rate next year when parliament meets we can have a full report from all these gentlemen upon this subject and that we will endeavour to make some progress.
Motion as amended agreed to.


INLAND REVENUE ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient that the Inland Revenue Aet be amended as follows:- That section 76 be repealed and the following substituted therefor:-
76. The person in whose favour a license is granted for an excise bonding warehouse, not included in the description of the premises in respect of which a license has been issued to him under this Aet, shall, upon receiving such Mr. MONK.
license, pay to the collector the sum of fifty dollars.-Mr. Templeman.
Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN (Minister of Inland Revenue).: The object of this resolution is to increase the fee paid for bonding warehouse licenses from $20 to $50. We find in the department that there are many demands for the establishment of bonding warehouse licenses all over the Dominion. We have granted them in every case. In many of the small towns throughout the west and in the east as well where liquor is sold, for the advantage altogether of the liquor dealer, a bonding warehouse is required and is granted. The result is that we have an official in the Inland Revenue Department to supervise that bonded warehouse-his salary is small it is true but in some cases it reaches $400 or $500- and the revenue received from that particular place is so small as not to warrant the department in granting a license. The object of the department in increasing the license from $20 to $50 is not so much to increase the revenue as to be a deterrent on those who ask for bonded warehouses, These bonded warehouses are essentially for the convenience of the dealers and we think the convenience is of sufficient importance to justify us in asking him to pay a slightly larger fee.


Mr. JOHN HAGGART.: What is the total number of bonded warehouses?


William Templeman: Two hundred and seventy or 280 in the Inland Revenue Department, and many of these are in very small places. The utility of these bonded houses is not as great as it was prior to the change in the tax on tobacco. The revenue on tobacco is now paid upon the raw material almost entirely and as the excise duty is small, very little is transferred from one bonded warehouse to the other.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN, This only affects the inland revenue?


William Templeman: Yes.


Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR (Leeds).: I would suggest to the minister that instead of making a flat rate of $50 per license he should have a graded rate depending upon the importance of the bonded warehouse. Why should the poor fellow in a small village who wants a bonded warehouse be compelled to pay as high a fee as the man in the large city who does a business of probably more than $100,000 a year? The system in the smaller places is that the customs officer looks after the Inland Revenue business and gets a small increase in his salary for so doing.


William Templeman: In the case of distillers the fee for their bonded warehouse is included in thsir license fee which is $250.


George Taylor: I still think that the rate should be graded and that the poor man should not have to pay the same fee as the big dealer.


William Templeman: The graded system is in eflect in the Customs Department, but the smallest fee for a bonded warehouse in that case is $60 a year while the highest is $480, and in the Customs Department the grading is according to the number of hours per day that the officers have to work. I. am advised that such a system would not be practical in the Inland Revenue Department. We have licenses issued in some of the very small places where the revenue has gone down to less than we pay the officer in charge, and I do not think it is in the public interest that we should encourage the establishment of such licenses. If a person really wants a bonded warehouse I do not think that $50 a year is too much to pay for the convenience.


Robert Laird Borden: If it is to be regarded from the standpoint of the man who receives the license rather than from the standpoint of the department, then there is a great deal to be said in favour of the system of grading the fee which has been advocated by my hon. friend from Leeds. A man doing business of half a million dollars per year could better afford a fee of $500 than a man doing a business of $5,000 per annum could afford a fee of $50.


William Templeman: There is just about the same work in passing $100,000 worth of liquor in a bonded warehouse in Montreal, as there is in passing $1,000 worth in a smaller place. I do not think it would be advisable to grade the fee according to the value of the alcohol ex-warehoused or according to the amount of revenue collected. I would point out that the minimum charge is $50 and that if you are going to charge relatively a higher rate of license for the large places, you will have to increase the fee to $200 or $300 for a bonded warehouse in the larger cities. The Customs Department fixes a fee according to the time devoted by the officers to the duties of that particular work. The amount is not arbitrary but varies according to the number of hours per day required in each bonded warehouse. We could not learn until the end of the year how much time the officers devoted to the work, and I am advised it would be difficult to work out any scheme differing from the flat rate.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not quite understand why it would be more difficult in the Department of Inland Revenue than that of Customs. I do not see why what is suitable to the Customs Department should not also be suitable to the Department of Inland Revenue. However, the minister
will perhaps give us more information when he brings down his Bill
Resolutions reported, read the first and second time and agreed to.
Mr. TEMPLEMAN moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 9) to amend the Inland Revenue Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
For a return §howing the descriptive nomenclature and mark of the different manufactures or issues of the Ross rifle; the dates of issue thereof; description of changes from preceding manufactures or issues; the Corps, Rifle Associations or Rifle Teams to which issues of Ross rifles have been made, showing number issued, date of issue, and designation or mark thereof; and the detailed disposition of the Mark I pattern of this rifle.-Mr. Worthington.
For a copy of all accounts, vouchers, correspondence, reports and other papers, not already brought down in connection with the survey of the St. John river channel between Fredericton and Woodstock, N.B. - Mr. Crocket.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: What business tomorrow?


Wilfrid Laurier: If opportunity offers we will take up government business if the Bills are printed.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 4 o'clock.


HOUSE 0E COMMONS.
[Stage Direction]
Thubsday, November 18, 1909.