FIRST READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 130) for the relief of Matilda Emo-Air. Hudgins.

Mr. LENNOX.: I desire to call the attention of the right hon. Prime Alinister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to an item appearing in the English * Morning Post,' of the 18th February, in which they refer to the approaching Imperial Conference, and point out that many of the overseas Dominions have sent in an outline of important proposals which they propose to submit to the conference-from New Zealand 15 or 16 various resolutions looking to better communication and better carrying facilities; from Australia about the same number from South Africa, and so on. This item is headed:



NO SUGGESTIONS FROM CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
And it says:
A White Paper was issued last night containing the suggestions made by the governments of the British dominions oversea as to resolutions for discussion at the forthcoming Imperial Conferences.
The main outstanding feature of the correspondence is the passive attitude adopted by Canada. She will take part in the discussion of any subject put forward by the other participants in the conference. She makes no suggestions herself. She gives a guarded welcome to suggestions looking to uniformity as far as practicable in the naturalization laws throughout the empire.
[Stage Direction]
I desire to ask the Prime Minister if it is a fact that with all the important questions looming up concerning this great Dominion and its commercial and other relations with Great Britain and the empire, and with these resolutions now on file and completed, there is no suggestion nothing in the way of initiative from the Dominion of Canada.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that the Dominion government has no new suggestions to make to the Imperial Conference, which' meets this year.



RECIPROCITY NEGOTIATIONS.

Mr. BLAIN.: I would like to read a paragraph from a letter written by Mr. J. A. Macdonald, the present editor of the Toronto ' Globe, and published in the Stratford ' Herald,' of the 21st inst. I propose to read one paragraph of the letter, and then to ask only one question:
(1) Reciprocity had absolutely nothing to do with my going to Washington a year ago. After the close of a certain libel suit in which I was defendant I sought change and rest. On my way to Atlantic city I dropped off at Washington for a day or two. My presence there would have been unrecognized had not the newspaper men dragged me into the discussion of the American-Canadian tariff situation, then at an acute stage. Once in I made the most of it, and got good newspaper copy for the ' Globe.' I saw Aldrich, Cannon, Lodge, Dolliver, Champ Clark and Secretary Knox. On the third day President Taft sent for me. We discussed tariff matters with a great frankness. He expressed an earnest wish to meet Sir Wilfrid Laurier or some member of the Canadian government at Albany, and asked me to prepare the way. That evening I left for Ottawa. The only man who knew of these things was Ambassador Bryce, with whom I was in daily conferense. Not until I reached Ottawa did Sir Wilfrid know. So far as I am aware he knew nothing of my movements. Therefore, when Col. Hughes charged in parliament that I was the ' unofficial agent ' of the government he spoke a falsehood.
(Sgd.) J. A. MACDONALD.
La Jolia, Cal., Feb. 18, 1911.
I would like to know from (the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier)) whether or not that was the first communication with respect to the tariff [DOT]negotiations between this government and the government at Washington.
SiT WILFRID LAURIER. The brief communication that the government had. was from the President of the United States, inviting Mr. Fielding to meet him at Albany. Mr. Macdonald is right in saying that up to the time of the interview, there had been no communication with him whatever or anybody else.


Mr. FOSTER.: Had the communication from Mr. Taft been received befoTe Mr. Mr. LENNOX.
Macdonald's conference on his return from Washington with Sir Wilfrid Laurier here?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not remember it at all; it may or it may not.



COMBINES ACT-UNITED SHOE MACHINERY COMPANY.

Mr. ETHIER.: I wish to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) whether his department has taken any action with a view to an inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act, in connection with the complaints made against the United Shoe Machinery Company?


Mr. KING.: I have received notification from Mr. Justice Cannon of Quebec that he has granted an order directing an investigation under the Combines Investigation Act into an alleged combine on the part of the United Shoe Machinery Company, and that the documents in connection with the matter are being forwarded to the Department of Labour as soon as received, proceedings will be instituted in accordance with the provisions of the Act.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 125) respecting the Pacific, Northern and Omeniea Railway 'Company.- Mr. Smith (Nanaimo).
Bill (No. 127) to incorporate the Universal Life Assurance Company of Canada.- Mr. Low.
Bill .(No. 121) respecting the Globe Printing Company.-Mr. Clarke (Essex).

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

[Stage Direction]
*	Mr. WILSON (Lennox) :
1.	How much money has been expended for immigration purposes in the United States by the Canadian government during the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1910?
2.	How much money has been expended for immigration purposes in Great Britain by the Canadian government during the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1910?
Mr. OLIVER :: 1.	$232,347.
2.	$245,577.


SHIP ' WANDA.'
[Stage Direction]
*	Mr. SHARPE (Ontario) :
1.	Was there a ship called ' Wanda' on the American register at Detroit changed to the Canadian register at Brockville? If so, what was the date when the change took place?
2.	What official appraised its value for duty?
3.	What was the value of the ship and the amount of duty ?
4.	Who was the owner of the vessel?

5.	At whose direction and instruction was the value of the vessel appraised for duty?
Mr. MURPHY :: 1.	A vessel named ' Wanda ' purchased in the United States, was registered at the port of Brockville under the name ' Tenno,' on the 20th October, 1909.
2.	J. C. Boughner, Dominion appraiser of customs.
3.	Appraised value, $1,600 ; duty, $400.
4.	William Richard Travers, Toronto, Ont.-bank manager.
5.	Department of Customs.


CHACASTAPASIN INDIAN RESERVE.
[Stage Direction]
*	Mr. SCHAFFNER :
Who is the owner, or who are the owners, *of the Chacastapasm Indian reserve in ranges 25 and 26, west of the 2nd principal meridian?
Mr. OLIVER :: The department is not aware of the present owner or owners of the sold portion of this reserve. The reserve, comprising an area of 15,906-38 acres, was surrendered by the Indians on the 23rd of June, 1897, to be sold for their benefit, and 14,860-35 acres of the reserve have been sold, paid for and patented, with the exception of four fractional quarter sections which have been sold but not patented ; there remaining unsold Sugar island, containing an area of 1,046-03 acres, which is still held by the department in trust for the Indians.


SUB-COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MAHONE BAY.
[Stage Direction]
*	Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds) :
1. Has the sub-collector of customs at Malone Bay, Nova Scotia, been dismissed?
2.	If so, for what reason, and after what investigation?
Mr. PATERSON :: 1. The sub-collector of customs at Ma-hone Bay, N.S., aged 78 years, has been granted three months leave of absence with pay, until 1st June, 1911, when his services as a customs officer are terminated on account of his advanced age and physical condition. This case was investigated by Mr. D. C. MacDonald, inspector of customs.	-


THE CENSUS.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. MARSHALL :
1.	Has the commissioner been appointed for taking the census of East Elgin?
2.	If appointment is made, what is his name and remuneration?
3.	Have enumerators been appointed for East Elgin? If so, what are their names and remuneration ?
Mr. FISHER :: No census commissioners or enumerators have been appointed.


EXPENDITURE ON AGRICULTURE.
Mr. GILBERT :: What is the total expenditure incurred by the Department of Agriculture since confederation?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The answer is as follows :
Y ear.	Civil Government.	Arts, Agriculture and Statistics.	Immigration.	Quarantine.	Total.$ cts.	8 cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.1867	32,636 77	108,078 25	50,137 91	2,660 83	193,513 761S68	28,402 37	5,580 59	53,630 73	6,765 50	94,379 191869	30,060 42	7,020 14	37,006 22	6,141 33	80,228 111870	32,289 69	6,226 84	59,988 68	11,945 96	110,451 171871	35,851 75	165,680 01	52,808 83	18,981 20	273,324 791872	35,726 43	224,015 68	108,260 83	20,705 85	388,708 991873	44,064 31	68,255 96	255,970 53	21,398 30	889,689 101874	46,208 59	58,562 31	275,102 37	43,470 50	423,343 771875	48,734 07	30,327 94	278,776 99	23.993 G9	381,832 691876	49,156 58	77,742 21	365,594 00	20,251 36	512,744 151877	:	45,080 17	73,313 93	309,352 90	44,598 14	472,345 141878	49,395 75	93,419 28	154,351 42	26,340 02	313,506 471879	50,787 22	63,068 23	186,403 06	26,099 17	326,357 681880	46,705 62	25,068 24	106,183 98	77,020 37	254,978 211881	47,807 51	149,441 69	214,251 05	36,561 94	44S,062 191882	51,778 55	273,413 31	215,339 24	37,721 78	578;252 881883	55,822 83	62,894 07	373,957 71	63,776 73	556,451 341884	60,045 35	67,767 43	511,208 83	64,117 89	703,139 501885	68,464 40	91,381 60	423,860 90	82,547 11	660,254 011886	72,981 81	203,312 02	257,354 93	90,220 62	623,869 38
Year.
Civil
Government.
cts.
Arts, Agriculture and Statistics.
cts.
Immigration.
S cts.
Quarantine.
$ cts.
Total.
$ cts.
1887	
1888... 1889	
1890..	.
1891..	.
1892	
1893(a)..
1894..	..
1895..	..
1896..	..
1897..	.
1898	
1899..	.
1900..	.
1901..	..
1902..	..
1903..	..
1904..	..
1905..	..
1906..	..
1907..	.
1908	(b)
1909	(e).
1910..	..
72,504 62 75,233 13 73,160 66 77,140 91 79,461 95 78,053 84 85,526 52 82,424 10 79,564 55 76,151 05 77,366 83 71,537 88 70,746 13 74,835 65 79,446 73 84,321 04 82,753 19
88.631	58 99,811 96
110,186 62
82.631	44 107,801 11 245,389 20 351,953 28
253,759 10 311,159 17 161,629 29 153,398 44 410,187 43 426,503 32 286,553 30 264,879 66 216,740 30 210,877 61 223,972 97 245,231 59 258,782 02 461,560 76 697,206 50 1,274,790 14 543,704 93 660,052 60 698,210 65 603,590 34 625,933 53 1,218,242 38 1,406,345 33 997,054*39
341,237 39 244,789 09 202,499 26 110,091 76 181,045 38 177,604 82 180,677 43
121,627 31 67,701 47 90,052 68 72,245 19 77,243 90 80,083 30 101,954 31 113,571 43 101,761 75 96,404 19 121,044 92 137,293 59 136,743 52 136,134 18 170.474 60 264,737 78 263,385 72 220,514 68 304,758 28 652,083 23 397,906 63 155,048 18 126,665 29 143,512 67
789.127	42 698,882 86 527,341 89 412,876 30 747,938 66 762,245 28 654,711 56 460,875 19 398,066 60 383,431 85 422,383 72 454,062 06 466,271 67 672,530 59
947.127	83 1,623,848 96
889,843 84 969,198 86 1,102,780 89 1,365,860 19 1,106,471 60 1,481,091 67 1,778,399 82 1,492,520 34
Total
28,399,327 34
(a)	Immigration transferred to Department of Interior 1892-93.
(b)	Cattle Quarantine transferred to Arts, Agriculture and Statistics as Health of Animals, 1907-08.
(c)	Outside service at Ottawa transferred to Civil Government, September 1, 1908.


HOLLAND PEAT BOG.
Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	Has the government been investigating conditions along the shores of the Holland river for the purpose of ascertaining whether peat or other fuel can he obtained there on a commercially profitable basis?
2.	If so, what is the result, and what further does the government intend to do?


Mr. TEMPLEMAN:: 1.	The Holland bog, which covers an area of several thousand acres in the counties of Simcoe and York, was surveyed and examined during the months of November and part of December, 1910.
2.	The results of the survey of the entire bog have not as yet been worked out since the map which is in course of preparation is not complete, and the analyses of the different samples of peat which have been taken at various depths are not finished. The results, however, have been worked out for a portion of the southern part of the bog. The peat contained in this portion of the bog is suitable for fuel purposes.
When the map is completed and the results of the survey thoroughly worked out, the commercial value of the Holland bog and the various purposes to which the peat contained is best adapted will be known, and published in a report.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


BEAUSOLEIL INDIAN RESERVE.
Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	Have permits been issued to the Indians of Beausoleil reserve, Christian island? If so, upon whose application?
2.	To what person, in what locations and for how many acres have the permits been issued in each case?
3.	Have the boundaries of tbe territory included in the permits been blazed by tbe Indian agent, wbat instructions have been issued to him as to supervision to prevent waste, fraud and the like, and to what extent have these instructions been carried out?
4.	Are any white men engaged in cutting timber on this reserve or island? If so, is this in harmony with the regulations?
5.	Have Indians applied for permission to cut timber on Beckwith island, has permission been granted or will permission be granted to them to do this?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Yes, on application of Indians.
2.	Permits issued by local agent under instructions, and the department is not aware as to what permits have been issued.
3.	The local agent was instructed that each member of the band might be given a permit to cut over an area of one or two acres adjoining existing clearances; that the permits should describe the area to be cut over, after being blazed by the Indian

the permits should describe the area to be cleared, fenced and put under cultivation within two seasons, or sown with sufficient grass and clover seed next summer to prevent the growth of noxious weeds. The department has no reason to believe that these instructions are not being carried out.
4.	The department has no knowledge of white men being engaged in cutting timber on Christian island. The Indians are required to cut and take out timber themselves under permits.
5.	Yes; but the same was not granted.


Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	Who is the Indian agent of Beausoleil reserve, Christian island?
2.	When was he appointed, on whose recommendation, is he a practical farmer, what evidence had the department of this at the time of his appointment; was it made a condition of his appointment that he should reside upon the reserve and instruct the Indians in agriculture, _ cattle feeding and the like, and has he resided on the reserve at any time? If so, during what periods, and is he residing upon the reserve or the island new?
3.	In order to attain his object, did the government erect a residence for the agent upon the reserve, and at what cost; has the Indian agent ever resided in this house, and by whom is it occupied?
4.	Where does the Indian agent reside, and when did he last visit the reserve?
5.	Who was the immediate predecessor of the present Indian agent, and for what alleged cause was he retired?
6.	Does the government propose to insist that the agent shall reside upon the reserve?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Mr. H. G. Todd.
2,	3 and 4. He was appointed on the 6th of July, 1910. His name was suggested by the Indians of the band, who stated that he was a good farmer. It was a condition of his appointment that he should reside upon the reserve and give the Indians practical advice in farming. He has moved to the reserve, and from information received he was there a few days ago. A residence was erected for the agent on the reserve at a cost of $3,470.
5.	Mr. Charles McGibbon. He was retired because he had no qualifications to give the Indians practical advice on farming.
6.	The government proposes to insist that the agent shall reside upon the reserve.


FALSE MINERAL NOTICES.
Mr. LENNOX:: 1. Referring to the following circular, which it is alleged is being sent out from Ottawa to the land owners in the township of King, county of York, viz.:-' By order of Professor J H. Wilson, government analyst, we have entered upon a lot (describing the property) and surveyed, bored, analysed and assayed the soil on said lots, and found it contained 1364
deposits of mineral carbon autricht. Operations for development -will commence May 1. All transfers, encumbrances and drainage schemes in connection with said lots after the date hereof will be null and void, as the government claims all rights over said lots.


F. H. FORCHET,
[Stage Direction]
Analysis and Search Department.'
Is there in all the patents a reservation of the minerals for the Crown?
2. Has the government authorized these notices ?
2. Do the minerals belong to the Dominion or to the province?
4.	Does the government intend to carry on mining or any other operations upon these * lands? If so, of what character, with what object, when, and to what extent?
5.	In any case are the notices not too broad?
Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: The Mr. J. A. Wilson referred to therein is not attached to the Analyst's Branch of the Inland Revenue Department, nor connected in any way with the Mines Department, or Geological Survey, and none of these departments have any knowledge whatever relative to the circular issued by Mr. F. H. Forchet, who is likewise unknown to. and unconnected with any of the departments above mentioned.


THE DOMINION SENATE.
Mr. M. Y. McLEAN (Huron) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Dominion Senate as at present constituted is not in accordance with the representative institutions of this country, and the government should take the necessary proceedings to have the Senate made representatives of and dirctly responsible to the people.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving this resolution I wish it to be distinctly understood at the outset that I have no particular objection to the personnel of the Senate of Canada. There are able and eminent men in that body; men who have devoted their ability and energy to the welfare of their country and who deserve well from her; men whom any constituency might justly feel proud to have as its representative.
I think I may be excused if I mention as representative of this class, Sir Richard Cartwright on the one side, and Sir Mackenzie Bowell on the other. So that, Sir, it is not the thing constituted that I object to so much as the manner in which it is constituted. I believe that the people of this country should and must rule, and I further believe that a life appointed and irresponsible body, a legislating body that is above, and beyond, and out of the reach of the people, is entirely at variance with the representative institutions of this country, and is an anomaly that should not be permitted to exist in any free country.
1 am safe in saying that" a Senate constituted as ours now is must of necessity be either dangerous or useless. If it runs counter to the will of the people as ex-

pressed through this House, then I think it is dangerous, and if it does not do so, in most instances it is useless. I may be pardoned for saying that in so far as our Senate is concerned it belongs to the latter class. I had not the opportunity of listening to the discussion of the resolution introduced this session by my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) calling for the abolition of the Senate, but I listened very attentively to the discussion last session and while I can agree with a good deal which fell from my hon. friend in his ad-[DOT]vocacy of this resolution, I do not agree with the conclusions at which he arrived. I do not think it would be wise or judicious to entirely abolish the Senate and for this reason: As we know, the Senate as at present constituted, is a legacy left by the fathers of confederation, in fact it is a part of the confederation compact. It was instituted and designed for the purpose of protecting the smaller provinces from oppression or aggression by the then larger provinces, and if there was at that time even a suspicion for the necessity of a body of this kind, I think that that necessity is even much greater now, and that it will grow as time goes on, and as the newer western provinces grow in population, power, wealth and aggressiveness. So I do not think it would be wise or judicious to remove from the smaller provinces the protection which was guaranteed to them unless it is shown fairly and conclusively that they are willing to be relieved from this protection. I am not aware that the provinces have given any reason to suppose that they would desire to be relieved from this protection which was given to them as a part of the confederation compact. But there is no reason why an elective Senate, a Senate made responsible to the people, should not be more effective as a protection to these provinces than a Senate appointed by the government of the day, entirely irresponsible to the people and appointed for life, because a Senate elected by the people would represent the will of the people and would of necessity be a greater check upon oppression to the smaller provinces than a body such as we now have, owing its appointment to the government of the day and its members more or less obligated to that government. The Senate may properly be divided into three divisions: First, those who value their seats as a respectable refuge where they can spend their declining years with ease at the expense of the country. ,
Second, those who value their seats for the social position they gain, and for the facilities afforded for the advancement of their own personal and business schemes.
Third, those who give of their ripe experience and rich, matured judgment for the benefit of the country.
Mr. McLEAN (Huron)
The elective system, I claim, would wipe out the two first classes and relegate them to private life where they properly belong, and would 'retain for the benefit of the country those who belong to the third class.


Richard Blain: There is no such division now over there?


Murdo Young McLean: Yes, and they must always exist in such a body appointed as the Senate is.
Let us see for a moment how the situation stands in other countries. An elective Senate is not by any means a new thing. In the commonwealth of Australia six senators are elected for each state for a term of six years, half the number retiring every three years and the entire vote of each state is for each candidate.
In New Zealand, the upper chamber were formerly appointed for life. The term is now limited to seven years.
In South Africa, the last constitution that has been evolved, the first House of Assembly will consist of 121 representatives and the Senate of 64, 16 for each of the four provinces. Eight will be elected in each province, eight will be nominated by the Governor General in Council, four in each province.
In other countries, Mexico, Brazil, and the Argentine Republic, the upper chambers are elective. The same condition exists in the other countries of_ South and Central America. Canada is the only country in North or South America having life appointees. So it will be seen that this is the only country on the American continent that still continues this antediluvian system. I noticed during the recent discussion that my honoured leader stated that there are many difficulties in making a change in the Senate under present conditions. He has also expressed the opinion that an elective Senate would not be advantageous and that no person in the present day advocates an elective Senate. I agree with my right hon. friend in nearly everything but on this question I must certainly disagree. If I can diagnose public sentiment at all I am convinced that a very large proportion of the people of this country would very much prefer an elective Senate to the system we now have and I have paid very considerable attention to public sentiment on this matter. The objection has been raised to an elective Senate that it would be simply a reflex of this House. I think an elective Senate could be constituted which would not be a reflex of this House, but would represent quite a different constituency from that represented in this House, and I shall endeavour to outline a system which I think will accomplish this object.
In the first place, I would have the country divided into senatorial divisons.

For example, the county to which I belong now sends three representatives to this House. The adjoining county, represented by my hon. friend the Deputy Speaker, sends two representatives. If these two counties were united and sent one representative to the Senate, and the rest of the Dominion were divided in like manner, I think we would have a representation in the Senate considerably different from that in this House. My own county is at present represented by two Conservatives and one Liberal. The adjoining county of Perth is represented by two Liberals. What would be the political colour of the senatorial representative elected by these two counties it would be impossible to say, though I think it possible that he would have strong Conservative leanings. In the second place, I would have the senators elected for seven or ten years, as the case might be. In the third place, I would have a small property qualification for the electorate. At present, in the province of Ontario at any rate, we have practically a manhood franchise. I would have a property qualification for the senatorial electors somewhat similar to what we have now for our municipal elections in this province. I would also have an educational qualification to the extent that I would require that every elector should be able to read and write in his own language. I would also require each elector -whose name is on the voters' list to go to the polls and deposit his ballot. This is sometimes termed compulsory voting, and is objected to on that score. I fancy, however, that there is no such thing as compulsory voting. It would be impossible to compel a man to vote for either one candidate or another, and it would certainly be very unjust to do so. But I do not think any injustice would be inflicted on any individual by requiring him at least to attend a polling place and deposit his ballot. If he could not conscientiously vote for any one of the candidates, he could at least deposit his ballot, and in this way show that he was prepared to do his duty. I do not think that it would be an undue hardship to any one. The franchise is a privilege granted by the state to the individual; and if the individual does not think sufficiently of this privilege to exercise it, it certainly would be no hardship or no wrong to deprive him of it for at least a season. Consequently, I would say that every voter whose name is on the list and who fails to attend at the polling booth and at least deposit his ballot unless he can give some reasonable excuse satisfactory to some judicial authority, should have his name erased from the voters' list for the subsequent election, and be disfranchised at any rate to that extent. Now, let us see what the result of this
would be. At the last Dominion elections in this country there were on the voters' list 1,461,793 votes. The total vote cast at that election was 1,176,104, leaving 285,689 who did not vote at all. But there were certain elections by acclamation. At these elections there were 22,000 voters, leaving 263,689, or about one-fifth of the voters in Canada who did not record their votes at the last election. In Belgium, where compulsory voting exists, and the only country I know of at the present time where it does exist, at the last election practically the full vote was recorded. So that under thi^* system we would have a large vote brought out which does not appear in the elections to this House, and in that respect, at least, as well as in other respects, we would have a considerably different constituency represented by those who would be elected to the Senate. I would also require the practice of personal canvassing to be prohibited by law. We have been endeavouring long and faithfully in this House to make laws which would ensure electoral purity. I do not know that we have succeeded very well. I do know that we have built up the pains and penalties so high that we are now barely able to see over them, although I must say this for Canada, that I think our elections are as pure if not purer than those of most other countries, and certainly they are as pure as those of the mother country, if we are to judge by the reports concerning the last two general elections there. If we are to judge by these reports, I think our friends in the mother country can give us pointers in the ways that are dark and the tricks that are vain. But notwithstanding that fact, there is a good deal more electoral impurity in connection with our elections in this country than most of us would like to see; and in order to eradicate this evil I think it is necessary to strike at its very root, and strike good and hard. In my humble opinion, this abominable practice of personal canvassing, travelling from concession to concession, from street to street, and from door to door, begging people to come out and vote for you, is demoralizing to the candidate as well as to the elector, and has a very strong tendency to lessen the dignity which should naturally attach to the representative position. It is at this every foundation of much of this electoral impurity in this country. To do away with this evil as much as possible in connection with the senatorial elections, I would make personal canvassing on the part of a candidate an offence that would invalidate the election. I would make personal canvassing on the part of a friend or a supporter of a candidate a ground for disfranchising him at the succeeding election. But in order that the public might be made thoroughly conversant with the public affairs of the country,

2 would also require that each candidate should hold a certain number of meetings within the constituency, which should be well advertised and be open to the public, and at which the affairs of the country should be thoroughly discussed.
Another provision which I think would be advisable in connection with an elective Senate would be in reference to the veto power. I do not like the idea of any body having the veto power over this House. But I think that the function of the Senate, [DOT]constituted as it is now, or as it might be if elected by the people, is that of a revising body. The Senate would have greater leisure to consider the measures .passed by this House, and they might secure from this House additional consideration of any measure they might think required such consideration. Consequently, I think it would be advisable to adopt a system such as has been spoken of in the mother country. That is, a measure objected tQ by the Senate should be sent back to the Commons, and if it should be adopted by the *Commons at three successive sessions, it should become law, even though the Senate objected to it. In that respect, the will of the people would receive full expression, the measure would receive proper consideration, and everybody would have an opportunity of consulting with those whom he represented.
I had not intended to speak on this subject to-day, and am not going to take up much time; nor is it necessary to do so. My principal object , in bringing this matter before the House was to have it discussed here and in the country. I think the scheme I have outlined is desirable and feasible. Every legislative body in a free country should be directly responsible to the people, and I think I have outlined a scheme, which, although it may be faultily outlined, although it could be, in some respects, improved, it at least lays down a basis on which an elective Senate could be constructed, which would be acceptable and beneficial to the people of this country. In conclusion, I have only to say that I would like to see this government take this matter up earnestly, and give it very careful consideration. I sincerely trust that in their wisdom they will be able to evolve a scheme which will remove from this free *country the reproach of having as one of its legislative bodies a body that is entirely irresponsible and over and above the people, and that in this way the government, will redeem the only pledge made by the Liberal party when in opposition that has not been already fully redeemed.


Mr. THOMAS BEATTIE (London).: I am sorry I cannot agree with the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McLean). I do not wish to see the Senate either done away with or made elective. The Prime Minister Mr. McLEAN (Huron).
expressed an idea when this subject was previously under discussion that seemed to me a wise one, and that was to make the term of a senator ten or twelve years, and make retirement compulsory at the age^ of eighty years. To make the Senate elective at this time would be a very serious matter. I agree with those who think it would be well to have the Senate non-partisan. This could be accomplished by having the leaders oi the two parties nominate senators turn about. If you have senators elected they must be elected for large districts, each of them covering at least three or four constituencies of this House. You could not expect to get the best men who have reached advanced years to engage in canvassing so large a district. For instance, take the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), or the Minister of Customs^ (Mr. Paterson)-I think it would be advisable to have them in the Senate. But you could not expect either of these gentlemen to undertake the work of canvassing a large district with a view to election. I never expect to go to the Senate myself, but I certainly would not wish to go if it were necessary to canvass so large a division in order to obtain the position. But if the Prime Minister's idea were carried out and the senator's term made ten or twelve years, with compulsory retirement at eighty years, I think that the change would be a most desirable one. It is true that there are men who, even after eighty years of age, would be good men for the Senate-there are some of them there now. Still, at an advanced age, as a rule, it is -well that men should retire. I hope the head of the present government will carry out the idea that he has expressed.


Haughton Lennox: I have listened to a great deal of debate in reference to the Senate, and I confess I have never heard any suggestions made that appeared to me advisable to adopt. It is very fashionable to talk against the Senate. I believe that, while they are subject to criticism-or, rather, those who appoint them are subject to criticism-we do not appreciate the Senate to the extent we ought to. For my part, I have no hesitation in saying that, long' ago, I formed the opinion that we required a Senate in Canada, and I see no reason to change my mind. But I think we could have a better condition of things in the Senate-just as we might have a very much better condition of things in the House of Commons. There is no use beating about the bush-there is no difficulty in reforming the Senate if we wish to reform it. There are a lot of excellent men in the Senate. But there are some not so excellent, and the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who leads the House knew that before he appointed them. He

could have avoided such appointments if he had wanted to: but, if appointments to the Senate are made as reward for stepping down from some other positions, or something of that kind, it must follow-not speaking of any particular gentlemen who got the appointments in these cases-it must follow as a principle that we have bad appointments in the Senate, appointments that never should be made.
When my hon. friend from Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster) spoke the other day, the First Minister, if I understood him rightly, was in very low spirits. He regretted exceedingly the condition of the Senate, but he regretted it all the more because he was helpless to avoid it-at least, so he wanted us to understand. But I do not understand it in that way. The main difficulty about the Senate is that the gentleman who, for the time being, has in his control the appointments to the Senate will not deal honestly and squarely by the people of Canada in making these appointments. And I want to tell the Prime Minister squarely to his face that, if the Senate is not in the condition to-day it ought to be in-and it certainly is not-he, above all men in Canada, is responsible. And when he wants the House to understand that he is anxious to reform the Senate, I wish to tell him, through you, Mr. Speaker, that he has had for years the opportunity to reform the Senate, that it was his duty to reform the Senate, and that he has not done it. He could have redeemed his promise without any radical action, and, redeeming his promise, he might have had a Senate which would be the pride of Canada to-day.
Now, I do not believe in the scheme of the hon. gentleman (Mr. McLean, Huron), I believe we have in our constitution at present, the means of forming an able, trustworthy and efficient body of men, who would be a great safeguard to the people of Canada, if the head of the government would only be reasonably honest, and make fair and honest appointments in the interests of the people. I do not know that I have very much hope that the right hon. gentleman will do that. But even at this late day, I do feel that the First Minister ought to take into his serious consideration whether, in view of the promises he made long ago, perhaps in 1893, in view of his duty in any case, if he never made a promise, in view of the solemn pledges he made upon the hustings that he would introduce a reasonable measure of Senate reform, should be not now, even now, in making appointments to the Senate, be guided, not by political expediency, but solely by the public interest, and I say if he did that, we would very soon have a body of which neither side could complain. I said a moment ago that I did not have
much sympathy with those who were always making cheap capital, by decrying the Senate. I like to apeak of that body as a representative body of Canadians, a great body under the constitution of Canada. I have much respect for them, and in past times, they have rendered efficient service to Canada; they have stood between the government and great wrongs sought to be done to the people of Canada, I look to the time, even as the Senate is at present constituted, I look with great hope to a day not far distant, when the Senate will assert itself again, when the Senate will show that those members of parliament who have decried them, have not estimated them according to their real worth. I look to the time at no distant day, before we have done with this reciprocity tariff, when probably the Senate of Canadarwill, as it was designed to do, stand between a government which has not considered the best interests of the people, and the final perpetration of that government's design; will show by their actions, that above all other bodies in Canada, they can be relied upon in the final resort, to stand fairly and squarely in the interest of Canada, uninfluenced by any body of politicians whatever.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am glad to see that my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) is so sanguine that it is possible to reform the Senate, even without reforming the constitution at all. He looks to the time when the Senate will be up to the high standards which he sets for it, and I suppose there is an alternative of standards. One would meet his views especially if the Senate was composed of angels alone, if the Prime Minister, who is more responsible, I admit, than anybody else, were to select angels, the angel Gabriel and others. I suppose that would meet the views of my hon. friend. If that could not be done, I suppose that a Senate composed of Tories would meet the views of my hon. friend, and I have no doubt that then the Senate would be reformed according to his notions. The difficulty, however, is, that whoever occupies the post which at present, unworthy as I am, I occupy, has to appoint men, and whoever occupies this position will be guided by the motives which generally actuate men. I can assure the House, though perhaps my hon. friend will not believe me-but there are others who will believe me-that in recommendations to His Excellency for appointments to the Senate, I have always thought that I was acting in the best interests of the country. In everything I have done, I have always been actuated by the same motives, I honestly believed that I was serving the best interests of the country. If it were not going out of the scope of this

resolution, I might mention the reciprocity question, which my hon. friend first mentioned; I certainly thought that in this matter, we were acting in the best interests of the country, and I may say that, after having heard my hon. friend to the contrary, I have not changed my opinion either.


Haughton Lennox: I think my hon. friend did not hear much of it.


Wilfrid Laurier: On the contrary, I heard all of it, except the last ten minutes, and I read that part of it; and my hon. friend cannot find fault if I tell him that it was the best part of his speech, because it was composed almost entirely of quotations from myself. So I am perfectly familiar with everything that was said by my hon. friend on that occasion.
This is not the first time that we have heard proposals for the reform of the Senate, discussed in this House; we have had a discussion upon it even during the present session. But the present motion which has been made by my hon. friend from Huron (Mr. McLean) has this advantage over others, that it makes at least some suggestion. All the former motions we have had, have been indefinite in that respect. All pointed to the composition of the Senate as being unsatisfactory, that it did not represent the opinions of the country. But no one who ever made such a motion heretofore offered any practical suggestion. The hon. member for Huron, however, has today made a new departure, he has made a suggestion, a suggestion that we should abandon the present method of appointing the Senate,. and adopt a new method, that is to say, that we should substitute an elective for a nominative Senate. My hon. friend, I think, has realized already, that the remedy which he suggests, would hardly be accepted by this House, nor do I believe by the country, at the present moment. The mode of constituting the Senate by appointment, was adopted, I think in 1865, when the present constitution was formed under the old parliament of Canada; that constitution substituted a nominative for an elective Senate. My hon. friend who knows the history of this country is aware, he cannot have forgotten, that in the old regime, under the constitution of United Canada, which was adopted in 1841, we had as a second chamber a nominative legislative council. There was a dong and anxious struggle to reform this system, and at last it succeeded, and the second chamber, which was called the legislative council, at that time, was made elective-I forget the exact date, but it was between 1855 and 1860. It must be admitted, however, that the elective system which was then adopted and which came into force about 1860, met with serious objections up Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
till about 1864 or 1865, although a number of very able men were in the council at that day.


George Eulas Foster: Under the elective system ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes. In Upper Canada, Mr. Macpherson, Mr. Van-koughnet, afterwards Chancellor Vankough-net, and several other men of great eminence, were brought into the council. In Low'er Canada, Mr. Dessaulles, and several others were brought into the Senate, all men of great eminence. But in face of that condition which existed in 1865, the fathers of confederation deliberately abandoned the elective system in favour of the nominative system. My hon. friend, who is an old reformer, will remember that even George Brown, who had been one of the most prominent advocates of the elective system, accepted the nominative system.


George Eulas Foster: The right hon. gentleman probably knows more about this question than I do, but is it not true that although in 1865 the elective system was left and the nomination system taken for the new confederation, it was done not because the fathers of confederation were convinced that the nominative system was superior to the elective one but because of certain practical considerations; to wit, the fact that there were different provinces coming in, and that they had already nominative executive councils or upper bodies, and it was on that account that the conviction of the fathers of confederation was laid aside for the sake of smoothing temporary difficulties.


Wilfrid Laurier: As a matter of compromise?


George Eulas Foster: As a matter of compromise.


Wilfrid Laurier: Well, I would not admit that historically. The two men who had more to do than any others with the framing of the constitution were George Brown .and Sir John Macdonald. Sir George Cartier had a great deal to do with it also but it was George Brown and Sir John Macdonald who had most to do with the making of the present constitution. My hon. friend is aware that while George Brown was in favour of the elective system Sir John Macdonald was equally strong in favour of the nominative system. Sir George Cartier was also equally strong in favour of the nominative system, and I believe that the opinion of these two men more than any other factor influenced the decision in favour of the nominative system. I believe that on that occasion George Brown gave in to the views of others at the conference while, if his views had prevailed we might have had an elective instead of a nominative

system. But George Brown, very properly I think, yielded his views on that occasion and allowed the views of Sir John Macdonald and Sir George Cartier to prevail, and they were embodied in confederation.
I can agree with my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) that the Senate has not been given all the justice to which it is entitled. It is a very eminent and efficient body. If my hon. friend will accept the statement which I make in perfect sincerity, the only objection I have had in the past, and which I would have at 'the present time is to be found in the fact that the Senate is too predominatingly under one party. The Liberal party at the present time is the predominating party in the Senate. But, in the olden time, before the accession to power of the present government, the Conservative party was the predominating one ; in fact, when we came into office in 1896 the Liberal party was represented by a mere corporal's guard in that great body. I am asked : Why should you have only one party represented in the Senate? It is easy to make that reproach, it is easy to point to the fact but any man who has been somewhat familiar with politics knows how7 difficult it is to have any other system than the present one to be acted upon so long as the situation remains as it is. There must be necessarily, in the nature of the case, party appointment. While the appointments that we have made may not all have been perfect I believe that on the whole that they have been as creditable to the government as the appointments of our predecessors. If all of the men who have been appointed by this government have not been perfectly free of fault they have on the whole been as free as those appointed by the previous regime. If you analyze the criticisms or recall the objections which are offered from time to time in connection with motions which have been made for the reform of the Senate, ] think you will find that they largely originate from the fact that one party has predominated there to the prejudice of the other party, and if it were possible to have a proper balance of the different opinions which prevail in this House and in this country perhaps we would find a solution of the question. I will go farther and I will give this as my very deliberate opinion that if there is to be a reform of the Senate it should be in line with the purpose for which the Senate was instituted in this country, that is to say, to protect minorities, and to make it representative of the provinces rather than any other body of men. At one time I was very much in favour of the American system of election. The Senate of the United States is elected by the local legislatures, and for the first sixty or eighty years of the existence of the Republic the Senate of the United States compared favourably with any other assembly that
ever was in existence in the world. It was a body remarkable for its powers, its efficiency and -the great service which it rendered to the nation. It has been alleged of late, and I believe the allegation is substantially correct, that the character, the standard of the American Senate has not been kept up to the high degree of excellence which it reached for the first sixty or eighty years of the existence of the Republic. It is alleged, and I know that the allegation is currently made by the American magazines and press that the present mode of election has become dangerous, and there is serious talk at the present time of reforming it because the Senate has become the prey of plutocrats, and that election by the legislatures is susceptible to the influence of money which has contributed, as it is alleged, to degrade the character of that body. I must say that this has modified my views and that it would not be perhaps acceptable to us to have a Senate appointed by the local legislatures. But, I am prepared to consider whether we should not have some proportion of the appointments made by local authority. That is a suggestion which I made, and it is one which is worthy of consideration. For my part I would like exceedingly that this matter should be approached by both sides absolutely unbiassed and with the view of getting the best system of appointment possible. The present government will not always remain in office. Governments, like men, are born to die, but some men, while they are born to die, will live pretty long, and I do not think this government will die prematurely. But, in the course of time everything must come to an end. My hon. friends on the other side of the House will come into the position which we are in at the present time. I am not prepared to say that it will be as soon as my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) hopes. But, when: ever there is a change of government my hon. friends sitting on the other side of the House will have precisely the same difficulty to meet that we have at the present time. I am prepared to approach this question without any bias, and I am prepared to have the question examined whether or not, while we should keep the nominative appointment in the government, we should give a share of the responsibility to the different provinces. That is a suggestion which is well worthy of consideration. I agree with my hon. friend that something should be done. This is the last of the reforms which we promised the country, and which we have not yet carried out. It is a reform which we are anxious to carry out, but we wish to carry it out on lines which, I think, would be more in consonance with the spirit of our constitution.
Motion (Mr. McLean, South Huron) withdrawn.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND WORKS.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Lalor:
That, in the opinion of this House, the practice of the government in determining when and where public buildings and other public works shall be erected or constructed should be replaced by definite rules fixing conditions upon which such buildings should be erected as money is available for such purpose.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: In the absence of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lalor) who has given notice of this motion, I beg to move that the order be discharged.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Haughton Lennox: That, in the opinion of this House, before committing the country to any of the alternative propositions, no w under consideration for construction of the Quebec bridge, or incurring any substantial additional outlay, it is the duty of the Minister of Railways to inform this House, by a general comprehensive statement, of all the important steps taken and information secured by the government in connection with the undertaking, and the present situation in reference to alternative plans, cost and the like, but not including information liable to prejudice the public interest in connection with tenders; and to afford the peoples' representatives in parliament an opportunity of considering and advising upon what is best in the public interest.
He said:	This is a question which is
of course surrounded by a good deal of difficulty, and I recognize the embarrassing position the Minister of Railways finds himself in in connection with this Quebec bridge. So far it has been an unsatisfactory and expensive undertaking, without any good results. We are now committed to an additional large expenditure and what I aim at in this motion is not for the present to criticise the government, hut to ascertain what the situation is. A good deal of effort has been made during the present session to discover how far the undertaking has advanced, what the probable cost may be, what kind of structure is contemplated, and other matters of interest to the public, but we have not been successful in getting that information. In January, 1909, the minister said that plans were being then prepared, and that before a year's end he expected he would be able to tell the House the probable cost of the new structure. But the year has elapsed, and another year since, and still we are in the dark. In 1909 the minister seemed to think that as soon as the three experts had prepared their plans and were ready to call for tenders he would announce to the House the probable cost. I understand that he is less hopeful now of being able to tell us that.


Wilfrid Laurier: I trust the minister will take the House into his confidence and tell us within a few hundred thousand dollars or perhaps a million dollars what this bridge will be likely to cost the people of Canada. I took the liberty of sending the minister a memorandum the other day which intimates my personal attitude in reference to the matter and some of the information I desire. My attitude is not at present a position of hostile criticism; it is simply a request that the minister should make a comprehensive statement of all the important steps that have been taken and of the present condition of affairs. The country is anxious about this matter and it is not surprising that it should be. Without saying whose fault it was, or whether it was the fault of anybody, there is already in connection with this project, an awful lot of money at the bottom of the St. Lawrence. Under the most favourable conditions it is hard to tell which is the wisest and best course to take in such a matter, but the government plight, without militating in any way against their dignity, bring down the plans and let us have a look at them. I admit that many of us would not know a great deal about them, I certainly would not .pretend to, but we may form opinions and the expression of these opinions might by some possibility be helpful. It is not often that I agree with the ' Globe ', but sometime when I was perhaps in a better mood than usual I appear to have decided to take the ' Globe ' for a guide for once, and I read from a clipping from that newspaper the following:	.


SAFETY, THE FIRST ESSENTIAL.
[Stage Direction]
The Minister of Railways is having more than his share of trouble over WEie Quebec bridge. Mr. Graham has been of necessity pretty much in the hands of the expert engineers, who have been advising him as to the tenders for the new bridge and the conditions under which it shall be built. He inherited rather a bad mess and has found it far from easy to clean it up.
There is one thing that Mr. Graham should, and no doubt will, put first in considering the question-the element of safety. The matters of cost, elegance of design, and even convenience of navigation must all be subordinated to safety. One Quebec bridge disaster was enough. It may be that some old-fashioned bridge engineer who puts safety first is holding out against a spidery bridge and in favour of some massive structure like that across the Forth, the unnecessary strength of which provokes the mirth of the modern bridge builder. The ' Globe' does not know what the points of difference are, but it is certain that the people of Canada are for the old fogey ideas that mean unnecessary strength rather than for the sacrifice of assured safety to cheapness. No matter wdiat the cost, the Quebec bridge must be built to last.
No fair minded person, whatever his politics, can cavil at that view: safety is

the first consideration, and we have had enough experience in connection with this bridge to indicate that the question of safety is not yet finally settled. I may, without accepting responsibility for any condemnation that appears in these articles, but merely to call the attention of the minister to the matter, read two or three passages from articles published in the ' Scientific American ' of last year. I do not understand that the bridge here referred to is the bridge which the government now contemplates building, but some of the suggestions in these articles may be useful. In its issue of February 12, 1910, the ' Scientific American ' refers to the proposition that a country may be judged as to its capacity by the kinds of structures it erects, and it says:
When the Canadian government took hold ot the matter and lent all its powerful prestige and financial assistance to the scheme it was accepted as an augury that the new bridge would be worthy of the great Dominion across the border line. We have to confess, however, that the bridge which it is now proposed to build is decidedly disappointing The type selected and the method of treatment are not up to the latest standards of bridge engineering. In other words, the design is distinctly commonplace; aesthetically I- has not a single redeeming feature. In re-designing the bridge the Canadian government could have made more sure of securing the best possible designs if they had thrown the bridge open to world wide competition.
That is an important statement, and although it is pretty late in the day to suggest it now, it might be even at this date worth while to consider whether that is not the position that should be taken by the government. I understand that the'engineers are, in a sense, at loggerheads, that they did not agree upon the design when it was prepared, that the expensive design prepared was practically abandoned, and the government now adopts the very doubtful _ expedient of advertising for tenders, telling those who tender that they are to prepare their own plans and state the amount for which they will undertake to erect the bridge. That seems to me a job lot way of doing it, and I have my doubts as to the wisdom or safety of this plan. This paper says:
We should then have learned whether the strongest, most economical, and most beautiful bridge could have been secured under the cantilever or under the suspension system of design. Personally, we believe that on all three counts it would be possible to produce a suspension bridge that would be greatly superior to the structure which it is now proposed to build. The suspension bridge, especially when built of these great proportions, is a far easier bridge to erect, not being subjected to those heavy erection stresses which are the peril of large cantilever erection. Moreover, the essential elements, namely, the anchorages, the towers, and the main cables, are at all times entirely free from suspicion, and may be erected with the absolute certainty that they are well within the limits of safe construction. With these main elements assured, it is possible for failures to occur in subordinate elements, such as the suspenders and stiffening trusses, without in the least endangering the integrity of the bridge as a whole.
Not so, however, the cantilever bridge, the greater part of whose intricate framework is in compression. Let but one among the multitudinous members of the main trusses fall, and the whole structure will be thrown into immediate and absolute ruin-as witness the mass of tangled steel now lying in the St. Lawrence river.
For the credit of the profession of bridge engineering in the new world; for the prestige of the great and growing people of Canada; and above all for the greater safety of the public at large, we trust that, before the final plans of this great bridge are adopted, the Canadian government will take steps to make it certain that the final bridge will, from every point of view-engineering, architectural and artistic-be the noblest work of its kind yet erected in any country.
Then if I might read a line or two a few pages further on, where they give a view of the Forth bridge in Scotland, the Quebec bridge which collapsed, and Of what was at the time of the writing of this article, the proposed bridge, in other words the government design, the design prepared by the government experts. They say:
The commission was appointed about eighteen months ago. In the interim the preparation of the plans has cost about $150,000, and as the result of its eighteen months' work the commission has produced the very commonplace design, herewith illustrated, regarding which there is a general professional opinion that both structurally and aesthetically it is distinctly inferior to the Forth bridge, which was completed nearly twenty years ago.
If the bridge is built according to the proposed plans, it will not only be of inferior merit, considered from the bridge engineer's standpoint, but will also be the ugliest bridge of monumental proportions among those hitherto proposed or built. It presents the appearance of a monotonous mesh of triangles and straight lines. From abutment to abutment there is not one graceful line in the whole structure; not the slightest attempt to combine the beautiful with the useful. The faulty structure which collapsed had at least the redeeming feature that the oulines were structurally and aesthetically correct; and although the Forth bridge has been made the subject of much criticism by the artist and the architect, it must be regarded as having distinct claims to beauty when compared, as on the accompanying page, with the new plans for the Quebec bridge.
It would seem, however, that the board has some doubts as to the merits of its own work; for it now invites competitive plans from contractors, which are to be filed by May 1, 1910; the plans to be drawn at the contractor's own
[Stage Direction]
expense. But if the board has taken eighteen months' time and spent $150,000 to produce the present plans, the public will naturally ask: How can the board expect responsible firms to furnish them with new plans in one-sixth the time and for nothing?
As I understand, it is still intended to construct a cantilever bridge, and without reading I would call the attention of the minister to the fact that in this article they discuss the important question of the width of the bridge. I am not vain enough to imagine that what I shall say is going to change the minister's plans at this stage of the proceedings. I am very strongly impressed with the idea that if any great mistakes have been made in this matter, one of them is that probably this bridge is not wide enough. I am not saying that as a scientific conclusion of my own; I am saying it from having read something as to the width of bridges in relation to their span. These engineers in the ' Scientific American ' point out that the fallen bridge was 67 feet wide. I assume that is correct. They say that the new bridge is 88 feet wide, and they figure out that that is one foot in width to every 20 feet in length of span, the span in this case being about 1,800 feet! The Forth bridge is 120 feet wide, and its span is 1,700 feet odd, pretty nearly as great a span as this, and the width of the Forth bridge is as one foot in width to 14 feet of span This writer points out that there have been bridges which have been built on a narrower basis, and which are still standing, but he says they weie fortunate, perhaps, at the time of construction in not having to encounter heavy winds. He points out that both during construction, by reason of winds, which have to be taken into account, and also by reason of winds after construction and the vibration of trains on this bridge, anything less than say 120 feet in width would be altogether too narrow.
The result, he also points out, will be that trains will not be able to pass over the bridge at probably more than 25 miles an hour, whereas they pass over the Forth bridge at the rate of 50 or 60 miles an hour. I assume that all these questions have been considered by the minister. They are not new or discoveries of my own; but they are elements which enter into the consideration of this problem in which we are all interested, and to which I thought it right to call the minister's attention before asking him to reply. I would be glad, and I think the House and the country would appreciate it if the minister would tell us, as nearly as he can, about how much the proposed new bridge will cost, when it is expected that it will be completed and ready for the reception of trains, what are the various schemes that have been submitted for construction, and how matters stand as regards the engineering staff Mr. LENNOX.
at the present time. The minister was good enough to tell us the other day that the chairman of the enginering board has resigned. It is rumoured that that gentleman was not himself an engineer. I do not know that it has ever been alleged in this House that he is. Whether that is material or not, I am not at present proposing to argue; but that we would like to know. Perhaps the minister would also tell us why the cantilever plan is considered the better plan under the circumstances. Although I know that the minister has a great contempt for the suggestion of a tunnel, he might also tell us how far the question of a tunnel was considered. He said the other day that owing to the high banks at the point where the bridge is being constructed, a tunnel would not be feasible. I recognize that, but I am told that other schemes were suggested, for instance, a tunnel from somewhere near the mouth of the St. Charles river. The minister might also explain to the House whether he considered the question of building a bridge across to the island of Orleans, and then to the other shore, which is advocated by some as being a scheme more suitable than the present one. The government has a great responsibility thrown upon it in connection with this bridge. The people are anxious to know what the situation is at the present time, and the minister would be relieving himself of a certain amount of responsibility and would perhaps be satisfying the public if he gives us a pretty full statement of the present condition of the matter.
Mr. GRAHAM.: Mr. Speaker, for nearly a quarter of a century I was engaged in newspaper work, and it has always been contended in that profession that everybody knows better how to run a newspaper than the man who is running it. That is the way I would like to apply criticisms by the press of various engineers in regard to the Quebec bridge. Every man who has ever dealt in horses has had this experience, that as soon as he has sold a horse for a hundred dollars, somebody came along and told him that if he had known that he was going to sell the horse, he would have given him a hundred and ten dollars for it; and if he bought a horse, somebody came along immediately afterwards and told him that he had a better one to sell at the same price. This Quebec bridge, as my hon. friend intimates, has been a most troublesome thing to deal with, and for this reason. If it were something of ordinary importance or magnitude, the head of a department, even with ordinary ability, would get the various interests together and then decide what ought to be done. But this bridge is the greatest thing of the kind ever undertaken in the world. The Forth bridge has a span of practically the same

length; but the trains to be accommodated on it are so light that you can hardly make a comparison between the two. To begin at the reverse end of what my hon. friend said, I think it but fair to Mr. H. E. Vaute-let to make it clear that he is not only an engineer, but a magnificent, able man, and resigned in spite of my urgent protest. Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, in whose employ he was for years as chief bridge engineer of the Canadian Pacific railway, bears testimony to his ability, and how any person could have ever intimated that he was not an engineer is beyond mj comprehension, because his name has always ' C. E.' affixed to it wherever it appears. I wish to state most emphatically that Mr. Vautelet is a very able man, and Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, recommended him to me even before he was placed on this commission. He designed the structure at St. Andrew's Rapids, Manitoba, which is an evidence of his great engineering skill, and he was for years in other positions. As to the speed required of certain companies to prepare plans, my hon. friend read an article from the ' Scientific American,' which I beg to remind him is not looked upon as the leading scientific authority on this continent at the present time. Years ago it was; but while attending a meeting of the engineers of America not long ago, I discovered that there were one or two other journals which at the present time they regarded as being, greater authority. It is an able journal, but it has devoted its columns of late years, so 1 am told by the best engineers, rather to criticisms- what journalists call knocker's column; though I do not wish to make that point in what I am going to say. My hon friend, reading from the ' Scientific American,' said that it would be better if these plans were thrown open to world wide competition. Well, they were, practically. Practically all the large bridge companies of the world sent representatives to Montreal to look into the plans and specifications. They were notified by advertisement and personally that, in addition to tendering on the board's design, they were invited to put in tenders on designs of their own.


Haughton Lennox: Perhaps my reading was not first-class, and the minister (Mr. Graham) did not quite catch the idea. As I understand it, the ' Scientific American,' is saying that, instead of engaging three distinguished engineers to prepare plans, it would have been better to throw open the preparation of plans to the world, so that engineers the world over could compete in the drawing of designs and furnishing of plans. I suppose they would have to be paid something. But it would be on the same basis as the competitive plans for the public buildings supposed to be built here.


George Perry Graham: Which are quite often not accepted.


Haughton Lennox: I know.


George Perry Graham: But, in another way that is practically what was done, the bridge companies of the world have th best of the bridge engineers, with a few^ exceptions, in their employ. All these bridge companies were invited to put in their own designs. But, it is fair to my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) to add, that they were to adhere to the specifications of the board. As a result, four large bridge companies, including some of the best in the world, did tender. My hon. friend, reading from the ' Scientific American,' complains that they did not have sufficient time to make out their plans and designs, and, as proof, says that it took the board some eighteen months. As a matter of fact, every one of these companies had had access to every investigation the board's staff was making during all these months. As soon as the board started working out their designs, putting on a paper the result of their studies and investigations, representatives from all these companies wyere given free access to everything they had done. So, as a matter of fact, everything that could be got together in the way of information by the board's staff these men had at their disposal. So, they were in the same position as the board which had to make the investigation from the beginning. I had a talk with a prominent engineer the other night, and he said that whatever might be the result, or whoever might build this bridge, one thing certain was that the investigations made and information obtained by the board had contributed very materially to the scientific knowledge of the world, and that information, of course, laid the foundation upon which the other tenders were submitted.
Then, my hon. friend asks why a cantilever design was chosen instead of a suspension, and quoted from the ' Scientific. American ' again in favour of a suspension bridge. One gentleman was strongly in favour of a suspension bridge, but he has had a hobby of that for some years, and possibly it is right. A certain school of engineers, very small in number, were very anxious that this design of a suspension bridge should be tried on the Canadian people at Quebec. But, I say to my hon. friend candidly that not one engineer I have met or have had the opportunity of consulting on this continent or in Europe but disagrees with the proposal to put a suspension bridge there-they were unanimously in favour of a cantilever. One of the bridge firms, the Philadelphia concern, did, for another party, present a plan for a suspension bridge, but it was immediately rejected by the board as insufficient.

Now, I cannot tell why a cantilever is considered better than a suspension. That is a scientific matter. It has been explained to me a good many times, but if I were to endeavour to set forth the technical reasons on the subject, I should only display what I do not know about it. My safe plan is to adhere to the opinion and advice of the men who, I think, are as capable of forming opinions on these matters as any that can be found on the continent.
Now, as to the principle of the bridge: It is fair to say, on behalf of the chief engineer who has resigned, that he always contended for what is known as a single intersection design. The Forth bridge is a double intersection design. The chairman disagreed with some other members of the board on this question of single and double intersection. He contended, and adhered to it to the end, that the single intersection was the proper principle to adopt. They discussed it thoroughly. As a result, the board's design, prepared by Mr. Vautelet, was on the single intersection. And I may add that every design tendered on by any bridge company, either here or elsewhere, was on the single intersection principle, which shows fairly clearly, to my mind, that that was the proper one, because whoever builds this bridge has to take full responsibility for the design as well as the construction on that design.


Haughton Lennox: Can the minister (Mr. Graham) explain what is meant by 'the single or double intersection?


George Perry Graham: That is a technical matter which the engineers have threshed out thoroughly. _ It is something that I do not know anything about; and I say with candour that I think there are few gentlemen in this room who know anything about it. But I do not mind giving what seems to me an illustration of it. My hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) has seen a lattice fence. If it were built on the double intersection principle, the lattices would be double. Engineers take the position that it is much easier to calculate the direct stress on the members of a single intersection than to divide up the strains amongst the members of the double intersection. At all events, as I say, all those companies that put in their own designs must have favoured the single intersection, as they based their tenders upon that principle.
Now, as to safety. As I have stated to the House on previous occasions, the instruction always given to the members of the board was that safety was the first consideration. We have had one disaster. As my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) says, we are not now discussing who was at fault; but we have had one disaster, the most lamentable part of which was the great loss of Mr. GRAHAM.
life. We must provide against anything of that kind in the future. The question of safety might be divided into two periods. There is the question of safety after the bridge is erected-that is one thing that is most essential. But there is another which is second in importance only to the first, and that is safety during erection. One of the chief points under discussion by the board at various times has been, if possible, to secure a design that will afford the greatest safety to both life and property during the time of erection; in fact, at one time that was the chief subject of disagreement among the members, each contending for his own theory, the one part of the board pointing out that it was


Haughton Lennox: Safety in construction is a necessary preliminary condition, because if you cannot get the bridge erected, you certainly cannot use it afterward.


George Perry Graham: The bridge might fall down once and a hundred lives be lost and five or six million dollars' worth of property might be destroyed; then the company responsible, might erect the bridge, profiting by their sad experience. But that would not restore lost lives. We must have safety in the erection, so that there will be no other calamity. I impressed that on the board, and they have made that one of the chief features of their discussions, and one of the chief requirements. I do not know what else I can say to my hon. friend. Every precaution has been taken. When this project was brought before the House by myself, shortly after coming into the government, I made a statement to the House, when I asked them to pass an Act to take over this work, on what lines I would try to have the bridge reconstructed. I admit now that I little knew the difficulties I was facing in attempting the reconstruction of the bridge, it is such an enormous undertaking. It may be, that I had the enthusiasm of youth, in thinking I would accomplish everything in a short space of time. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that I am going to accomplish the reconstruction of this Quebec bridge in a safe and sure way, but it is taking a great deal longer time than I expected. Scientific men tell me that I should not be discouraged, that the country should not be discouraged, at the slowness with which we are progressing. For some months we have been feeling our way, and testing it at every step. I believe that is the proper thing to do, and I rather encourage them to take their time and not to hurry, because we must make a success of the bridge, no matter if it does take a few years longer.
Now I said to the House at that time, that I would appoint prominent engineers, men of reputation, and place in their hands the entire responsibility for the

plans, and in addition, the responsibility for the construction of the bridge on the plans. An order in council was passed, embodying those ideas. Under that order in council, Mr. Vautelet, of Montreal, a very prominent and able man, was appointed chairman and chief engineer; Mr. Fitz-mauriee, of London, England, who was associated with Sir Edmund Baker, on the Forth bridge, was appointed as another; and Mr. Modjesba, of Chicago, a very eminent bridge engineer, and a member of the American Society of Engineers, was appointed the third man. They proceeded to prepare the plans, and as I have pointed out, they have differed at various times. Mr. Fitzmaurice, some months ago, I think about the close of last session, intimated to me that he would like to resign his position. He gave two reasons, one was his health, and the other was, that he did not approve of the plans being prepared by the chairman, and thought they could be improved on. After returning from the west I accepted Mr. Fitzmaurice's resignation, one of my chief reasons being, that we were coming to the point where some practical work had to be done in connection with accepting the contracts, and we ought to have a man who could pay more attention to the work and be at the meetings more regularly. His resignation was accepted; and I looked around to find a man to replace him, and I believe I have found a first class men. I went to New York, and discussed the matter with several men, and I heard about Mr. Charles Macdonald, an expresident of the American Society of Engineers, a man who was born, I think, in Leeds county-which is certainly nothing to his detriment-who had been a bridge engineer for many years, engaged in construction, who was afterwards, I think, associated with the American Bridge company, a very successful bridge builder, and engineer, so successful that he had acquired a competence, and is now living in Ganano-que, practically retired. When I went to New York, I was aware that Mr. Macdonald had returned, and was living in Gana-noque. But it seemed to be the universal opinion among the engineers with whom 1 spoke, and of Mr. Vautelet as well, that if I could secure the services of Mr. Charles Macdonald, I would be getting one of the foremost authorities in bridge construction on this continent. Mr. Macdonald, for reasons that are obvious, was not anxious to join the board. He is in a position where he does not have to work any longer, and it took a good deal of persuasion on my part, before he would consent. Finally he took this position: If I can assist this great project, I have such a pride in my old home, and have such a strong Canadianism in my nature, that I will sacrifice myself for a little while, and
give up some of my time, in order to work out this problem. Mr. Macdonald did not know what the remuneration was to be,-I believe he would have consented to act without remuneration-and I consider Mr. Macdonald's motive in coming practically out of retirement, to assist in this work, is a patriotic one exclusively, and that there is no mercenary motive in his act. Now he has been giving attention to this work. As I said, he is a great authority on bridge work. I think nearly a year ago, Mr. Vautelet, in conversation with me, suggested that he believed when the time came for the construction of the bridge-he did not put it just in that way, but that was the essence of what he said-he would feel like retiring. It has been a most trying work for him, and trying on others as well. I thought I had induced him to remain at a recent meeting I had with the board in New York, and I was congratulating myself that Mr. Vautelet would remain as chief engineer. The design prepared by the chairman of the board was his design, he is strongly in favour of it, and believes it is the better design. There was some disagreement as to the design, and he took the position later-that under the conditions existing, he would resign and his formal resignation was handed in. It is possible he would have continued in his desire to resign any way-even if his design had been selected. Among the engineers, I believe it is held that the man who makes a design is the best man you can get to erect the design, because he has faith in his structure, and knows all about it, knows what he is doing, and is more competent perhaps, than any other engineer to successfully complete what he started out to do. I might say that Mr. Macdonald accepted appointment only until the contract is let.


Haughton Lennox: While the minister is dealing with Mr. Vautelet's resignation, will he pardon me for interrupting him? It is rumoured-and I am only taking it as a rumour, so that it can be cleared up-it is rumoured that Mr. Vautelet refused to consider the other designs, that when the question of selecting a design came to be considered, I think probably at the time the question of awarding the contracts came to be considered, Mr. Vautelet, for some reason, refused to take any part in the question whatever. It is also said that he was so determined about this matter, that he would not put a certain question to the vote at a meeting of the board, and that in consequence, the minister was called in, and had to act himself as chairman. Now I am not, for the present, criticising Mr. Vautelet. What the minister says about his adhering to his own design, and not desiring to continue his

services if it was not accepted, may be a proper position for him to take. But I would like the minister to explain, if he understands what I am driving at, how much foundation there is for that story.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Speaker, I wish to be absolutely courteous to my hon. friend, but I am afraid it would not lie in the public interest just now, at the point we are at, for me to go into these details. He will see on a moment's reflection, that I am trying to bring order out of all these difficulties, and we must not do anything that might tend to create chaos.


Haughton Lennox: If the minister does not think it is desirable at the present time, I do not press the matter.


George Perry Graham: I will give this much along that point: It is incorrect to say that Mr. Vautelet did not consider these original tenders that were put in. They sat as a board, considered them all and made a report to me, which they all signed on the various tenders, but I thought that was not sufficiently definite, and I asked for a more definite report. The original tenders were discussed by all the members of the board, and the report was signed by Messrs. Vautelet, Macdonald and Modjeska. The other point was merely a matter of detail. At a meeting of the board certain motions were placed before the board, which I will be happy to give the House at a later stage. The chairman thought- and he gave his reasons for it-that these motions were out of order, and he did not put them. I never acted as chairman at any meeting of the board.


Haughton Lennox: The minister stated that some little time ago, it was determined that the responsibility for the plans and for the construction should be absolutely placed upon the three engineers. The minister mentioned the other day in the House-I think he was entirely right-that when there was an effort to shift the responsibility he said: You gentlemen must take that responsibility yourselves. When the minister formed the plan of leaving the responsibility for the plans and construction upon these three engineers, did they accept that position?


George Perry Graham: My Lion, friend is taking me along, step by step, I am afraid.


Haughton Lennox: At the time that they engaged to act as engineers of this great work, did they take upon themselves the full responsibility for all the proceedings?


George Perry Graham: They were appointed under order in council; they knew the order in council providing absolutely for what I have stated.


Haughton Lennox: They accepted that position?


Haughton Lennox: 


George Perry Graham: Certainly; there was no doubt in my mind that they accepted full responsibility.


Haughton Lennox: Then two of these engineers at least have resigned-Mr. Fitz-maurice and Mr. Vautelet. How does the matter stand as regards the responsibility for construction now that they have resigned?


George Perry Graham: Well, their successors accept the responsibility they had.


Haughton Lennox: Did the responsibility mean anything? Was there anything binding upon them at all? There was no obligation taken from them that they would be responsible from beginning to end?


George Perry Graham: I cannot exactly get at what my hon. friend means. If the minister accepts the full responsibility of his once, and the people put him out, or if he resigns, he is relieved of responsibility.


Haughton Lennox: But there is some difference in a case of this kind.


George Perry Graham: I do not get at what my hon. friend means.


Haughton Lennox: There is an order in council placing the responsibility, and the minister says that the engineers appointed were to take the responsibility for the design and construction. I do not understand that there was any obligation entered into by these engineers that they would assume that responsibility.


George Perry Graham: They gave no bond, of course, that they would do so, but they accepted the position as members of that board, and so long as they remained members of the board they fulfilled the duties devolving upon them. When they resigned we had to get some others to fill their places.


Robert Laird Borden: Have their places been filled?


George Perry Graham: The place of the chairman and chief engineer has not been filled. Mr. Fitzmaurice resigned and Mr. Charles Macdonald, as I explained, has accepted the position, and a happy choice, I think, it was. Nov, as to the cost: My hon. friend must see that we must look at this question from a business standpoint. We are within hailing distance of having the matter closed up, and the contract signed, the details of which, I think, will fully satisfy my hon. friend, fudging from his speech this afternoon, whan he sees the documents laid on the table of the House. This will be the result if we are successful, but my hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) will understand that you are never sure of having a contract closed until the signatures are placed upon it, and it would not be in the public interest for me to enter

into fuller details as to this contract than I have done. I have given the House all the information that, from a business standpoint, I ought to give. Suppose I were to go into details and state some of the differences, and it would take a very long time to discuss in detail all that has taken place at the board-


Haughton Lennox: What about putting the plans on the table?


George Perry Graham: If we knew exactly the design upon which the bridge was to be constructed to-day, I might put them on the table, but inasmuch as the design under consideration and the contract are unalterably united, if the contractors or the bridge builders declined at the last moment under the conditions imposed to sign the contract, I might be in the position of having to accept some other design, and as the matter is not yet decided, I think it would be altogether unwise from a business point for me to give any further details to the House. I assure my hon. friend that the point that he has raised has been guarded in so far as we can guard it. We have taken the advice of the very best men, I believe, to be found on this continent. No step has been taken without full consideration. There has been no difference without calling in some other expert engineers in order to get the benefit of their advice. Step by step this work has been progressing, and I hope that in a few weeks at the utmost I will be able to give the House the result of months and months of great anxiety on my part and very hard work on the part of the several members of the board. Safety is the first thing-absolute safety-and the criticisms of the * Scientific American,' I believe, will be found to be totally unwarranted when the papers and designs are put on the table of the House. I assure my hon. friend that this is one of the most difficult problems that any government has ever had to deal with. I have devoted hours, day and night, to try and work it out, but I have depended absolutely at every step on the advice of the scientific men engaged for that purpose, I assure my hon. friend and the House that I have not taken any step of importance in the matter in which I have not had the majority of the board behind me. I have acted on their advice, and if we cannot be successful with the advice we have had, then I believe no success can attend such an enterprise. But I have full confidence in the plan adopted. I have every confidence in the men on the board, and I believe that when this contract is signed, as I hope to have it very shortly, the country will be satisfied, my hon. friend will be satisfied. The construction of material at least for this great undertaking will proceed in a few months, and the people and the government will 137
have reason to be proud of the Quebec bridge in the years to come. As to the cost, my hon. friend will see that it would not be wise for me to mention that at the present moment.


Haughton Lennox: I would like to ask the minister what is the width and what time it is now estimated it will take, in a general way, to complete the bridge. I do not think he can give the time within a few months. There is one question that I want to ask the minister that I do not understand myself. It has been handed to me by a gentleman who does understand it, and I am requested to ask it. It is this: How many safety factors, after completion, does the design provide for. That is some technical point that I do not profess to understand.


George Perry Graham: Neither do I.


Mr. HAGGART (Lanark).: The minister has not told us what is likely to be the cost of this bridge. He says it would be injudicious to do so, but I have never yet heard a minister ask for a vote unless he was able to at least give the estimated cost. Again, is the minister satisfied that the present location of the bridge is the best one possible? I have been informed that there are other locations on which the bridge could be built for less than half the cost, say for instance, a little above Three Rivers, or across the Island of Orleans. It may only be common talk, and it may have no foundation, but it is certainly stated that the reason the bridge cost so much is because it is built there so as to be near the city of Quebec.


George Perry Graham: The width of the bridge ,as in the official design is 88 feet, and I think the same width is maintained in the other designs, but as to that I am not absolutely sure. The time runs from three to five years and judging from the progress we have made so far my own opinion is that it will be nearer five than three. Last year my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) suggested that the superstructure would cost $11,000,000 and I will not quarrel with that approximation of the estimate; I am hoping that it may be something less. I think the contract for the substructure was in the vicinity of two and a quarter millions. One of the duties of the new board was to examine the location, and they reported that the present location was the best ; it is eight miles west of the city of Quebec. Will my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) withdraw his motion?


Robert Laird Borden: There is one point which should be explained. A board of three able engineers, as I understand, was constituted and we are told that the best men in that particular department were secured. These three engineers con-



suited, investigated, and eventually prepared plans, having taken a reasonably long time in which to do that work. It appears that when tenders were asked it was suggested that any tenderer might tender upon his own plans, and it is said that the plan likely to be accepted was prepared by a certain corporation which tendered. It is singular that after a board of very able engineers had been at work for a long time on this problem, that the government should have cast their plans aside and adopted a different one. I do not inquire as to this for the purpose of getting information that the country and parliament should not have at present, but I mention it as* bping rather singular.


George Perry Graham: It is a very proper question and without explanation it would bear the interpretation suggested by my hon. friend. One of the difficulties of the department was this:	The chairman of the
board had very decided views along certain lines, and the other members of the board had very decided views along other lines. When I considered the time had arrived when we ought to advertise for tenders I found they were not a unit on the chairman's design which was called the board's design, and to proceed with the advertisement-and Mr. Fitzmaurice puts it fairly plainly in his letter to me-I thought it well to make it* as a compromise that they would agree to the government advertising for tenders on this design, but that tenderers should be invited to put in a design of their own. The other two members of the board took the position that they were not satisfied that, for such a great undertaking the board's was the very best possible design, and in the resolution of the board they set out that if any better design were presented by any of the tenderers they would accept it over the board's design. On that understanding we advertised for tenders on the board's design and permitted the tenderers to send in competing designs. Two members of the board think there is a better design than the official design, and that is the explanation.


Haughton Lennox: I have no complaint to make of the reply made by the minister ; I treated him very' well and he responded. There is a good deal of information no doubt that we would like to have at this stage which it might possibly	be	urged	that itis not wise to give just	now but,	on	theother hand there is a lot of information which I believe might	be	given	to	thecountry now or soon.	I	trust	it	will
turn out as the minister says, that within a few weeks at furthest we will have the information that the country is waiting for. I hope the minister will make the announcement to the House, without being asked, at the earliest possible moment.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister said that a condition was attached to the tenders that the plans should adhere to the specifications of the board. That may be a good controlling feature in the matter. Ordinarily I would not think it wise or safe to take the somewhat haphazard plans that are prepared by contractors. Another feature not fully developed by the minister is that the minister realized when he was about to let this contract that it was necessary not only that he should have competent men to design the bridge but that these men should be in charge of the carrying out of the work. That, I think, was wise. The chief engineer refused to go on with the work when his plan was disregarded. It may be that from his very desire to obtain the services of gentlemen especially eminent, the minister has run into that other dangerous extreme that as men do not become eminent until they become somewhat advanced in years, and as they become advanced in years they sometimes become independent, the government have probably employed engineers in this case who are to a large extent independent of the compensation they were to receive. The minister might have done better if he had obtained the services of some men who by reason of their position might be expected to remain in the employment of the government throughout not only in the making of the design but the execution of the work. I am inclined to think there is a weakness at this point, that we are now virtually away altogether from the position at which we started, and which was covered by the order in council referred to by the minister. Mr. Vautelet is out of it, his responsibility is gone, Mr. Fitzmaurice is out of it, and his responsibility is gone. The original official plan is out of it, and all the benefit of that plan or at least a great deal of it is lost. The chairman of the board is taking no part in this matter, his plan has been disregarded, he is eliminated from the proposition altogether.
A word as to the cost of the bridge. I am not going to quarrel with the minister's statement but to call attention to it. He says that as to the superstructure of the bridge he does not quarrel with, the figures cited in the House, namely $11,000,000, and as regards the substructure about two and a quarter or two and' a half millions. In addition to that there is the cost of the previous structure without counting subsequent interest, &c., about $7,000,000. Thus the total cost exclusive of interest during construction, incidentals, engineering and approaches, of that bridge will come to upwards of $20,000,000. That is as far as we have got, no one can tell what the expense will be hereafter, but anywhere between $20,000,000 and $30,000,000 is

within range. I would be inclined to say., at the risk of making a mistake, that it would be a good deal closer to $25,000,000 than to $20,000,000.
In withdrawing the motion I would say that I am gratified that the minister has endeavoured to give us some information this afternoon.


George Eulas Foster: What is the proposal of the minister with reference to security from the contractors?


George Perry Graham: The clause in the contract reads:
Each tenderer must send with his tender or tenders a cheque accepted by a Canadian chartered Bank of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) made payable to the order of the ' Minister of Railways and Canals of Canada/ As soon as a tender is accepted, the successful contractor shall deposit with the minister another similarly accepted cheque made payable to the order of the minister for such amount as will make the united amount of the two cheques equal to fifteen per cent (15%) of the cost of the works as estimated by the chief engineer.
Motion withdrawn.


HAGUE ARBITRATION PRO CEEDINGS.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax) (for Mr. Jameson) moved :: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, papers, minutes and documents between the imperial authorities and the government of Canada, and the government of the United" States of America, relating to the settlement of the case in the matter of the North Atlantic Fisheries arbitration at the Hague.
He said : I may say to the Minister of Justice that I do not think any copy of the various proceedings upon that arbitration has been placed for reference in the library. It might be very convenient for many members if a copy could be placed in the library. We have copies there of the previous arbitrations such as the Behring Sea, and the papers relating to the Alaska arbitration.


Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH.: Copies will be sent to the library, I have several extra copies on hand.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Robert Laird Borden: For a copy of all enactments, regulations, documents, papers and information of every kind setting forth or showing the systems or method by which the census is taken in the United Kingdom, the British Dominions and foreign countries, respectively; and showing in what respect, if any, the principle, system or method adopted in the United Kingdom, the British Dominions, and foreign countries differs from that proposed for the approaching census in Canada.
He said : I have put this motion on the Order Paper for the purpose of getting some information which I have found it difficult to collect in the time at my command. I do not know how far the method which we use for taking the census of this country is in use by other countries which take a census of their population at regular intervals, as I found it somewhat difficult to get much information upon that point within a reasonably limited time in the library. For that reason I would like to have a return brought down giving this information to the House, and the country, and I would be glad if the occasion would be utilized by my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture, who, of course, has had great experience upon this question, to give us a brief statement covering in a general way the information which I hope will be brought down in more detail in the return. I have an impression, I do know whether it is correct or not, that in many other countries a different system is followed from that which we have pursued hitherto. I understand tha.t there was at one time a debate in this House upon the expediency of adopting some other method. I trust that there will be no objection to having the return brought down at as early a dav as possible. It would be very interesting to us at the present time, when we are approaching the taking of another census.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would not like to attempt to give in detail a description of the way in which we take our census, and the way in which the census is taken in other countries. I shall be glad to have a memorandum brought down giving the information which my hon. friend asks for. I may say in a general way that we take in Canada what is called the de jure census and not the de facto. The United States follow the de jure system as we do. The system in England is the de facto. The de jure census is taken for a particular date, all the questions asked having reference to that date. For the coming census the date will be the first day of June. The enumerators are given a reasonable time in which to take the information, going from house to house and filling the schedules. That information covers a great deal besides a simple counting of the people. One schedule has a list of personal questions, another deals with mortuary statistics, another with industrial affairs, another with fisheries, another with agriculture, and so on. The information thus collected is sent in, and is compiled in the census office here in a series of tables, which appear in the census report. The same thing is done in the United States. In England very little is taken beyond the actual counting of the people, and that is all done on one day. The forms are left in every house, the inmates are expected

to fill them up, and then they are collected. Very little information is taken beyond personal information, such as the age and sex of the individual, and things of that kind. Anything with regard to business is taken separately, and almost wholly by correspondence. Forms are sent to business houses, filled up and returned.


Robert Laird Borden: Are these embodied in the census returns?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, the information is issued in special bulletins. For the last ten years or so I have been doing, in the Department of Census and Statistics, a good deal of that work between the decennial censuses, getting information in the same way by correspondence. In this country, besides the decennial census of the whole country, we have to take a quinquennial census of the western provinces for population. In the last one 1 took advantage of the opportunity to get a great deal of agricultural information. The year before that we got by correspondence a good deal of information about manufacturing. At another time we made a dairy census, at another time we got the general crop returns of the whole country. This year all that information will be given in the census schedules. Each individual will give a statement of his own business, and the information will be more accurate than it can possibly be when obtained by correspondence.


George Eulas Foster: Are those sworn to?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The enumerators of the regular census are sworn ; the correspondence is not sworn to ; but in the Census Act there is a penalty provided for anyone who supplies false information.


George Eulas Foster: As to the population,
what we have recorded in the census of Canada is not the number of people actually in Canada on a certain day, but those who have the right to be? Is that it?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We count the people whose homes are in Canada. If they happen to be absent at the moment, we still count them, but, on the other hand, if a person from another country happens to be travelling in Canada, he is not counted


George Eulas Foster: The question of who has the right to be counted must depend upon the truthfulness of the person who gives the information. Is there any check in any way by the enumerators?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: None, except by question. Instructions are given as to who shall be considered a resident. This is described to the householder or person who gives the information. For instance, a father of a family whose son happens to be away for a month-his statement in regard to that Mr. FISHER.
is accepted. I may say that a discussion has arisen on various occasions as to the advisability of changing our method and adopting the de facto instead of the de jure census. I have been rather impressed with the advantage of the de facto system. But I have to recognize the fact that the census of Canada has been taken some five times now, and always upon the de jure system. If we were to make a change and adopt the de facto census, comparisons would not be quite fair. So, I have not thought it well to attempt to make any change.


Mr. DANIEL.: From whom does the enumerator take his information, as to those whose homes are in Canada at the time the census is taken? Is that information taken from other members of the family alone, or is any one allowed to go to the enumerator and state that so and so is in the United States and expects to come back sooner or later, and hand in his name and have it recorded?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The questions are put to the householders. The enumerators go to the dwellings in their district. In each dwelling they seek to find a responsible person, the head of the family as a rule, or, if it is a boarding house, the keeper of the house, and ask who are residing there at the time. Should there be no resident in the dwelling house at the time, he will try to find out who are the absent people. It would be only people in charge of the dwelling house who would have the right to say who those are who usually dwell in that House but are absent. As to one going to the enumerator and saying that a certain person is absent from Canada but will return, and getting his name recorded in that way, it would be impossible.


John Waterhouse Daniel: That information, I take it, is accepted only from the householder, and from no one else-for instance, not from the clergyman of the parish or any one of that kind?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


Mr. PERLEY.: What would happen in thia case? Suppose that the minister (Mr. Fisher) himself happened to be in Victoria at the time the census was taken, would he be counted in Ottawa and likewise in Victoria?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, I should be counted at my home. If I happened to be away, the person in charge would be asked who was in my house. The answer would be that I was the householder but happened to be away, and would give whatever information they could. The hotelkeeper in Victoria, when questioned, would say: Mr. Fisher is here, but he does not live here and that enumerator would not enter my name.


George Halsey Perley: So far as a hotel is concerned, the proprietor would be supposed to give the names of those who actually live there all the time? And they would be counted?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: I was surprised at one thing the minister said-that there would be difficulty in changing from our old system to the de facto system; that, as Canada has always used the de jure system, the new system would be inaccurate. Does he mean by that that our present system of taking the census does, as a matter of fact, give as accurate an enumeration of the people as the de facto system? Or does our present system, in his opinion, give a larger number of people as being in the country than would be obtained by the de facto system?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would not like to say positively one way or the other. I think that, so far as the whole country is concerned, the probability is there would be very little difference. ' But there might be great differences in relation to individual places. For instance, if a big convention were going on, in a given town, the de facto system would show that town as having several hundred people more than it ordinarily has. Things of that kind would occur, and the results, as to localities, would be quite unknowable beforehand. That is why the change from one system to the other might make very considerable differences, but I do not' think that in relation to the aggregate population of the country, it would make any great difference.


Richard Blain: Could the minister explain briefly the different schedules compared with the schedules placed in the hands of the enumerators of 1901?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would not undertake to do that from memory.


Richard Blain: For example, when this matter was discussed a year or two ago, it appeared that in the census of 1901, there was no census of fallow land in Canada.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is included in the schedules this year.


Richard Blain: There was no schedule showing the value of the poultry industry.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think that is included


George Eulas Foster: Will these schedules be laid on the table before they are distributed ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will do so.


Mr. A. M. BEAUPARLANT (St, Hyacin-the).: _ (Translation). Mr. Speaker, with the kind permission of the House, as regards this resolution, I will ask the hon.
Minister of Agriculture whether he could not be induced to amend in some particulars the proposition he has kindly submitted to the members of this House and in which is indicated the number of enumerators it is his intention to appoint for each electoral division.
According to the notice already given, the minister's intention would be to appoint only one enumerator for each municipality or parish. I think it would be preferable to appoint one enumerator for each polling district, so that there would be two, three,, four or five enumerators for each municipality or parish.
Although there is nothing final in the proposition submitted by the hon. minister, it seems to be his intention to diminish the number of enumerators, wnile for my part I think it would be better to appoint the same number of enumerators as in the preceding census.
I submit the suggestion to the hon. minister and I hope he will give it due consideration.
My idea would be to take the number of polling divisions as a basis for appointing the enumerators. It would afford employment to a greater number and give an additional guarantee of correctness to the census to be taken next summer.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I shall be pleased to take into consideration the suggestions just made by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe. For the present, all I can say is that without having exactly decided to reduce the number of census enumerators, our intention is, as much as possible, to take as a basis the population of each locality. For instance, we suppose that one enumerator can take about fifteen hundred names in a town or city, and between 1,000 and 1.200 in a rural municipality. Consequently, the number wall have to be reduced in order to comply with this condition.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
Hoarse resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Portage la
Prairie) moved:
For a return showing all statutes, regulations, reports and proceedings in the courts of the United States or in the courts of any of the respective states, and all other documents, papers and information of every kind touching or concerning the methods and operations of the meat trust and other trusts and combines in the United States, and touching the results both to the producer and to
[Stage Direction]
the consumer of such methods and operations, including all departmental proceedings and reports and other proceedings and reports of the government of the United States or of any department thereof with respect to the matters aforesaid, and in general all available information in respect to the operations of such trusts and combines in the United States.
He said: The subject touched on in this order, was more fully dealt with in the House on the 2nd of the present month, on a motion by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). It has to do with the experience of the United States of America, both in the investigation and control of the various mergers and trusts that operate in that country. The order has particular reference to the methods and operations of the meat trust in the United States. In moving for the information, which, I hope, will be full and complete bearing on this subject, so far as can be gathered from the United States courts, and authorities, I do mot propose to make any extended remarks on the general subject of combines and mergers, such as would be more appropriate on a definite resolution dealing with policy. However, I may say in passing, that this resolution, looking, as it does, only to the securing of data, is necessarily of an introductory character; and I hope that at a later date, a discussion may be had on a more definite and specific resolution. I am unfortunate in this regard, that when the hon. member for Jacques Cartier moved his resolution on the 2nd of February, there being no notice given I was not in my seat when the discussion took place. However, from a perusal of the * Hansard,' of that date, I find that the government, through the mouth of the Minister of Labour "(Mr. King), has taken the position, that no further efforts need be made on their part, towards rescuing the general public of this country from the claws of the mergers and combines into which they have fallen to a lamentable extent, in the country to the south of us, and towards preserving us against a more or less similar fate. The Minister of Labour appeared to believe that so long as our banks were loaning more money than they did in previous years, so long as they could show a statement that laTge increase^ had been made in their loaning. power, and so long as various securities floated by the merged companies and other corporations operating under Dominion or provincial statutes in this country found a ready market in the old land, so long as these conditions obtained, he did not believe that anything further was necessary, or that there were any danger signals on the horizon, but that the government would be well advised simply to stand pat on the situation.
Mr. MEIGHEN.: The Minister of Labour took the further ground that his own Act, passed, I believe, in the last session of this House, dealing with combines, was amply sufficient to meet all present contingencies, and that it had been especially effective, in that it had never had occasion to go into operation at all. He further remarked that in view of the negotiations then under way, with the government to the south, it would be very inopportune for parliament then to take any steps dealing with large corporations, whose products were to be seriously affected by those negotiations.
With the last of his objections, there 13 no need to deal now, even were this motion a controversial one. There is only this to say, that the commodities largely dealt in by these corporations, have come through the ordeal of the reciprocity negotiations, without serious modification. As to the second reason, namely, the efficiency of the Companies Act, I can say nothing more clearly than did the member for Jacques Cartier, that the Combines Act entirely leaves out of contemplation the very object set out so well in the hon. member's resolution of that date, and indirectly referred to in this. The very fact that a merger has taken place, the veTy fact that many copipanies now are one, places it out of the power of any one to say that there is a combination of companies, for there cannot be a combination of companies to enhance prices when all the companies are one. Consequently, the purpose of this resolution cannot be served in any degree by the Combines Act, nor can the purpose which I hope tcf work out of the data to be furnished under this resolution, be assisted in any way by that Act.
I do not think I need say anything further at present, than merely to promise this, that never in the history of any country, I think, .has the evolution of capital .proceeded at so rapid a pace, as it has in our country in the last ten, and more especially, in the last three or five years. Never has the development of huge mergers, the great ispirit of the age operating in industry, gone faster than it has in out own land. At present our great industries are coming together, and more and moTe we are being brought industrially under the power of mergers and combines. There is no need of going further than to note this, that while we are exercising our functions they are exercising theirs in a much more fruitful field of operation, and if matters go on as they are, absolutely unhindered, absolutely uncontrolled, particularly so far as capitalization goes, if matters proceed as they are proceeding, the powers of these corporations will be more absolute, more despotic than will be the power of parliament itself. It seems to me that df I could I would use on this subject much the same

language as the hon. the Prime Minister, used when, in 1903, he urged with such beautiful eloquence, the immediate construction of the Transcontinental railway. ' Time will not wait,' in this regard, and I do not think the officers of the government could be better employed than in securing from whatever source, however remote ot however difficult, the information asked for by this order. May I express the hope that too much time will not be lost. We are now pretty well on in the session; and though it might have been well if the information had been asked for sooner, it is my desire that the government should use every endeavour to secure this data at the earliest possible moment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Arthur Meighen: Is that in the case of the United Shoe Machine Company?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. Some manufacturers in the province of Quebec, who believed that, by reason of this American trust, or rather this company operating in Canada under a parent company in the United States, they were unable to sell some of their commodities which they would have been able to sell if it had not been for the methods adopted by this trust, and who also found it difficult to obtain machinery under the
conditions which this trust exacts, made application before the court of Mr. Justice Cannon of Quebec for an order directing an investigation to be held under the Combines Act. This application has been heard, and this afternoon the government received from Mr. Justice Cannon a communication in which he orders an investigation into that trust. He states at considerable length that these gentlemen, having presented their statement to him, had made out a prima facie case as to the existence of a combination detrimental tc consumers and producers. The investigation will be proceeded with forthwith. The parties affected will have an opportunity of each naming a member of the board of investigation. The two, so named, if they are able to do so, will agree upon	a	chairman ;	otherwise, the
government will appoint a chairman, and these three persons will be clothed with all the powers of a court of record. It is also the intention of the government to appoint a solicitor to assist the parties in getting full information in regard to the working of this combination. In this way it would be possible to bring to light a mass of evidence which it would be impossible to obtain from any records or reports which may be in existence at the present time. This is a combination which, as my hon. friend knows, has occasioned a good deal of interest in the United States and in Great Britain. While there has been reason to believe that it is a combination operating in restraint of trade, up to the present time no effective means have been discovered of really getting at its inner workings. What has happened in the case of this particular organization or trust which is operating in this country, although it is an American organization, if there is reason to believe in its existence, may be carried out under the circumstances with regard to any other trust, and I submit that in the legislation which this government have on the statute-book to-day we have one of the most effective means to be found of getting at precisely the information which my hon. friend hopes to be able to secure by the reports for which he is asking.


Wilfrid Laurier: cannot hope that my hon. friend will receive it in as short a time as he would like.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Thomas Beattie: That, in the opinion of this House, proper regulations should be issued by the government of the Dominion of Canada insisting that where a foreign flag or ensign is displayed or used either upon a flag pole, private residence, vehicle or in any other manner or place whatsoever within this Dominion by any person or persons except the accredited representative of a foreign government, a Union Jack of equal size and make shall also be hoisted or displayed therewith at the same time and place, and that the Union Jack shall always be placed in the most prominent position on every such occasion.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion is made with the intention of preventing in future the displaying of foreign flags or ensigns indiscriminately throughout the length and breadth of this Dominion. Subjects of other countries are in the habit of flying foreign flags on every possible occasion when within our borders. They seem to forget that whilst they are upon Canadian soil, so long as they do not break the laws of this country, they are entitled to the same protection as our citizens and that the Union Jack is the emblem of authority here in Canada. They also seem to forget that in some of the places they come from the hoisting of our flag would be considered an insult. That cannot be done in foreign countries; yet, foreign flags and ensigns are allowed to be displayed in Canada by those who, through ignorance or otherwise, daily outrage the rules of common decency and international law. This House should insist that those who live within our borders shall not display foreign ensigns to the exclusion of our own flag. More than that, if we desire to keep this Dominion a part of the British Empire we must instill into the minds ot the children of the country a love for the flag which represents our empire.
I bring this matter up now although I intended to have brought it up a year ago. I live on the line between Buffalo and Detroit and I suppose that forty or fifty automobiles pass that way every day. They never display the Union Jack but generally have three or four United States flags. It has come to be that the children of that part of the country do not know whether they are in the Dominion of Canada or in a foreign land. Last year I was up in Muskoka and in the vicinity of the Georgian bay and I had with me two young lads. They asked me: Is this not Canada? I said, I thought it was, but they said:	We see nothing but the stars
and stripes. I think it 'is nothing but com-


Wilfrid Laurier: mon decency that when a person hoists the stars and stripes he should put the Union Jack alongside of the American flag. Our people are too easy-going with respect to that matter. It was thought to be necessary to display the stars and stripes at a military banquet held in the city of Toronto. If I were in the United States I would not think of hoisting the Union Jack without putting the Stars and Stripes alongside of it. A case in point occurred last year up in the north country. A minister came over to this country and hoisted the stars and stripes on his flagpole. A gentleman went to him and told him that he thought he should put up the Union Jack as well. He said he would not do it. The gentleman said that common decency, to say nothing of his position, should induce him to put the two flags together. The minister was rather impertinent and the gentleman said: I will give you twenty-four hours to hoist the Union Jack or take that other flag down. The minister refused and another gentleman got a ladder, went up and pulled the flag down. I hope that no one will think that in bringing this matter up my action has any reference to the talk which we have recently heard about annexation. I have nothing of that kind in my mind at all. If we have a flag we should respect it and teach our children that it is the flag of our country.


Mr. GERALD V. WHITE (North Renfrew).: Mr. Speaker, I heartily concur in this resolution and in the sentiments which have been expressed by my hon. friend from London (Mr. Beattie) in moving it. It would seem to me, Sir, that we Canadians, loyal and patriotic as we are-I believe as loyal and patriotic a people as ever existed-are not as demonstrative as we ought to be of the patriotic feelings which actuate us. Contrast our action in this respect with that of our neighbours across the line, who, in every town, village, and hamlet of their vast country, are proud to display the stars and stripes. Some thirteen years ago I had occasion to travel through the Lake of the Woods district, along the international border, and across the river in United States territory everywhere the eye rested the flag of the United States was visible, but strange to say, in the town of Fort Frances, on the Canadian side, not a Union Jack was. to be seen. I believe that every true Canadian should take to himself the words of St. Paul: I am a citizen of no mean state, for Sir, we Canadians are citizens1 of no mean country. Canada comprises in territory thirty per cent of the great empire to which we belong and has an area of one-fifteenth of the total area of the globe; Canada possesses unlimited resources in the wealth of the forest, the mine, the fishery; vast stretches of the most fertile land,

great lakes, noble rivers, and mountains, the scenery which is unrivalled. We; the possessors of this grand heritage, should be proud to display on every possible occasion that emblem which is ours, of the greatest empire of history. And, Sir, while we are the fortunate possessors of these great natural resources, we have, I believe, a population as intelligent, as industrious, as sober, as law-abiding and as God-fearing as ever existed on the face of the earth. The Union Jack, which for a thousand years has braved the battle and the breeze in every corner of the known world, the emblem of all this moral and material wealth, is a flag to be proud of. Let me quote from an address delivered before the Empire Club in Toronto in 1906 by Mr. F. Barlow Cumberland, M.A., on the subject of ' The Union Jack of the Empire
The flag tells us whence we came; the flag tells us from whom we obtained it; it tells us that we are to keep it not only for those who are living here, but for those who are loyal to it around the world. Well, then, may it fly upon the school-houses of Manitoba; well has that government taken the foremost step in saying that all those varied nationalities which are coming within their lands shall be taught by the visible emblem which they have placed above their school-houses, that they are coming under the influences and under the charge of the Union Jack. So, too, may we have them all over our school-houses in Ontario. 'Well done' to those men and to those people who would spread the use of these flags among our Canadian school-houses, for they are the signals not only of our own union; they are the signs of a nationality wider than the country in which w'e live; they are a sign of brotherhood with our fellow peoples around the world.
I am happy to say, Sir, that since this address. was delivered the government of Ontario has seen fit to order that the Union Jack shall be displayed from every school-house in the province, on every public holiday throughout the year. Mr. Cumberland continued:
This Union Jack, then, is the flag which is the birthright of each British man; this is the flag which should always fly and be held and be esteemed as our own. It heralds loyalty to our forefathers, to King, to country, and to empire. It speaks to us from the past.; it tells us of the great heroes; it inspires us to greater deeds.
Before concluding I shall cite a stanza of t'erse which I deem appropriate to this occasion:
It's only a small hit of bunting,
Tt's only an old coloured rag,
Yet thousands have died for its honour, And shed their best blood for the flag.
It floats over Cyprus and Malta,
Over Canada, the Indies, Hong Kong,
And Britons where'er their flag's flying. Claim the rights which to Britons belong.
We hoist it to show our devotion To our King, to our country, our laws,
It's the outward and visible emblem Of advancement and liberty's cause.
You may say it's an old bit of bunting,
You may call it an old coloured rag,
But freedom has made, it majestic,
And time has enobled our flag.


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: I am very glad indeed that my hon. friend (Mr. Beattie) has moved this resolution, if for no other reason than that it has given us the pleasure of hearing a very eloquent speech from the mover and an equally eloquent speech from the seconder of the resolution. It is certainly well that we should have our attention called to the importance of keeping the flag flying as often as possible-I was going to say as long as possible, but it is unnecessary to say that, because I believe with every member of this House that the Union Jack will fly over Canada as an integral part of the British Empire until the end of time. However, my hon. friend will see that his resolution can hardly be passed with propriety because it calls upon the government to make a rtgulation which will require the Union Jack always to be displayed above any foreign flag which may be flown anywhere in Canada, except on the office or residence of a foreign consul.
We have no statute upon the subject, and therefore the government are powerless to pass a (regulation which could be enforced. In order to make it effective there would have to be a statute and in order that it might be within the purview of the Dominion parliament, it would have to be a part of the Criminal law. It would have t-o be provided that the Union Jack was always to be placed above any foreign flag and penalties would have to be provided for any infraction of the law. Therefore, I am sure my hon. friend will see that the resolution could not be properly passed in its present form. Perhaps all my hon. friend desires, will have been obtained by calling attention to the subject which I admit is one of great importance. I do not know whether or not in other countries there are laws upon the subject, or whether it rests entirely with the people to have this view enforced and upon the re-soect which other people would have for the views of the citizens of these other countries. I know that in many parts of Canada, residents of the United States, who come to this country, are always in the habit of honouring the Union Jack, by placing it above the flag of their own country. There have been cases where that, has not been done, and I know that our people upon a number of occasions have been incensed at the conduct of persons who have declined to honour the flag of our coun-

try. It is worthy of consideration whether or not a law should be passed, which, of course could be enforced by provisions with regard to a penalty.
My horn, friend has called attention to the fact that the Union Jack is flown upon the schoolhouses of Ontario. My impression is that it is flown every day in the year on the school-houses of Manitoba. In that respect, Manitoba has gone away ahead of the loyal province of Ontario, and all honour to the province of Manitoba that it has gone as far as it has, because there is no betteT means of teaching the youth of our country the principles of loyalty, than to teach them to know what the flag stands for, and to honour it as they would do, if it was flown from the school-house every day in the year. If it is flown only on public holidays, the school children are not apt to see it, because they do not attend school on public holidays. Therefore, I think it would be desirable that my hon. friend should endeavour to get the government of Ontario to follow the example which has been set by the government of Manitoba. When I was a member of the government of New Brunswick, the question was seriously discussed, and the government adopted a resolution favourable to having the school trustees fly the flag from the schcol-houses upon every day in the year, providing that some assistance should be given by the Board of Education to enable the various school districts to do so. I do not know whether that regulation has been generally observed.


Robert Laird Borden: Is that by virtue of a statute or a regulation ?


William Pugsley: That is done by regulation, the Board of Education undertaking to contribute a certain amount for the purchase of flags.
It will be gratifying to my hon. friend to know that the order which I have had passed in my department, requiring the flag to be flown every day in the year upon every public building in all the border towns, and all the principal seaports of Canada, has met with, I think, the universal approval of the people of the country.


Mr. EDWARDS.: Under what statute is that flag flown over public buildings and what penalty is attached if it is not flown?


William Pugsley: It is flown by an official of the department of Public Works, and the penalty is, that if he does not obey the order of the department, he will be dismissed from office. The order has been given and the flag is now being flown upon the public buildings in all the border towns and cities of Canada, and also at the principal seaports.


Mr. BRADBURY.: Could I induce the minister to include the city of Winnipeg Mr. PUGSLEY.
and other cities of that kind, where there are so many public buildings ?


William Pugsley: We have started in the way I have described, of ordering the flag to be flown in the border cities and towns and also at the principal seaports. That is so that people crossing the border will see the Union Jack flying and as they come into our country at the various seaports, they will also see the flag of our country flying upon whatever day they happen to arrive. To extend it to every public building in Canada would, no doubt, be somewhat expensive, but I may say to my hon. friend, that this question is under consideration. I myself, think it is worthy of very careful consideration. I believe that if an order were passed to have the flag flown from every public building in every city and town of Canada upon every day in the year-and here, I am expressing my own personal opinion-it would not be unpopular, and I am rather inclined to think the country would justify the additional expense to which the government would be put in having these regulations carried out. However, that is a matter for consideration. I have had applications from other cities than border cities and towns, one from Peterborough; one from Calgary, urging that the flag should be flown on every day of the year in those cities. There have also been applications from other cities and towns throughout Canada. I trust my hon. friend will see that under the present law it would be impossible fox the government to pass an effective regulation, and I hope my hon. friend will feel that he has discharged his duty, by thus bringing the matter forcibly to the attention of the House, and will leave it to the government to consider whether or not some modification should be made in the statutes which would enable his views to be carried out.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there actually a flag supplied to every Dominion public building in the country ?


William Pugsley: That is the understanding, and if my attention is called to any building where the caretaker is not in possession of a flag, I will see that he is supplied with one.
Mr. BORDEN Halifax). As I understand a regulation has been made that in certain towns and cities near the border the flag is to be flown every day in the year. What is the regulation as to public buildings where that does not apply ?


William Pugsley: My recollection is, that it is flown upon the 1st of July, Dominion Day, also upon Victoria Day, St. George's Day, St. Andrew's Day, St. Patrick's Day, and hereafter on St. David's Day. Then upon other days, in Tegard to which directions are given by the Minister of Public Works.


Richard Blain: What about the 12th of July?


William Pugsley: There is no order that it should be flown on that day.


Arthur Meighen: There were some remarks that fell from the hon. Minister of Public Works that will be gladly welcomed on this side of the House. He finds fault with the resolution on the ground that it calls for the government to enact regulations looking to the protection of the supremacy of the British flag on Canadian soil. It may be that under the statutes now obtaining in Canada regulations would have no legal effect. Of that I do not presume to speak. The objection applies only to the wording of the resolution. It affects in no way the principle, and it would be quite out of the power of the mover and quite within the power of the government through the Minister of Public Works to effect the amendment and make it a statutory provision instead. There is a principle in the resolution. That principle we hope the government will not antagonize. The hon. minister was good enough to express the hope that the Union Jack would for all time fly over the capital of this country. In that, I presume, he also expresses the hope of the government, including the first minister. I do not think it i3 quite (consistent, Though, to expect the Union Jack, which is the flag of the British Empire, to fly on Canadian soil after the ripe fruit has fallen from the tree. I leave that, however, for the Minister of Public Works to work out with his own chieftain. He was good enough to render some applause-and his applause is always appreciated- to the government of Manitoba for doing a little pioneer work in the way of installing into the minds of Canadian youth the importance of reverence for the Union Jack. I want to remind the Minister of Public Works that when this movement was placed in the form of legislation on the statute-books of Manitoba, it was opposed with the bitterest ridicule by the party in Manitoba with which the hon. minister is identified. That party, through its press and speakers, pointed out that this was simply an attempt at flag waving by the Conservative party then in power. I am glad indeed to see the Minister of Public Works come over to our side on this question, and I hope on other and greater occasion, when this side of the House endeavours to protect the Union Jack on Canadian soil against the attacks of its open foes, and against what is worse, the invidious carelessness of the indifferent, we shall find the hon. minister again coming over to our side and assisting us in that great work. Now, Sir, it is my earnest hope-I speak only as one member of the House-that the hon. member for London will not think that his work is done by
simply uttering a few remarks on this occasion, but that this House will take occasion to !do something effective in at least laying down a principle that will do somewhat to secure the supremacy of the British flag on this side of the 49th parallel, even though we must, when securing that supremacy, tolerate the prevalence of other flags. There is no objection, so far as I can see, to citizens of other lands, or to any one, if he sees fit, displaying the stars and stripes, or whatever flag they may be identified with; but there is objection, as has been well pointed out by the hon. member for London to the far too frequent display of that flag to the utter subserviency, the utter neglect of our own flag of empire. It is to prevent that, that the resolution is moved, but I do not think anything whatever will be done to prevent it if it simply stops at that point.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Mr. Speaker, it has always seemed somewhat strange to me that the regulations or laws or statutes with regard to the flying of the flag at sea should always be so intensely stringent, while with regard to the flying of flags on shore there seems to be no regulation whatever. Personally I do not know whether the regulations with regard to the flying of the flag at sea are statutory or merely admiralty regulations; but there the law, under whatever form it may be, is well known and well recognized. I listened with interest to the remarks of the Minister of Public Works. He and I both come from the same city, and what he has noticed in St. John, I have noticed also. There are a number of American citizens living there. Now, it appears to be characteristic of American citizens, no matter where they may be, to have an uncontrollable desire to fly their flag-to pin it on themselves -to put it on their autos, on their little yachts, or over the houses where they are staying. That is all very well in their own country; no one objects to that; but they do not appear to recognize that when they fly their flag in what is to them a foreign country, they are only doing it by the courtesy of the country in which for the time being they reside. The American citizens living in St. John appear to fly their flag almost .every day in the year. The Minister of Public Works stated that they fly the Union Jack over the stars and stripes. I think that on consideration he will withdraw that. Occasionally some of them fly the Union Jack on the same pole, but on different halyards, at the same level as the stars and stripes. But the majority of them do not do so at all. They are generally content with flying the stars and stripes alone. If it is important that this matter of flags should be attended to in the east, which is a much older settled country as far as Britishers are concerned, certainly,

I think we can all readily agree it is far more important that this flag business should be properly attended to in our great Northwest, which is filling up so rapidly with people of so many different nationalities who perhaps hardly know our flag when they see it. I think this resolution contains a most inaportant principle, one that I hope the Prime Minister and the government of this country will take to heart, so that some regulation will be put into force that will have the effect which the resolution anticipates. It has been said that the resolution would not give the government power to issue regulations that might be of use; but the government has the power to obtain a statute so that they may be empowered to make such regulations as they could legally and practically put into force. In the United States as we all know, it is almost as much as a man's life is worth, in some of the cities, to hoist the British flag. Apparently, it does not require any statute there to provide for the pulling down of that flag very quickly. If officials of the state or of the United States do not attend to the matter, the people soon take it into their own hands, and means are quickly taken by which that flag disappears from its flag-pole. I certainly support this resolution very heartily, and 1 hope that the government will bring in a Bill to authorize them to make necessary regulations, or that any other means required to carry out the idea of the resolution may be taken. I am quite certain it is high time that we took this matter up. It seems to be a simple thing on the face of it, but our young people are growing up, and_ strangers of all nationalities are coming into the country who have not been educated in regard to this matter and are content to see the foreign flag flying where their own flag should fly.


Mr. A. C. MACDONELL (South Toronto).: Like the rest of my colleagues, I was gratified at the encouragement this resolution met at the hands of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley), but I think the House would have been better pleased if the minister had gone at least one step further. I think he should have stated that the government would take this matter into its own hands, and would introduce legislation to carry the resolution into effect. This is not the first occasion on which the flag matter has been brought up in this House. I do not desire to disparage the loyalty of the hon. gentlemen opposite, but I think it not unfair to point out, that on every occasion, the initiative with regard to the flag flying in Canada has come from the opposition side. It is not so many years since the flag did not float from this building in which we sit during the sittings of this House. I myself brought up the matter here, and complained of the omission; and Mr. DANIEL.
ever since that day the flag has been flying at least on this building every day on which the House sits. And so it has been, from time to time, on each occasion the matter has emanated from the opposition side of this House. But it may be that the proposal of legislation to carry this resolution into effect may not properly come from this side. I apprehend that it would be a matter requiring the expenditure of money, and if so, the legislation would have to originate with the Treasury Benches. But, regardless of that, such legislation should be introduced at the earliest moment by those who control the majority in this House. This is not a mere matter of sentiment, but, even if it were, the introduction of such legislation would be quite justified. Many visitors come here, notably from the United States. They are good people, they make excellent friends and neighbours, and we are glad to have them amongst us. But it does violence to the feelings of Canadians when these people arrive enveloped in their stars and stripes? If they come to make their home here for the summer, before they enter their summer houses, they surround themselves, their grounds, their houses and their boats with a great galaxy of American flags. One would think, going through certain parts of this country, that he was in the United States of America. This is all very well, but side by side with these flags, there should be some proper display of the national emblem to mark this country as British. Unfortunately, this display of foreign flags has led to a number of what are known as ' flag incidents '. On certain occasions, the wanton flaunting of American flags in the faces of British subjects has caused men to make the law for themselves, and flags have been taken down in a way that is unpleasant for all concerned. These incidents sometimes become international affairs, but serious trouble has heretofore been averted. Not only the people of our own country, but visitors also are ignorant as to the status of our flag. A visitor will hoist a foreign flag in a more or less insulting way, then a British citizen will threaten to take it down, but does not know his rights in the matter any more than does the man who raises the flag. So, I think the time has come when the government should consider this whole question, and embody our proper rights in a simple statute which should be accessible to everybody and easily understood. For breaches of this law there should be some proper penalty, some fine or some other not too severe sanction. Not only do I concur in the language of the resolution, but I think this whole matter of flag flying in this country should be surrounded by proper regulations, so that the people of this country and visitors to this country may know the rights of our flag, and also of any other flag floated here for

the time being. The Minister of Public Works has been good enough to extend the flag flying to border towns and seaports. Personally, I would like to see the regulation extended throughout the whole country. The expense would be comparatively small. As we are having so many foreigners coming to Canada, we want to let them know of what nationality this country is; we want to let them know that Canada is British, and let them know what the British emblem is. It would be a proper thing, and public opinion would back the government up in flying the flag on every public building. Especially this regulation should be extended, not only to seaports, but to the ports on our Great Lakes, some of which have a much larger quantity of shipping than many seaport towns.


William Pugsley: The ports to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Macdonell) refers, I class as border cities-those that stand on the shores of boundary waters. The flag is flying op the public buildings of all such cities on Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair and other boundary waters.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I congratulate the minister upon the extension of his ruling. And, now that he has gone so far and extended it to seaports, ports on boundary waters and border towns, the minister might as well throw in the tail with the hide and have the flag flying on all public buildings in Canada. Then the government might take up this resolution and bring down a Bill containing provision not only for flying the flag, but for the regulation of this whole flag matter.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: I am so much in sympathy with the general purpose of my iron, friend from London (Mr. Beattie), and with the sentiments expressed by him, that I regret to have to join the Minister of Public Works in advising him not to press his motion. I am thoroughly persuaded that the discussion to-night is a timely one, and will have a good effect, yet I feel that to press his motion in the terms in which the hon. gentleman has presented it to the House would not be wise. I am bound to say that I admire our American neighbours for the prominence they give to their flag in their own country, and I do not think any the less of them because, wThen they go abroad, they still exhibit their flag. Sometimes they may do it in a way that is not always pleasant to us, but after all, their main purpose is to declare themselves as citizens of the great republic, and we should not think any the less of them on that account. I regret that we in Canada do not make more use of our national flag. It is one of those things which we take for granted, that everybody is loyal in this country, and therefore there is no need for
us to assert our loyalty. In a country situated as ours is, lying alongside another great nation, I think it is very desirable that there should be, not only upon public buildings, but upon the private homes of our people, a very prominent display of the Union Jack. While I am most heartily in sympathy with my hon. friend in his motive in bringing this matter before us, still I must point out to him that when he asks us to make regulations such as he proposes, I think he will be advised by any lion, gentleman of the legal profession that we practically have no power to make any such regulations. We could, by an Act of this parliament, take the power. But before doing that, it would be well that we should have some regard to the practice of other countries. Flag incidents are always troublesome. Every man who has any pride of country is justly offended when an insult is offered to his flag, and he properly resents it. We feel that way ourselves, and on that account we should be all the more careful to see that we give no cause of offence to the citizens of a foreign country who want to make use of their flag in a proper way. If we had a regulation exactly in the terms of the hon. gentleman's motion it might lead us into trouble. These are international questions. An insult offered to the flag is something of -which the recognized authorities of every great nation must take notice. But I think in a matter of so much delicacy, warmly as we must sympathize with the good purpose the hon. gentleman has in view, we *would do well to pause and make inquiry as to what is the practice of other nations in this matter. I do not think we are called upon to rush into this matter and do something, even with a good puipose, which might lead us into difficulties with citizens of a foreign country. We have much to learn in regard to these matters from the mother country and from other nations, and while sympathizing strongly with my hon. friend's purpose, and with the sentiments he has expressed in supporting his motion, I think he should let the matter stand over in order that inquiry may be made as to the effect-not of this resolution, because it would have no effect-but if a measure were to be brought forward in the shape of an amendment to the criminal law, declaring what should be done in these cases when a citizen of a foreign nation shows his flag abroad, we might get ourselves into grave difficulties. Regarding flags on public buildings, the government may, as a right, determine whether a flag shall be shown, and on what day. But when you come to deal with the house of a private citizen, or with the motor car or boat of a private citizen, you may be treading on delicate and possibly dangerous ground. I would suggest to my hon. friend that he has

accomplished a good purpose already in having this discussion, and that it would be wise for him to withdraw his motion and leave the matter for the consideration of the government, with a view of inquiring as to what is done by other nations under similar circumstances. I would like my hon. friend to concur in that suggestion, because it is a matter on which it would be undesirable to have any division.


John Wesley Edwards: It is so seldom that 1 have an opportunity of agreeing with anything the Minister of Public Works says that it is a sufficient excuse for me, on this occasion, to rise and say that I do agree with him in the sentiments he has expressed here to-night in regard to the Union Jack being maintained in a prominent position as the flag of this country. I almost expected, before the Finance Minister took his seat, that, judging from the fears that were in his heart with regard to the trouble that might arise if we undertook to deal with this matter, he was going to suggest that a deputation be sent to Washington to talk the matter over with them before we came to a conclusion. Now, I believe there is an evil in this country pointed out by my hon. friend from London (Mr. Beattie), and that something ought to be done along the lines of his motion to impress upon the minds of American citizens that when they come over to this country they must not give undue prominence to the stars and stripes on their automobiles or on their residences in this country. If it be necessary to take those steps, even though they be offended, I say by all means let those steps be taken, and let them be offended thereat. In this country and in the country across the line the majority of people are able to read. The people of Canada are sufficiently well posted to know that if they go into the United States and flaunt their flag in the way that American citizens flaunt their flag in Canada, they would be showing disrespect to the people of that country. We respect them in their loyalty and their devotion to their flag, and we show our respect for them by respecting their flag. If they cannot show similar respect for us by respecting our flag, then it is high time that the government gave them to understand that they must respect it. Only last summer, in my county, a very unpleasant flag incident took place. We have in different parts of the county of Frontenac many American citizens, who come in to engage in fishing and to reside part of the summer, and in one part of the county you would think it was a portion of the United States, so many stars and stripes do you see floating, while the Union Jack is scarcely ever visible. When one of our citizens protested because the stars and stripes were flying from the top of a flag Mr. FIELDING.
pole without a Union Jack, he was insulted, and given to understand that he must mind his own business. I certainly think that a rule which applies to an individual should apply to a nation. A man must respect himself if he expects others to respect him. That is true of the individual, and that is also true of the nation. If we do not as a nation respect ourselves we cannot expect to enjoy the respect of other nations. I believe that our American cousins across the line, and the people of other foreign nations that come into Canada from all parts of the world, would have a much higher regard for Canada if we showed them that the British flag must be placed in the most prominent position, and that whatever other flag is shown, the Union Jack must have a position of superiority. That is no more than we should insist upon. Now, I do not see why the resolution of my hon. friend from London should not pass. He asks that regulations should be made by the government to secure respect for our national flag, and if it be necessary to enact a statute, then he asks the government to enact that statute. I think if the government were to propose a law on the lines of the motion of my hon. friend from London there would be no delay at all in passing it; if they brought in a Bill to-morrow or the next day, I think it would go through its first, second and third readings with the unanimous consent of this side of the House.
Reference has been made to the flying of the flag on the school-houses of Manitoba. Some twenty years ago I was the principal of one of the public schools in that province. I started a movement in the school over which I presided, had a flag pole erected and the flag flown, and I think I am right in saying that that school was the first school in Manitoba to have the Union Jack flying over it. It was at Souris, Manitoba. I hope something will be done along the line of the resolution moved by my hon. friend from London. I think it is high time that something should be done. Our beautiful summer resorts are every season attracting not only Americans, but people from England, Scotland, France, Germany and other lands. What must they think, in going through the beautiful lakes of Muskoka and the Thousand Islands to find a hundred American flags for one Union Jack? I feel very strongly that something should be done to regulate this and to show to the people of this country as well as to the people of the world that this is British territory, and that we intend to keep it such.


Mr. WALLACE.: Mr. Speaker, I wish to-say only a few words upon this subject. I entirely agree with the proposed resolution of my hon. friend from London (Mr. Beattie), and I see no reason whatever why

the government should not accept it. There must be a law in this country, or we can make a law, to stop Americans, or the people of any other nation from coming into Canada and flying foreign flags. It is no insult to any person who comes into Canada from the outside to say to him that he must give prominence to the flag of the country in which he happens to be. I would advise my hon. friend from London very strongly not to withdraw this resolution. I think it is right and I see no reason whatever why the government should not adopt it. The Union Jack is good enough to fly in Canada, or anv other place, and it is only proper that we should give due prominence to the flag of our country. I wish to emphasize my view upon this question, and to ask my hon. friend not to withdraw his resolution.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Is the House ready for the question?


William Stevens Fielding: Does my hon. friend (Mr. Beattie) wish to withdraw the motion, or does he wish to speak? He would shut out debate.


Thomas Beattie: I would like to make a few remarks.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend would shut out others; that is all.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou).: Mr. Speaker, the resolution proposed by my hon. friend from London (Mr. Beattie) assorts the proposition that some regulation should be issued by the federal government providing for some penalty, I suppose, where a foreign flag is exhibited in Canada above the Union Jack. I am sure that the proposition that due regard and pre-eminence should always be given to the flag of our country, whether in the presence of the flag of another country or not, is one that every member of this House and every good thinking person in Canada agrees with. It will be noticed that my hon. friend does not propose, in his resolution, anv extension of the regulation which my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) issued with regard to the use of the British flag on public buildings. I apprehend that my hon. friend, therefore, and the other hon. gentlemen who spoke with him on this subject, agree that the government have acted wisely in that matter. Let me say that for myself I have always regarded it as one of the most singular things in Canada that we have never had very much of an open exhibition of natriotic feeling by the display of flags, or by patriotic national music such as is seen in other countries. I think it is one of the great regrets in Canada that this custom has not obtained. Apparently our forefathers, and even the people of the present generation, have accepted all the privileges and rights which have come to them under British rule and under the British flag in a quiescent mood. They have been content to go along and accept the blessings of constitutional government and the advantages of British protection without making any fuss about it. It is only after forty years of our national history that we are seriously beginning to discuss the question of flying our flag. For at least forty years of our national life it was never thought necessary to fly the flag of our country every day on the parliament buildings. It was in the last parliament for the first time that any hon. gentleman in this House thought it necessary that the flag of Great Britain, should be flown above the parliament buildings when parliament is sitting. This indicates a peculiarly quiescent mood on the part of the public in Canada generally with regard to the exhibition of patriotism in that way. No other country with its population, extent or resources has ever got along so far in its national existence as Canada has without having more patriotic songs. True, I think in no part of the British Empire is ' God Save the King ' sung so loyally or so frequently on public occasions as in Canada, but outside of that there are very few songs that Canadians sing which are emblematic of their devotion to this country of ours. There is ' The Maple Leaf For Ever,' a song that appeals to the patriotism of every Canadian, and our friends in the province of Quebec sing their patriotic song ' O Canada,' which is, I believe, the best Canadian national anthem. Why is it that we have not more of our national songs, and why is it that we do not fly our national flag more? I felt that sense of humiliation that hon. gentlemen have spoken of when, about ten years ago, on crossing the River St. Lawrence, I found on the other side an adequate display of the American flag od the public buildings and in their public squares such as is not to be found in Canada. The desire that Canadians should make a public exhibition of their devotion to their country either in song or by the use of their flag is one that is growing, and one which I think deservedly ought to grow. Various provinces have adopted the provision that the flag should be flown from the school buildings, a most admirable provision, one that should obtain in every province, so that the young people may learn to realize the history of their country, its traditions, and the great wealth of privilege and right which have been conferred upon us as a result of British rule. Too often our fathers and ourselves and children accept all these advantages and have nothing to say about them, failing to recognize the source from which they came.
With regard to dealing with the propo-

sition contained in the resolution of my hon. friend I think it is a question which is worthy of consideration. I think that any foreigner who comes into Canada, no matter from where he comes, should feel that in this country he is not able to do any more than he can in any other country by the exhibition of the flag of the country to which he belongs. I think there is to be found legislation in the other countries of the world which deals with the exhibition of flags of alien nations, and tnat we should have something of the same kind on the statute-book of Canada. I think that would be in accordance with the sentiment which obtains in Canada to-day ; w'hich for the last ten or fifteen years has been increasing, and which was practically non-existent before. But, this is something which must be formulated in a statute, and the greatest care must be exercised because when you come to deal with the flags of foreign countries it is a very delicate matter. The idea of my hon. friend is a good one, but a cursory examination of the wording of his resolution will show that it is altogether too crude to crystallize into a statute. I submit that in order to deal with the matter in a sensible, sane and practical way, there should be delay so that inquiry may be made as to what is the best form for legislation to take. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Beattie) proposes that regulations should be issued by the government insisting that :
Where a foreign flag or ensign is displayed or used either upon a flag pole, private residence, vehicle, or in any other manner or place whatsoever within this Dominion

I suppose that language would be suffi-cientlv broad to cover the display of flags on pleasure boats, although were one to apply the maxim ejusdem generis it is doubtful whether these words would apply to anything but something akin to a flag pole, private house, or vehicle. The hon. gentleman then goes on in his resolution to except only, the accredited representative of a foreign government from this regulation, but vessels of a foreign country within the harbours of Canada have by international law the right to fly the flag of their nation.


Thomas Beattie: That is acknowledged.
This resolution would not apply to such a vessel at all.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am merely citing that to show that if we are to pass legislation on the subject a great deal more care would be necessary than to merely adopt the wording of this resolution and make it law. With the object of giving the matter that greater care I think the hon. gentleman	(Mr. Beattie) should
accept the assurance of the Minister of Finance that inquiry will be made, and Mr. MACDONALD.
withdraw his resolution. Then, the resolution says :
That a Union Jack of equal size and make shall also be hoisted and displayed therewith at the same time and place, and that the Union Jack shall always be placed in the most prominent position on every occasion.
Perhaps- I am looking at it with the critical eyes of a lawyer, but it does seem to me that it would not be dignified for the parliament of Canada to dispose of such a question by adopting the language of the resolution which is very crude indeed. The use of the word ' occasion ' in the resolution seems to be ungrammatical because instead of referring to time or place it would seem to apply to a vehicle, flagpole, or private residence. We are all anxious with my hon. friend (Mr. Beattie) that this question should be properly dealt with, and that every Canadian should be * encouraged to show on all occasions his devotion to Canada and the empire, but when we are legislating aoout the use of foreign flags we have to proceed very carefully. It was the Manitoba government I believe, that first blazed the way with regard to the flying of the *flag on public schools and I	remember that a strong imperialist and a man of high position in the mother country who visited Canada shortly after that action of the Manitoba government, spoke to me in reference to what could be done in Canada for strengthening the ties which bind her to the mother country. I, of course, told him that the Canadian people, with firm determination of purpose and sincere devotion of heart were proud of their British allegiance, and were so content under it that nobody ever thought of questioning it, but if anything were to be done we ought to encourage the display of the British flag on all occasions and cultivate among the people a knowledge of national songs which in all countries, and all ages have best given the inspiration of patriotism to the people. Gradually, since the order of the Manitoba government, the different provinces have been taking the question up, and as a result I believe that in recent years our people are expressing more generally than ever before their pride in being Canadians, and citizens of the British Empire. I am sincerely anxious that some legislation should be passed as a result of the proposition now put forward by my hon. friend (Mr. Beattie), and in order that the legislation to be enacted may be appropriate and well considered I would move that the debate be adjourned.


Mr. W. S. MIDDLEBRO (North Grey).: The hon. member from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) is perfectly aware that the passage of this resolution would not crystallize its wording into law, but would merely be an

expression of opinion from this House that any foreigner rwho comes to Canada and who is so loyal to his own country that he must hoist his flag, must go to the expense of purchasing a Union Jack and hoisting it in the most prominent position. That is all the resolution amounts to. I am surprised that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Macdonald) should taunt us with waving the flag.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I did not say so, Mr. Speaker.


William Sora Middlebro: I am a little surprised at my hon. friend saying he is surprised that we have not seen more of the flag and that the flag has not been hoisted on more public buildings and made more conspicuous in Canada than it has been. I believe that is in part due to the policies which his party has advocated in the past. We know that in years gone by if there was one thing more than another with which the Conservative party were taunted it was waving the old flag for party purposes, and we know that the party opposite were taunted with advocating a policy of unrestricted reciprocity, commercial union and continental freedom of trade. We know that his own leader at that time, Hon. Edward Blake, said if that policy had been insisted on, and if they had been successful at the polls the ultimate result would have been annexation to the country to the south. We admired Hon. Edward Blake for taking that course. We know'that on this same occasion Sir John Macdonald uttered the famous words: ' A British subject I was born, a British subject I will die So it ill becomes the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) to say he was surprised that the flag has not been used in the past more than it has been.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In the days of Sir John A. Macdonald did he find it necessary to fly the flag over the parliament buildings of this country?


William Sora Middlebro: Not only did the party of the hon. gentleman not propose that, but they proposed to put into force a policy that would ultimately have led to our annexation to the United States.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Let me inform my hon. friend that it was under this government that the flag first flew over this building.


William Sora Middlebro: When the reciprocity treaty was brought into this House, his own Finance Minister said that the first action of the Conservative party would be to beat the drum.


William Stevens Fielding: They are doing that.


William Sora Middlebro: That means no more than waving the old flag. I am surprised that the member for Pictou has moved the
adjournment which means shelving this question. I cannot see why they cannot adopt the resolution which does not become law, but simply affirms the opinion of this House. A Canadian visiting another country and not showing proper respect for the flag of that country would be open to the same blame as a foreigner acting in that way in Canada.


Mr. A. S. GOODEVE (Kootenay).: I agree with the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) that there should be no division of opinion in the House upon this question. I see no reason why the government should not accept this resolution in the spirit in which it has been moved. The hon. member criticises it because it is not couched in such language as would be used in a statute and he seems to me to be begging the question. The resolution says that in the opinion of this House proper regulations should be issued by the government of the Dominion of Canada. The resolution leaves it open to the House or any. member to decide what would be proper regulations to carry out the spirit of the resolution. The hon. member has himself made the argument for adopting this resolution, he has said that the spirit of loyalty in this country has been rather quiescent. It seems to me that this is but the fitting: outcome of the gradual growth of the national spirit in this Canada of ours. It is quite true that we Canadians can look back to the time when our young men were leaving for the United States and were ready to give allegiance to that flag. I am glad to say that that is changed to-day, but our young men are realizing that we have a national spirit of our own, that the day has come when it is the proud boast of the manufacturers of Canada to place on their goods the trade mark: Made in Canada. A Canadian citizen is proud to purchase goods vyith that particular trade mark upon them, and now to-night the hon. member for London (Mr. Beattie) proposes to go one step further and to say that the flag, the emblem of our nationhood, shall be displayed pn all occasions so that those who come as guests to our country shall realize that as our guests they must give due honour and respect to that flag. There is nothing more in the resolution, and for that reason I cannot see why the Minister of Finance should object and ask that it be withdrawn. He and other speakers on that side have all said that they agree with the spirit of the resolution. The member for Pictou says he agrees with the kernel of the resolution, the only difference is with the phraseology, but as I have pointed out this resolution will not become legislation. I trust that the Minister of Finance will withdraw his objection, and that this resolution may go forth from this House unanimously to the people of Canada affirming that we shall take one step further in



our nationhood, and that we as members of parliament say that the flag of Canada, and the flag of the empire shall always be pre-eminent in our own country.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton).: I heartily support the resolution which is only an expression of the opinion of this House, and I think the hon. member for London (Mr. Beattie) is deserving of the thanks of every member for bringing it forward. It ill becomes the member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) to find fault with the language in which it is couched, I would hope rather that he would fall in line and say it was in the best interests of our people. The resolution reads:	.
That, in the opinion of this House, proper regulations should he issued by the government of the Dominion of Canada insisting that where a foreign flag or ensign is displayed or used either upon a flag pole, private residence, vehicle or in any other manner or place whatsoever within this Dominion by any person or persons except the accredited representative of a foreign government, a Union Jack of equal size and make shall also be hoisted or displayed therewith at the same time and place, and that the Union Jack shall always be placed in the most prominent position on every such occasion.
The kernel of the resolution, to use the words of the hon. member for Pictou, is sound and he agrees heartily with it ; and yet in the very same breath he moves the adjournment of the debate practically to kill it. I have only to say that I have hearty sympathy with the resolution, and the hon. member for London is deserving ox great credit for bringing it forward.


Mr. GLEN CAMPBELL (Dauphin).: 
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I did not say that.


Glenlyon Campbell: I will not say thau the hon. member put it exactly in that way, but that was the sentiment that his words expressed. That may be his point of view, and the point of view of the ministerial side of this House ; but hundreds of thousands of people in Canada, many of them the staunchest Grits, think this is the most opportune time to show by a unanimous vote of this House that a certain measure now before this House called reciprocity is dangerous to the flag of Great Britain. For that reason I think this is a most opportune time for this House to vote unanimously in favour of this resolution. Parliament is omnipotent so far as law-making is concerned. If this resolution is passed to-night, there _ is nothing to hinder parliament from putting it in proper form to-morrow so that it can be enforced. For that reason I trust that the House will vote down the amendment of the hon. member for Pictou, which is evidently an evasion and quibble, getting away from the point and trying to becloud the matter before the House.


Mr. D. B. NEELY (Humboldt).: Mr Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member for London (Mr. Beattie) has nothing but the sincerest motive in bringing this question before the House in the terms of the resolution now under consideration. I cannot say as much for some hon. gentlemen

on the other side who have spoken to the resolution, because it would appear to me, judging from their remarks-take my hon. friend who has just eat down as an example-that it is just as much or more to impress on this House and the country their loyalty that they so vigorously support this resolution as it is the national benefit that they are considering. My hon. friend from Pictou has moved the adjournment pf the debate, and to my mind he has given a very substantial reason for doing so. It is quite true that in the terms of the resolution, if it were to carry, the government are called upon to make proper regulations, and necessarily they have -power to make those regulations in whatever form would seem to them best, if they have power to deal with this matter in that way. But *he purpose of the resolution is stated very clearly, and plainly, and whatever regulations the government might attempt to bring into effect as a result of this House passing the resolution, would help to bring about the result that is asked for by the resolution. The purpose of the resolution would have to be crystallized into legislation in some way. Now, I am sure that my hon. friend from London does not want regulations or laws passed that would bring into effect the purpose of this resolution in the way in which it is stated I his language, Sir, is very broad. These regulations must provide-
That where a foreign flag or ensign is displayed or used, either upon a flag pole, private residence, vehicle or in any other manner or place whatsoever within this Dominion-
I	take it that that means even inside a private house.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, no.


David Bradley Neely: The wording certainly gives that impression. Now, I am sure my hon. friend (Mr. Beattie) does not want to make it a criminal offence for some American citizen, we will say, who comes here to spend a month or two, or who comes to Canada with the intention of becoming a permanent citizen, to tack the stars and stripes on the walls inside his residence.


Thomas Beattie: Would you call the inside of a house a * public place '?


William Pugsley: It does not say ' public place.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: It says ' display,' and the only way to display it is to put it in a public place.


David Bradley Neely: The hon. gentleman takes a different meaning out of the word ' displayed or used ' from that which other people would take.


George Henry Bradbury: It says * upon.'
138J
i	Mr. NEELY. My hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) had better read the resolution again, for it says:
-displayed or used either upon a flag pole private residence, vehicle or in any other manner or place whatsoever.
Now, if these hon. gentlemen accuse the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) of quibbling, surely they themselves are quibbling when they undertake to say that the words


Thomas Beattie: The words are plain English, and all the hon. gentleman has to do is to read them as they are.


David Bradley Neely: I have read them exactly as they are. Now, as my hon. friend from I ictou says^ this is a serious question we are considering, I can only again state my position that, by passing this resolution, the House would be declaring that the terms of the resolution would have to be put upon the statute-book. If my hon. friend (Mr. Beattie) wished to effect anything, and not merely to promote this discussion, why should he not have introduced a Bill stating the objection he desired to bring about, and thus giving us something tangible instead of a crude resolution of this kind, which, if passed in its present form, might be very embarrassing, no matter how sincere the intention of the government in dealing with the matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


David Bradley Neely: Hon. members need not laugh. I say frankly it might be embarrassing to deal with the matter in the form in which it is put. There is one thing on which I congratulate my hon. friends on the other side. If they have no policy on any other subject, we may always be sure that they will have a policy on the flag.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


David Bradley Neely: Sir, this is one of many cases in which these hon. gentlemen have tried to hide their defects of policy or their lack of policy under a vigorous waving of the flag. I presume it is the sincere and honest desire of every man in this House to have the flag of his country shown due respect. I have many American citizens in my own part of the country and a great many in my own constituency. I do not know that any serious harm has ever come from the fact that a few of them bring a small sample of the stars and stripes acros3 with them


Thomas Beattie: I was not referring to the stars and stripes alone. The resolution says a foreign flag.'


David Bradley Neely: I am using this merely as illustration; my hon. friend admits, I sup-

pose, that the stars and stripes is a ' foreign flag.' I say I do not know that any great harm has come to this country because a few of these people from the United States bring across the stars and stripes. Perhaps, for a year or so, they decorate the walls of their houses with this flag. But they spend but a short time in this country in the enjoyment of the benefits derived from living under the Union Jack before they very gladly lay away the stars and stripes and adopt the Union Jack for display on all public and private occasions.
But I submit that this resolution in this form is much further-reaching and wider-spreading in its effects than my hon. friend (Mr. Beattie) probably intended. As I object to the terms of the resolution, I will support the resolution of the hon. member for Pictou that the debate be adjourned.


Mr. W. R. SMYTH (East Algoma).: Representing, as I do, a constituency that borders on the United States, I would like to say a few words in regard to this matter.
I am astonished to find our good friends on the opposite side quibbling over a matter of this kind. I was wondering, while the hon. member from Humboldt (Mr. Neely) was talking, how long it- would take the House of Representatives of the United States to deal with this matter if it were a question of our flag flying over their flags in the United States. I well remember on one occasion passing up the Sault Ste. Marie river and seeing the American flag flying on the flagpoles of the different houses along that stream. A friend of mine remarked as to one of the men occupying one of these houses that it ill-became them to display the stars and stripes without the Union Jack either in an equal position or on top. The man said he was impressed with the propriety of doing so. When, two or three days after, I had occasion to pass the same way, I found that he had complied with the request of my friendly putting up a Union Jack about the size of a postage stamp on the top of the flag pole, which I considered adding insult to injury. I really cannot understand the attitude of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) has described the resolution of my hon. friend from London as crude. Of course, that is the usual treatment that a layman on this side of the House, gets from members of the legal profession who sit on the other side of the House. Everything that emanates from a layman of this side of the House, is crude, according to the lawyers opposite. I desire to say that whether it is crude or not, I would rather stand by the resolution of the member for London than to stand in the position of the hon. member for Pictou: and crude though it may be, I shall support the Mr. NEELY.
resolution, and I hope the member for London will not withdraw it.


George Henry Bradbury: I cannot understand the attitude of hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, taking objection to a resolution of this kind. I can understand an objection on the ground that it is not properly framed, but I cannot understand any objection against its spirit. There is no question that the very first sentence in that resolution, makes it possible for the government to accept it, and to frame regulations to govern this matter. Now with regard to the flying of flags on public buildings, I was glad to hear the Minister of Public Works intimate the other night, that our flags would be flown on some of those buildings along the border* towns. My opinion as that the flag should be shown on every public building, owned by the government of Canada, including the post offices'. Regarding the Northwest, and my own province of Manitoba, this is an important matter. We have had an experience in the Northwest that perhaps the people of Ontario have not had. In the city of Winnipeg, on a holiday, as every man knows, who has been there, on such occasions, a stranger walking down the street would hardly know that he was in a Canadian city, he would suppose he was in ai>
American city from the number of American flags that he would see flying. I remember an instance that occurred two or three years ago in Winnipeg, when an American citizen went into the city hall, took down the Union Jack and-placed the stars and stripes on the masthead. That is only an example of what is happening every day in parts of Canada. On that occasion trouble was only averted by the coolness and wisdom of the authorities, who took charge oi the man who had committed the outrage, -and protected him from the men who were waiting at the bottom of the stairs to mob him. He was allowed to go free, there was no punishment meted out to him, because there seemed to be no law against it, I cannot under-stand the attitude of the government in trying to shelve a motion of this kind. If bloodshed has been averted time after time in Canada, it has been owing to the forbearance and common sense of our people, who have been deeply offended by the use which is made of American flags. Now we have a large number of Americans coming into our western country. We have no objections to their flag, I have no objections to the American flag flying in Manitoba, but I have serious objections to seeing it fly without the Union Jack alongside of it, or in the near vicinity. The resolution before us does not deny to any one the privilege of flying his flag, it

only asks that where a foreign flag is flown, a Canadian or British- flag should be flown alongside of it, in an equally prominent position. That is a reasonable proposition, and I do not see how the government can object to it. American citizens coming to the western country, who are reasonable and self respecting men, cannot object to it. They admire their flag, and by -the great honour they pay their flag, they have obtained the respect of the world. A man who respects himself, will be respected by others; a nation that respects its flag will see its flag respected by other nations. If we fail to respect our own flag, American citizens and other foreigners who come into this country, will also fail to respect it. I am satisfied that they would respect out flag more than they do, if we showed more respect for it ourselves. I would ask the Minister of Public Works to pursue the policy he has outlined, and that he cause the Canadian flag, the Union Jack, to be shown on every post office as well as other public buildings, so that foreigners coming to this country may learn to respect our flag.


Mr. MOLLOY.: I must take objection to the remarks of the hon. member for Dauphin (Air. Campbell), regarding the attitude he says the Liberal party took in the election of 1907. I was a candidate in that election, the flag incident was one of those discussed by the people, and I won the election. I won the election against the Attorney General of the province, who went into a certain district of the constituency, inhabited largely by Germans, and told them that they would not be compelled to fly the British flag on their schools. These men swore to that fact, and I used that fact against the Attorney General of the province, on the ground, not that I was opposed to the flying of the flag, but I was opposed to any man or any party trying to make a political football of the British flag.


Air. A. B. CROSBY (Halifax).: I desire to congratulate the Minister of Finance on his change of sentiment, regarding the flag, and likewise the hon. member foT Pictou, (Air. Macdonald). To-night we have seen a rather peculiar condition of things. First, we had the Atinister of Public Works undertaking to lead the House in this matter, and finding that things were not going right, the Alinister of Finance took hold. He failed to set them right, and then. the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Alacdonald), undertook to lead the House, and he simply told the House that if they did not do what he wanted them to do, he -would move the adjournment of the debate. The First Alin-ister, who has been accustomed to lead the House, has not seen fit to say anything yet. I congratulate the Finance Alinister,
because, when he was Premier of Nova Scotia, we never saw the Union Jack flying over the provincial building, the only flag we saw was the flag of Nova Scotia. Well, the flag of Nova Scotia is very good in its place, but since the province has become part and parcel of the Dominion of Canada, the proper flag to fly over the provincial building is the Union Jack. On many occasions during the time the hon. Minister of Finance was premier of Nova Scotia, resolutions were brought into that House calling upon the government to pass an Act to compel the schools to fly the British flag on the 1st of July, but these resolutions were never carried. I think I am quite safe in saying that the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), was a member of the House at that time.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No such suggestion or resolution was moved in the local legislature at the time when I was there, and I was there for six years, by any member of the Conservative party.


Adam Brown Crosby: If the Alinister of Finance would say that that is the case I would say that I am in error, but I think I am quite safe in saying what I have said.


William Stevens Fielding: I am quite willing that the hon. member shall keep on saying what he likes.


Adam Brown Crosby: The Minister of Finance knows I am saying what is right. I do not propose to say anything but what I can back up, and if the Finance Minister will say that I am not right I will try to get the documents to prove that I am right. If I fail to do that I will be satisfied that I am wrong and I will apologize to him. But he knows I am right and therefore he will let me say what I like. It is not often he allows me to do it if he can help it.
The hon. member for Humboldt (Air. Neely) had a. good deal to say about flag flying and he made a mournful cry about the people not being able to put up the stars and strips in their houses. In this country we are manufacturing wall paper and there is no necessity for people to use the stars and stripes with which to decorate their walls. Let them put up the paper that is made in this country. He also said that we on this side of the House could not do anything without bringing in the flag. The Conservative party had been noted for that. They never arrange any policy without including the British flag. We have had intimations on many occasions from men on that side of the House, men who, perhaps, do not sit on that side of the House now, men who have been superseded by others of uie same opinion, that it was a cry. They have said that the flag did not make any difference to them, that it was a question more or less of business and

trade. It is strongly intimated by shrewd and careful calculators-whether they are right or wrong, I am not going to argue the question because it is not up for argument at the present time-that the only thing that the agreement that is before us now has to recommend it is closer relations, so close that the flag will be coming across and staying across and not going back at all. Our friend Mr. Ham says: What is the use of going anywhere because you only have to come back again?-but this will be a case of coming where it does not .go back. Therefore, I am not surprised at the Minister of Finance trying to prevent this issue from being voted on squarely. The hon. member for Pictou says that this resolution does not mean anything. This resolution has been on the Order Paper for four or five days and if the hon. member for Pictou had been particularly interested in framing a resolution the grammar of which would meet with his approval, because he is a man of very great ability in his profession, he has had sufficient opportunity to do so. I feel satisfied that if he makes up his mind now to do it he and my hon. friend from London could get together and frame this resolution in such a way as would meet the situation and there would be no necessity for adjourning this debate. Adjourning the debate simply means that we vote down the resolution because there will be no other opportunity of bringing it before the House. This is the last private members day and even if it were not there would be no opportunity. Therefore, the adjourning of the debate means nothing more nor less than voting down the resolution and blocking the whole matter. The hon. member for Pictou went further and said that this would give the -government an intimation as to what should be done. This government have been in power since 1896, we are now in the year 1911, and they do not yet know what they should do with the flag. That is a splendid condition indeed! The hon. member for Pictou has had to get up and tell the people on that side of the House that during all this time they did not know they had a flag. The hon. gentleman tells them something that they did not know before, that they have a flag, and he adds that they will take the matter into consideration and fix the flag. I will not be very well pleased with the way that they will fix it up, but I am quite willing fo leave it to the members of this House to *regulate it for them. Let us regulate it "to-night. We have not very much to do, the government has nothing'to bringdown, it is private members night, let us fix the flag. In the morning we will be able to wake up and say that we have done some thing-we have regulated the flag. If they Mr. CROSBY.
are able to steal our trade they cannot steal our flag. Let us fix the flag. I do not desire to take up more of the time of the House. I do think that the hon. member for Pictou should not vote against the resolution. If the grammar does not suit the hon. gentleman let us get the grammar into it. Let us get half a dozen grammars into it if necessary, but let us have the resolution voted upon. Let us show, every one of us, that we are true Britishers. I am not trifling with a matter of this kind to-night.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Adam Brown Crosby: There are a great many
' hear, hears ' over there that have not much behind them. Still, I am willing to accept them on this occasion. There f-re many occasions on which I do not think much of their ' hear hears,' but, to-night, if they say * hear, hear,' I say: Let them vote * hear, hear.' The hon. member from Humboldt has come to the conclusion that it would not be fair to compel people, instead of putting the stars and stripes on the wall, to buy the paper manufactured in Canada with which to decorate their walls and thus stimulate the trade of the country. I trust that the hon. member who introduced this resolution will hold to his resolution as we hold to him. We have no desire to force the resolution upon the hon. member for Pictou or any other member. He can put more grammar or dictionary or any other additional conditions into it that he likes if it will make it any smoother for him, because sometimes it is very hard for him to swallow things and I hope that we may vote on the resolution to-night if he can fix it up.


Mr. M. CLARK (Red Deer).: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House, that I detain it for one moment with the greatest possible reluctance, but this is to me an entirely new class of political discussion and I do not care to give a vote in which the flag is implicated without explaining my position. I am affected by this resolution exactly as I should be if any hon. member on the other side arose and proposed that we should record that it is right for all Canadians to show respect and love to their parents. If any hon. member proposed such a resolution I should feel that it was insulting. I am affected exactly so towards this resolution. I think it is a most undesirable thing in the interests of all that we hold dearest in this country to have a vote upon the flag at all. I must say that those who force such a vote incur what to my mind is a very great responsibility. There are no doubts on this side-who infuses the doubts on the other side, and why infuse them? I must say in regard to our ' American citizens who come into the west

in large numbers that my experience is that of my friend from Humboldt: that they are extremely easily assimilated; not because that in an assertive and what might be to them an offensive way we wave the flag in their eyes, but because we try to show them we have a country over which the flag waves in which they can have as great privileges and as great happiness and as great prosperity as are to be found anywhere in the world. They learn to love the country, they learn to love its institutions, they learn to love, if you like its lower tariffs, and then they love the flag. My hon. friend from East ASgoma (Mr. Smyth) derives his inspiration in support of this resolution from the United States. I wonder he goes there for an example for anything. He told us the United States people would not wait an instant in a matter of this kind, and in that respect at least the hon. gentleman (Mr. Smyth) is a good States man. I have not found that the people of the United States are offensive in this manner. If I might venture to be egotistical I might tell the House that a few weeks ago I had the honour of delivering an address before the Canadian Club at Boston, and, in honour of your very humble servant the Union Jack floated from the Parker House to the other side of the street all the time I stayed at that hotel. But I differ from my hon. friend from East Algoma; I do not go to the United States for my thinking or inspiration on a subject of this kind; I would rather go to the other side of the water and I must say that I have never found any of what I would call this fussy self-assertiveness amongst the men who hold the historic position of being the greatest defenders of the flag. I recall the story of a fussy subordinate who in the days of the Indian mutiny went up to Sir Henry Havelock and said to him: Sir, I always carry out your orders to the letter, and Sir Henry replied : My good man, I never give orders, I only carry out those of the little lady (referring_to Queen Victoria). A like fussy person met the Duke of Wellington outside of a church, long years after the day of Waterloo, and he said to him: May I have the great honour of shaking hands with the hero of Waterloo, and the duke turned to him and said: Don't make a damn fool of yourself. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether that advice would be unparliamentary if I repeated it to gentlemen on the other side of the House, but, I submit it as being well worth their consideration. It is because (and I say these words in all sincerity) it is because I have always found in my hon. friend from London (Mr. Beattie)-for whom I have as great a persona! regard as for any member of this House-those very qualities of solid substantial manhood and the absence in his general deportment of what I have termed fussy self-assertiveness, that I regret extremely he did not accede to the very simple request, based upon good grounds as I think, that no great haste should be shown in pressing such a motion as this to a division.
Mr. PAQUET (L'lslet), (Text.) Mr. Speaker, I wish to offer a word of explanation. I approve the principle of the resolution introduced by my friend from London (Mr. Beattie).
I do not come here to scream about the loyalty of my race towards British institutions; it is known!
We, French Canadians, respect, we love the British flag, and are happy, in our province, to see it flying side by side with the tricoloured flag. Moreover, we like to see these two flags mix together on our social and national holidays, we are proud of both our splendid flags. And we would not have waited for that motion to put it into practice in the province of Quebec.
I am paired with my friend from Kamou-raska, otherwise I would vote for that resolution as its principle is written in the heart of every French Canadian.


Mr. BRUNO NANTEL (Terrebonne).: (Text.) I shall say but one word, Mr. Speaker. I very cordially approve the sentiments which the hon. member for L'lslet (Mr. Paquet) has just expressed. I sincerely believe this resolution should not have given rise to so much discussion, and that it should have been carried unanimously as was the one which the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) introduced the other day.
Last year, during a very important debate, the hon. the Prime Minister reminded the member for Jacques Cartier that he should not forget he was not only a Canadian subject, but also a British subject. Well, as a British subject, there should not be the least objection to the British flag flying together with the tricoloured flag which is dear to us.
As I am not paired, I shall with all my heart vote for the resolution of the hon. member for London.


Mr. WM. CHISHOLM (Antigonish).: We have heard with some interest the remarks of the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Crosby) and of the nationalist members for Quebec, but it seems to me that the flag is in great danger when it comes to be placed in the care of these gentlemen. I might tell my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), whose remarks were very appropriate to this discussion, that he need not worry in the slightest over the remarks of these hon. gentlemen. The junior member for Halifax finds fault with the Liberal party in Nova Scotia because the flag did not fly over the citadel in Halifax on certain occasions, but I have yet to learn that he or his party have ever shown any endearing affection towards that flag, and

when he commented upon the remarks of the hon. member for Pictou and of the Minister of Finance, I was rather astonished that he should venture on such ground. He spoke of the 'dictionary' and the language of the hon. member for Pictou, but possibly he was not able to understand the dictionary that the hon. member for Pictou used. So far as the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Crosby) is concerned, nature has not endowed him with any very high intelligence, and he has not been favoured with an education which would enable him to stand up here to criticise the language used by members on this side of the nouse, and more particularly by the hon. member for Pictou.


Adam Brown Crosby: I did not criticise the grammar of the hon. member for Pictou; I asked him if he would assist us in putting it in grammatical form.


William Chisholm: I should say he could have put it in proper form without any suggestion, hint or opinion from the junior member for Halifax. I am sure he would not thank that hon. member for any suggestion from a grammatical point of view. As to his remarks about the member for Pictou and the dictionary, I think they are entirely gratuitous, and I would suggest that when he comes to waving the flag he coniine himself entirely to the flag and do not give way to any criticism of any one else's diction.


Thomas Beattie: I am somewhat surprised, in fact, I am astonished, at the course this discussion has taken. I wish to tell the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) that I was not waving any flag; I simply put a quiet resolution on the Order Paper, wishing for an expression of opinion which would discourage foreigners coming into this country and waving not only one flag, but hundreds of flags. You cannot go to a theatre but on the stage, if the company have to wave a flag they wave the stars and stripes, or a foreign flag. I think it would be only common decency and politeness when these companies come here to take the money of our people that they should wave only the flag of our country. I have the greatest respect for foreign flags, but I think they might, in common politeness and decency, wave the flag of Great Britain. It seems to me ignorance on their part not to do so.
Reference has been made to flying the Union Jack on all our public buildings. I have no such intention; I do not wish it. There are certain buildings over which the flag should fly, such as customs houses. It flies on the customs house in London, but I had no intention of having it placed on all public buildings. I was not waving the flag; I simply wanted to discourage hundreds and hundreds of foreigners coming in here and bringing in not one, but dozens of Mr. CHISHOLM.
flags, covering all their vehicles. The moment they go to a watering place they erect a flagstaff apd on it place a foreign flag. Hundreds of children go to Muskoka and other places and find not a Union Jack, nothing but foreign flags. It is a great mistake, our own children get the idea that it is our flag and unfortunately many of our people do not understand the flag. The red ensign we fly on our buildings is a ship's flag and we have no right to fly it in that way. The Union Jack should fly on all private buildings. On our ships we use a Canadian flag, that is, a British flag, with a coat of arms in The corner to let the customs officers know that the ship is from Canada, and in Australia they do the same thing, but they are not national flags, and it is a pity that when our people want to use a flag they do not use the Union Jack, that the flag of the empire. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) has been very polite, saying the resolution was crude and ungrammatical. I would like to see some of his documents. If we read them through, I believe we would find many of them much worse than that. Some of these professional men have got the idea that no one is fit to draw a resolution but themselves. I have no fault to find with that. I am surprised that the member for Red Deer should think I was -waving the flag.
If I had been asked to withdraw the resolution at the proper time I would have done so. but after it has gone to the country now I would be ashamed to go back to my constituents and say I had withdrawn it. I would like to oblige the Finance Minister and the Minister of Public Works by withdrawing, but if I did so now I would become a laughing-stock. It is a resolution for which every man should vote. 1 simply w &nt an expression of opinion from the House to discourage this promiscuous flying of foreign flags instead of our own.
House divided on amendment, Mr. Macdonald (Pictou).

Messieurs
Allard,
Allen,
Aylesworth (Sir Allen),
Beaupa riant,
Behind.
Bickerdike,
Bureau,
Carvell,
Cash,
Champagne,
Chew,
Chisholm (Antigonish) Chisholm (Inverness), Clark (Red Deer), Clarke (Essex), Congdon,
Currie
(Prince Edward),
Doggie,
Lovell,
Macdonald,
MacNutt,
McAllister,
McColl,
McIntyre,
McKenzie,
McLean l(Huron), McMillan,
Marcile (Bagot), Martin (Montreal,
, St. Mary's),
Martin (Wellington), Meigs,
Michaud,
Molloy,
Murphy,
Nesbitt,

Delisle.
Demers,
Devlin,
Douglas,
Dubeau,
Ecrement,
Ethier,
Fielding,
Fortier,
Fowke,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
Gilbert,
Girard,
Graham,
Harris,
Harty,
Hodgins,
Hunt,
King,
Kyte,
Lachance,
Lafortune,
Lanctot (Laprairie-Napierville),
Lanctot (Richelieu), Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), law,
Neely,
Oliver,
Dapineau,
Pardee,
Pickup,
Proulx,
Prowse,
Pugsley,
Re:d (Restigouche), Richards,
Rivet,
Robb,
Ross (Middlesex), Rutan,
Savoie,
Sealey,
Sinclair,
Smith (Middlesex), Sperry,
Templeman,
Todd,
Turcotte (Nicolet), Turgeon,
Verville,
Warburton,
White (Victoria, Alta.) and
Wilson (Laval).-89.

Messieurs
Armstrong,
Arthurs,
Beattie,
Best,
Blain,
Blondin,
Borden (Halifax), Bradbury,
Bristol,
Broder,
Burrell,
Campbell,
Chisholm (Huron), Crosby,
Crothers,
Daniel,
Doherty,
Edwards,
Elson,
Fraser,
Goodeve,
Haggart (Winnipeg), Henderson,
Herron,
Kidd,
Lake,
Lennox,
Lewis,
Macdonell,
McCall,
Meighen,
Middlebro,
Nantel,
Perley,
Porter,
Itoche,
Schaftner,
Sek,smith,
Smyth,
Staples,
Stewart,
Taylor (Leeds), Taylor
(New Westminster) Tlioburn,
Wallace,
White (Renfrew), Wilcox,
Wilson (Lennox and Addington) and Wright.-49

Messieurs
Ministerial.
Brodeur,
Stratton,
Talbot,
McGiverin,
Miller,
Gordon (Kent), Fisher,
Lemieux,
Borden (Sir F.), Paterson,
Brown,
Lapointe,
Smith (Nanaimo),
Opposition.
Haggart,
Gordon (Nipissdng), Owen,
Barnard,
Sproule,
Lancaster,
Foster,
Osier,
Forget,
Northrup,
Lortie,
Paquet,
Cowan,
Tolmie,
Guthrie,
Carrier,
Schell,
Emmerson,
Conmee,
Smith (Stormont), Turriff,
McCraney,
McLean (Sunbury), Rankin,
McCoig,
German,
Low,
Knowles,
Martin (Regina), Gervais,
Turcotte (Quebec), Parent,
Roy (Dorchester), Black.
Boyer,
LeBlanc,
Roes (Rimouski).
Hughes,
Clare,
Monk,
Barker,
Reid,
McCarthy,
Boyce,
Ames,
Crocket,
Worthington,
Marshall,
Lalor,
Stanfield,
Price,
Donnelly,
Magrath,
Maddin,
Currie (Simcoe), Slxarpe (Ontario), Sharpe (Lisgar), Rhodes,
Thornton,
Jameson,
Russell.
Motion for adjournment of the debate agreed to.


William Pugsley: I can now give to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition the information as to all the days on which it is ordered that the flag shall be flown. They are as follows : March 17, St. Patrick's Day ; April 23, St. George's Day ; May 24, Victoria Day ; May 26, Queen's birthday ; June 3, King's Birthday ; June 23, Prince of Wales' Birthday ; June 24, St. Jean Baptiste Day ; July 1, Dominion Day ; November 30, St. Andrew's Day ; and now March 1, St. David's Day. These are in addition to the flying of the flag daily at all border towns and principal seaports.


THE MARKEY FISHING LEASE.
Glenlyon Campbell: For a copy of all orders in counoil, corres-, pondence and other papers relating to the fishing lease granted to one Markey in the waters of the Nelson river and other northern waters; and of all correspondence with regard to the proposed cancellation of same, and a copy of the said lease.
He said : Mr. Speaker, in making this motion, I do not want to bring in any contentious matter. All I want is to have the information brought down, and I feel sure that the minister will bring it down. My impression was that he had assured me that these fishing leases had all been cancelled. It is a matter of grave import to this country that they should be cancelled, particularly this one. In the event of the Hudson Bay railway being built, this lease, which cost $10 a year, will be of immense value. For that reason I hope that the fullest information that can be given to this House will be given by the minister. Later on, when I have the information, I will bring the matter up.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
(COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
For a return showing all applications for aid to the construction of dry docks under the Dry Dock Subsidies Act, 1910, the location or situation of each proposed dock, the dimensions thereof as well as the extent of property and plant proposed, the amount of subsidy in each case, and full particulars of all applications which have been granted, and all those now under consideration.-Mr. Taylor (Leeds).
For a copy of all letters, papers, telegrams, and documents, vouchers and pay sheets, showing the names of all persons who supplied materials or worked, and the prices and rates of wages, and sums paid to each, in connection with the construction of a wharf at Deep Brook, N.S.-Mr. Jameson.
For a return showing respectively, the total trade, the imports, the exports for each year from 184-6 to 1876, both inclusive, between the British North American possessions, except Newfoundland, and the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and other countries respectively.-Mr. Borden (Halifax).
For a copy of all orders in council, reports, correspondence, documents and papers touching the dismissal of the sub-collector of customs at Mahone Bay, Nova Scotia.-Mr. Taylor (Leeds).

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 4) to amend the Railway Act- Mr. Martin (St. Mary's, Montreal).

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.
William Stevens Fielding: I desire to lay on the table a supplementary return in relation to the reciprocity agreement, containing additional letters received on the subject, for and against.


Mr. BICKERDIKE.: I desire to call the attention of the Prime Minister to an important measure on the Order Paper for the protection of children in the cities, known as the Juvenile Delinquents Bill, which stands for its second reading. I am sure that it will only take about ten minutes to dispose of it.


Wilfrid Laurier: If the Bill of my hon. friend were the next in order there would be no objection ; but there are several just as important on the paper before that of my hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: Before the House adjourns I beg to call the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that we are very close to order No. 8, the further consideration of the resolution in favour of a substantial reduction in the duties on agricultural implements which I had the honour to urge upon the House one month ago. At a later date, when Mr. CAMPBELL.
we approached the order for resuming the discussion, the Prime Minister moved the adjournment of the House, so that the discussion was avoided at his instance. He assured me then that on the following Monday it would come up, but that again did not turn out to be correct. To-night the resolution is again shifted ahead by the motion of the Prime Minister, and I very much fear that the result will be that it will not be reached again this session, as I understand that this is the last private members' day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 28, 1911.