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

Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Has the lease of a house, consented to by the Minister of Militia and Defence of Canada, in favour of Prudent Bossd, in. the town of Levis, on the 11th of October, 1893, been cancelled ?
2.	If so, (a) when, (b) why and (c) at whose request?
3.	Was notice given to the tenant, in accordance with the terms of the said lease, that this lease would be cancelled?
4.	Has Prudent Bosse always conformed to the terms of his lease?
5.	Was the land leased, and such as described in the said lease, a portion of the land of the said Prudent Bosse?
6.	(a) To whom has the said land been leased, (b) what are the qualifications or occupation and fc) place of residence of the new tenant, (d) what is the yearly rental? !
7.	For what purpose is the leased land' used?


Mr. HUGHES (Minister of Militia):: 1.	Lease dated October 11, 1893, has been cancelled. There is no house on the property.
2.	(a) April 1, 1913. (b) Under the condition of the lease that the Grown has the right to resume possession at any time, on demand, (c) Mr. Bernier, M.P.P.
3.	Yes, on May 3, 1912.
4.	Yes.
5.	No. This land belongs to the Crown, and was transferred at Confederation to the control of the Dominion of Canada. It forms a portion of the military reserve at Levis.
6.	(a) Mr. Odilon Roberge, (b) Occupation, butcher, (c) Residence, 109 St. George street, Levis, (d) $12 per annum, same rental as that formerly paid by Mr. BossA
7.	Pasturage.


AMMON POSTMASTER.
Mr. EMMERSON:: 1.	Has John Wilbur, postmaster at Ammon, Westmorland county, New Brunswick, been dismissed? If so, for what cause?
2.	Were any charges preferred against him? If so, by whom, and what was their nature and purport?
3.	Was any investigation held? If so, by whom ?
4.	Has any one been appointed to succeed him? If so, who, and by whose recommendation?
5.	Were any petitions respecting the matter received from residents of the locality? If so, what was the nature and purport thereof?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	4 and 5. A petition was received asking for a change in the site and postmastership of the Ammon post office, and the inspector, having reported that the proposed site would better accommodate a larger number of the residents, the change in location was authorized, involving also a change in the postmastership.


MANITOBA LAND TITLES.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	What was the Governor General's pro-

clamation of July 15, 1870, in reference to land titles in Manitoba?
2.	Is it tbe policy of the Department of the Interior to set up the Statutes of Limitation in order to bar the rights of the pioneer Selkirk settlers of Red River, who have been deprived of the means of protecting their civil rights through the suppression of the public records from the custody of the state, at the transfer in 1870, covering the period from 1812 to 1835?
3.	Why does the department refer to the Exchequer Court the heirs of the pioneer Selkirk settlers, in the absence of the public records from the custody of the state?


Mr. DOHERTY:: There is no proclamation 'by the Governor General of July 15, 1870, known. The province of Manitoba did not exist at that date.
2.	It is not known what rights there are.
3.	The department does not refer to the Exchequer Court the heirs of the pioneer Selkirk settlers.


HAY AND STRAW GRADES.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Has the Government been asked to fix grades for hay and straw in western Canada?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the Government to meet the request made in this regard?	!


Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	The Department of Trade and Commerce has received representations in connection * with the fixing of grades for hay and straw in western Canada.
2.	The subject of fixing grades is now engaging the attention of the department.


THE PEACE CENTENARY.
Mr. GERMAN:: 1.	Is the Government aware that an International Conference has recently been held in the city of New York for the purpose of discussing methods of celebrating the centenary of the signing of the treaty of Ghent?
2.	Does the Government contemplate the granting of aid towards the holding of such a celebration?


Mr. BORDEN:: 1. The Government has received the following information from the officers of the Canadian Peace Centenary Association.
An International Conference took place in New York from~May 5 to May 9, between delegations representing the American Committee for the celebration of the One Hundredth Anniversary of Peace between the United States and the British Empire; the British Committee for the celebration of the One Hundredth Anniversary of Peace between the British Empire and the United States; and the Canadian Peace Centenary Association. In addition, it was attended by representatives of Australia, of Newfoundland and of the city of Ghent.
Mr. PROULX.
The delegates from the British Committee included: The Right Hon. Baron Wear-dale; the Right Hon. Earl Stanhope; the Hon. Sir Arthur Lawley, G.C.S.I., G.C.I.E., K.C.M.G.; the Right Hon. Sir Herbert Maxrwell, P.C.; Hon. Neil Primrose, M.P., Mr. Moreton Frewen; Mr. Henry Vivian and Mr. H. S. Perris.
The delegates from the Canadian Peace Centenary Association were:	Sir Edmund
Walker, C.V.O., LL.D.; Senator R. Dandu-rand; Mr. Travers Lewis, K.C., Mr. C. A. Magrath, Mr. C. F. Hamilton.
The delegates from the American Committee, who were more numerous, included Hon. Joseph H. Choate, Judge Alton B. Parker, Hon. Chauncey M. Depew, Mr. Nicholas Murray Butler, Mr. John D. Crim-mins, Dr. Thomas Nelson Page, Mr. Andrew Carnegie, Mr. Cornelius Vanderbilt, Mr. H. P. Judson, Mr. John A. Stewart, Mr. William Church Osborn, Mr. George Burleigh, Mr. George T, Wilson and Mr. W. B. Howland.
Australia was represented by Sir George H. Reid, G.C.M.G., High Commissioner for Australia; Newfoundland by Mr. Eugene H. Outerbridge; and the municipality of Ghent by M. C. deBruyen and M. Alphonse Van Werveke.
The delegates were given a cordial and sympathetic reception by the President of the United States, Mr. Wilson, by the VicePresident of the United States, Mr. Marshall; by the Secretary of State of the United States, Mr. Bryan; by Mr. Theodore Roosevelt, formerly President of the United States; by Mr. Clark, Speaker of the House of Representatives; and by Mr. Underwood, leader of the majority in the House of Representatives. The American Committee showed a zeal and interest in the movement which created a most favourable impression on all who came in contact with them.
The British and Canadian delegates received many courtesies and attentions from the United States Committee as well as from other prominent and representative citizens.
The Government understands that the proceedings of the conference, which were entirely harmonious, resulted in the passing of resolutions recommending a definite scheme of commemoration, partly by the erection of visible monuments, possibly of identical design; partly by the ceremonies attending the laying of the corner stone of these monuments, and partly by the establishment of lectureships scholarships and similar methods of diffusing correct information upon international relations.
The Canadian delegation has communicated full information with regard to the conference in a letter which is herewith laid on the table for the information of the House.

2. While the Canadian Peace Centenary Association is an unofficial body, the Government strongly sympathizes with and approves o! its object and purpose of promoting good will and peace between the nations of the world. The Government is disposed to give favourable consideration to a grant such as that mentioned in the question in case similar action should be taken in other countries.
The following is the letter referred to:
Canadian Peace Centenary Association.
Ottawa, May 24, 1913.
Sir,-The Canadian delegates have the honour to lay before you a statement of the events associated with the International Conference recently held in New York for the purpose of adopting a definite programme ifor the celebration oif the centenary of the sign-in s of the treaty of Ghent.
The delegation from the Canadian Peace Centenary Association was headed by Sir Edmund Walker, C.V.O., the president of tlie association. At the conclusion of the deliberations Sir Edmund Walker was obliged to proceed to Europe, having indeed, more than once postponed his sailing and dislocated his personal arrangements in order to discharge his duties as a member of the conference. In his absence the duty of making this report devolves upon the remaining members of the delegation.
The conference did not regard itself as a body authorized to determine with finality the questions before it, but rather as a meeting of delegations from parent bodies to which report must be made and to which all recommendations must be submitted. Ail business transacted and resolutions passed are conceived upon that basis.
The British delegation consisted of:- The Rt. Hon. Baron Weardale; the Rt). Hon. Earl Stanhope; The Hon. Sir Arthur Lawley, G.C.S.I., G.C.I.E., K.C.M.G.; the Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert Maxwell, P.C., the Hon. Neil Primrose, M.P.; the Hon. C. T. Mills, M.P.; Mr. Shirley Benn. M.P.; Mr. J.	Allen Baker, M.P.; Mr. Moreton Frewen; Mr. Henry Vivian, and Mr. H. S. Perris.
The American delegation, which was much larger, included:	Mr. Joseph H. Chocate,
former American Ambassador to Great Britain, New Work; Judge Alton B. Parker, New York; the Hon. Robert Bacon, Boston; Mr. Henry Clews, New York; Mr. Cbauncey Depew, New Work; Mr. Howard D. Hadley Plattsburg, New York, Mr. Henry Fairfield Osborn, New York; Mr. William Church Osborn, New York; Dr. James Brown Scott, Washington; Bishop N. S. Thomas, Cheyenne, Wyoming; Mr. George William Burleigh, New York; Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, President of Columbia University. New York; Colonel Benehan Cameron, Raleigh, N.C.; Mr. Andrew Carnegie, New York; Mr. John D. Crimmins, New York; Mr. William Curtis Demorest, New York; Captain William D. Forbes, New York; Mr. Austin G. Fox, New York; Dr. E. R. L. Gould, New York; Hon. George Gray, Wilmington, Del.; Mr. VV. 0. Hart, New Orleans; Mr. Job E. Hedges, New York; Mr. William B. Howland, New York; Mr. Marcus M. Marks, New York; Dr. Thomas Nelson Page, Washington; Mr. George Foster
Peabody, New York; Dr. Louis Livingston Seaman, New York; Mr. Andrew B. Humphrey, New York; Dr. George F. Kunz, New York; Mr. Isaac N. Seligman, New York; Dr. Albert Shaw, New York; Mr. T. Kennard Thomson, New York; Dr. James L. Tryon, Boston; Mr. Cornelius Vanderbilt, New York; Mr. George T. Wilson New York; Mr. George W. Perkins, New York; Hon. Lyman J. Gage, Point Loma, Cal.; Mr. Harry P. Judson, Chicago; Mr. John A. Stewart, New York.
The Canadian delegates were; Sir Edmund Walker, C.V.O.; the Hon. Raoul Dandurand, P.C.; Mr. C. A. Magrath; Mr. Travers Lewis,
K.C., and Mr. C. F. Hamilton.
In addition, the Rt. Hon. Sir George H. Reid, P.C., G.C.M.G., High Commissioner for Australia, accompanied the British delegation; two" Belgian gentlemen, M.C. de Bruyen and M. Alphonse Van Werveke, represented the city of Ghent; and Mr. Eugene H. Outer-bridge was requested by the Prime Minister of Newfoundland, to represent that colony.
The proceedings of the conference began on May 5 and terminated on May 9. During their continuance the American committee constituted themselves the hosts of the visiting delegates, and discharged that function with the utmost generosity. Great interest was evinced in the conference while it sat in New York, an interest which in part took the form of a hospitality which culminated in a banquet held on the evening of May 9. The visiting delegates were afterwards conveyed to Boston, Washington, Philadelphia, Chicago and other cities, where flattering attentions were paid to them; the Canadian delegates were unable to visit all of these places. It may not be out of place to add that the newspapers of the United States devoted to the proceedings of the conference a degree of attention which we were assured was quite unusual; while there was much editorial comment, couched in terms of a gratifying friendliness.
We feel constrained to state that apart altogether from the abundant hospitality accorded us, we have every reason to feel gratified at the distinguished personnel and cordial disposition of the American committee. In New York Mr. Joseph H. Choate showed the most active interest in the conference, and on several occasions acted as its chairman; Judge Alton B. Parker, who was Democratic candidate for the presidency in 1908. attended the conference regularly, and Mr. Theodore Roosevelt, former president of the United States, at his home at Oyster Bay addressed and entertained the delegates in a most cordial manner. President Nicholas Murray of Columbia University was active in the work of the conference; Mayor Gaynor of New York formally welcomed the delegates in a cordial speech; Dr. Thomas Nelson Page, the well-known author, bore an active part in the deliberations; Mr. Carnegie, Mr. Cornelius Vanderbilt, Mr. Henry Clews, Mr. William Church Osborn, Mr. George W. Perkins, and Dr. Louis Livingston Seaman exerted themselves to make the conference a success. Other prominent men in New York who bore a part in the deliberations or otherwise showed interest were Mr. Walter H. Page, the new Ambassador to Great Britain,

public opinion everywhere that the time has come when international rivalries and differences, though numerous and severe, may be.settled without the carnage and the horrors! of war. Although it be unreasonable to disregard the possibility of conflict arising in the future, out of mutual or partial misun-: derstanding, yet we gratefully recognize that the chances of misunderstanding have been largely eliminated by the degree in which modern science has facilitated intercourse and accelerated communication. We are therefore encouraged to hope that the development of letters, science and the arts, of commerce, industry and finance, of mutual knowledge, trust and good feeling on the part of those who owe different allegiances and who speak different tongues, may profitably absorb the energy of mankind, as well as offer opportunity for the display of the noblest and' finest traits of mind an4 of character.
Great Britain .has been a colonizing nation, and the United States has drawn to its population various and powerful elements from different countries and different flags. Therefore, a century of peace between Great Britain and her dominions beyond the seas on the on el hand, and the United States on the other hand, touches directly both the interest and the imagination of every land to which Great Britain's sons have gone, as well as those of every nation from which the present day population of the United States has been drawn. Such a celebration will not only mark the close of a century of exceptional significance and importance, but it will call attention to an example and an ideal that we earnestly hope may be followed and pursued in the years to come. What nations have done, nations can do.
We respectfully request that His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State of the United States do transmit this invitation, through the proper world official channels, to the governments of the world, in order that both by participation of governments and by the co-operation of men of good-will in every land, this celebration may be so carried out as to mark not merely the close of one hundred years of peace between English speaking peoples, but the opening of what we sincerely trust will be a fresh era of peace and good-will between all nations of the world.
The International Boundary.
In addition to the foregoing, at a sub-committee meeting held between the delegates representing the United States and Canada, for the purpose of taking up the matter of appropriate marking of the international boundary in commemoration of the first hundred years of peace between the two nations, it was decided that suggestions he made to the organizations of the United States and Canada, as follows:-
That they urge upon their respective Governments -
(a)	The erection of arches at the points where the proposed highways-Quebec and Miami in the east, and Los Angeles to Vancouver in the west- cross the international boundary.
(b)	The erection of shafts at a few historical and prominent points upon or on each side of the boundary (which, in the latter
Mr. BOR') IN.
case, should be erected in the immediate vicinity of tlie boundary) at omn'-s to be selected hereafter. This might properly include water-gates on opposite sides of the Detroit river, near the city of Detroit.
(c)	That such arches and shafts be briefly and suitably inscribed.
It was further felt that these outward and visible signs of the spirit of the occasion should not be restricted to the international boundary, but should also find a place in the great centres of population, often far distant therefrom, thus carrying the message of mutual good-will to the mass of both peoples.
It was urged before the sub-committee that an enduring monument in the shape of a memorial bridge he built across the Niagara river. This and other like projects appealed quite strongly to the sub-committee, but it felt that, involving as it does very large expenditures on the part of the governments of both countries, they might very properly be allowed to stand for further consideration until the respective committees shall have had greater opportunity to look more closely into these larger projects in accordance with the following resolution :-
' This sub-committee recommends that after the American and Canadian committees shall have decided upon a plan of celebration regarding boundary monuments, memorials and arches, a commits.'e of six, composed of three members from each of the respective committees, shall be appointed with instructions to consult experts in art, architecture and engineering with a view to the preparation of plans and the execution of the particular works to be undertaken.'


STAFF OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Eight Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved:: That the classification and organization of the staff of the House of Commons, as submitted to the House by His Honour the Speaker on the third day of June he ap+ proved and confirmed.
He said: I would refer hon. members to page 1428 of the Votes and Proceedings, where details covered by this resolution will be found. I propose to have an amendment made in that section of the resolution relating to the committees branch. The words ' and chief clerk of special committees ' appear in connection with the name of Mr. E. P. Hartney, examiner and registrar of Private Bills. I move that the words 1 and chief clerk of special committees ' be struck out.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I would suggest to my right hon. friend that it would be well to take the classification as we take the railway subsidies and go over the names one by one. There are some names as to which I would like to have some information.


Robert Laird Borden: The House might go into committee for that purpose.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think it would be well.

On motion of Mr. Borden, the House went into Committee on the resolution. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair).
Smith, Lt.-Col. H. It., C.M.G., I.S.O., J.P., A.D.C,. grade 1-A, Sergeant-at-Arms, $3,950.


Wilfrid Laurier: The salary of Dr. Flint, clerk of the House, is $5,000. I have no observations to make as to that. And the salary of Mr. Laplante, assistant clerk, is $4,000. I have no objection to that But the Sergeant-at-Arms, whose name comes before that of Mr. Laplante, is given a salary of $3,950. Why this discrepancy?


Robert Laird Borden: Discrepancy between
what?


Wilfrid Laurier: Between the
salary of the assistant clerk and that of the Sergeant-at-Arms.


Robert Laird Borden: According to my recollection, the discrepancy is not nearly so great as it was a few years ago. I think that at that time the Deputy Clerk had $700 or $800 higher salary than the Sergeant-at-Arms.
English section-Journals branch-Colwell, Charles F., grade 2-A, Clerk of Orders and Records, $2,100.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Colwell is a very old and faithful officer of the House. Why his salary should be only $2,100 and his grade only 2-A, instead of his being in the first division, I do not know. My right hon. friend himself, I know, has had no time to give to these matters. I do not know whether he was a member of the committee on this reorganization or not.


Robert Laird Borden: No, I was not. But I
know that this whole question ha.s been considered very faithfully by His Honour the Speaker'and the other members of the committee. The acting Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Perley) is better informed with regard to these matters than I, and if there is any information I am not able to give, I will ask him to give it.


Wilfrid Laurier: Does the hon. member for Argentueil (Mr. Perley) know the reason why Mr. Colwell is classified as he is?


Mr. PERLEY:: I can give no particular reason for it. This branch of the service is proposed to be reorganized under this resolution, and the whole Journals branch put together, with Mr. Bowles at the head of it. It was not considered advisable that this particular office should be advanced_or made a branch by itself.


Mr. GRAHAM:: It would seem that almost every one in the same circumstances had been advanced except Mr. Colwell.


George Halsey Perley: No one in that branch has been advanced above Mr. Colwell.


George Perry Graham: Here is a man who has been a good many years here, and who, to the knowledge of all, is one of the hardest-working men in the service, and fully efficient. His duties keep him here at night until the House rises, no matter what time it may be, because he must attend to the Orders of the next day. He is very obliging, and, even though a good many of us violate the rules in handing in our notices late-I suppose members of the present Government do it too, as do other members-Mr. Colwell always seeks to meet their wishes. It is not fair to him and it is not encouraging to a man of his abilities not to get promotion when the time comes. No person will question his ability and knowledge. I would certainly suggest to the Government that they include him in these promotions.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no exception to take to what has been said with regard to Mr. Colwell's capacity and devotion to duty. Mr. King has been in the service since 1886, and he has now for the first time been advanced to division 1 B. , Mr. Colwell, I think, has been in the service about twelve years, less than half the time of Mr. King's seivice, and under the circumstances I do not think he has been treated with any injustice.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer):: Surely my right hon. friend will not insist on the reason that he has just given-length of service. I would think that the reason given by the member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) should have more weight. The scripture against the procedure of my right hon. friend is that the man who went in at the eleventh hour was treated just the same as the others.


George Perry Graham: Length of service is
surely not a test which my right hon. friend would employ to come to a conclusion as to the ability of anyone in his employ. The remuneration a man gets should be based upon his energy and his ability to carry out the duties of his office, and in any case twelve years is a substantial length of time for a man to- be in one position. Of course, I cannot accomplish anything if my right hon. friend does not see his way clear to meet my views, but I would urge upon him to consider the matter.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: As I understand the
situation, it is this. Mr. Colwell is now in division 2 A, ranking as clerk of orders and records, salary $2,100, and he has now reached the maximum of his class. If he be promoted, he will not receive an immediate increase of salary, but the maximum of the higher grade is, I understand, $2,800. Mr. King, clerk of Votes and Pro-


H955 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
ceedings, has been placed in the higher grade, in the class the maximum of which is $2,800. I think I can speak for hon. 'members on both sides of the House when I say there is no more industrious and obliging official of the House of Commons than Mr. Colwell, nis duties are exceedingly arduous; during a session of this kind his hours are even more arduous than his duties, and his period of service has been long. Why a distinction should be made between Mr. King and Mr. Colwell I cannot say. I think the Government might well reconsider this classification, and put Mr. Colwell in the higher class, and enable him as years go on to draw an increased salary.
Robert Laird Borden: I will ask His Honour
the Speaker and the committee to give their best consideration to the suggestions that have been made on behalf of Mr. Colwell.


Wilfrid Laurier: The next
two items are: Clerk of sessional papers and of joint committee on printing, and assistant clerk in Votes and Proceedings office. Are these new offices?


Robert Laird Borden: No.


George Halsey Perley: * This reorganization is to take effect on the 1st of July. The positions have been held by Mr. Polkinghorne and Mr. Macdonell; it is proposed to superannuate these two gentlemen.
Committees Branch-E. P. Hartney, 1-A, examiner and registrar of private Bills, and chief clerk of special committees, $3,300.


Robert Laird Borden: I move that this item be amended by striking out the words ' and chief clerk of special committees.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hansard Division-Translation branch.
Mr. BELAND:: In the French copy, the maximum salary of Mr. Larose is given as $2,650, and in the English copy the salary runs up to $2,800.


George Halsey Perley: Mr. Earose has been placed in division 1 A, the minimum salary of which is $2,800.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: I do not rise to criticise this increase; I think the cost of living is felt by the employees of the Government to a greater extent than by any other class of society; but, as this translation is more or less under the supervision of the Debates Committee, I wish to express my regret that the Debates Committee has not been consulted with regard to the reorganization and re-classification of the translating staff. The Debates Committee is the proper body to supervise the translation of ' Hansard ' in the House of Commons. We had during this session a special meeting called by the chairman, the hon. member for New Westminster Mr. GUTHRIE.
(Mr. Taylor), and the complaints were many and loud with regard to the translation of ' Hansard.' I do not blame any translator in particular; I know that the majority of the translators are men of the highest ability; but, unfortunately, there are two or three on the staff who are totally inefficient and unable to translate decently. I can assure the members of the committee that it is rather annoying when one speaks in English in the House, to find his remarks the next morning or a few days afterwards translated into French which is far from being good French. I have given illustrations to the members	of the	Debates	Committeeduring the winter, and they all agreed with me that some of the translations of speeches	made during this and	thelast session have been simply horrible. I resent having my remarks translated in that way into French. We all love our mother tongue, and when the members of the French speaking minority in this House	speak	in English	theleast they can	expect	is	that
their speeches, shall be well translated. We have, as I stated, an excellent staff. I could name, for instance, men like Mr. Fortier Mr. Gascon, Mr. Gerin, Mr. Girard, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Labine. Mr. Lasalle, and Mr. Desaulniers, who are expert translators. I am told, and it was established to our satisfaction at the Debates Committee, that no revision of the translation is made before it reaches the Printing Bureau. We were told that the copy is rushed through the translation office to the Printing Bureau because we are anxious to get the French 'Hansard' at the next meeting of this House, and that we cannot afford to wait.
I can assure the majority in the House of Commons that we would much prefer that the publication of the unrevised French 'Hansard' should be delayed two or three days, if need be, so that we might have a proper translation of our speeches. We have impressed upon the committee the necessity of having a thorough revision made before the manuscript leaves the translation office for the Printing Bureau. We have stated to the committee that this is absolutely necessary, and the committee agreed with us. My good friend from New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) agreed with me, and so did my friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) who is an old journalist. But our orders have been ignored, I am sorry to say, by the chief of the translators, Mr. Larbse. Be had it in his head that he knew it all better than we did, and so the system continued. Here is the trouble: The manuscript of the translation leaves the translators' office without any revision, goes directly to the Printing Bureau, and we receive, the next day, the unrevised French 'Hansard'. This unrevised edition

of the French 'Hansard' is the one that is distributed to the French press in Quebec and other parts of Canada. There are mistakes, there are absurdities, in that unrevised edition; but when the mistakes and the absurdities have left Parliament and are spread throughout Canada in the French press, they are there and remain there, and we have to wait some days before we get the revised edition of the French 'Hansard.' I say it is simply intolerable, and the will of the French members of the House of Commons on both sides should be respected. The hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Boulay) was present at one sitting of the committee, and he remembers how we impressed the committee with the necessity of obtaining this revision. I have never risen in the House to lay a complaint against the French translators, and I Tepeat it again: You have on that staff some very able men. There are experts in translation but their work is very often destroyed by others. I could give you instances if time were not so precious at this stage of the session. I really feel inclined to ask the committee to strike off one item. I shall not do it, because I am sure that I would be accused of trying to take away from one of my own compatriots the living which he gets from this Parliament. But the least we might expect from that gentleman is that he should obey the orders of the Debates Committee.


Mr. BOULAY:: Mr. Chairman,


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would ask my hon.
friend, who has taken a great interest in this matter, if he would express what he has to say in English.


Herménégilde Boulay: I would like to know
if this translation division means that the translators in future will not be under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Debates. Will a new committee be formed, or will the translation branch be under the Speaker only?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not understand that the reorganization and reclassification now proposed makes any difference in that respect.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We in the Debates
Committee have practically no jurisdiction.


Robert Laird Borden: The point is as to
whether or not this rearrangement effects any change in that regard. I do not see how it possibly could.


Wilfrid Laurier: It effects nothing but the salaries.


Robert Laird Borden: And the organization.


Mr LEMIEUX:: The hon. member for
New Westminster (Mr. Taylor), the chairman of the Debates Committee, can state
that when we brought the chief translator before the committee this winter, this official said that he was in the hands of the Speaker, and has ignored completely our orders.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I did not consider myself competent to deal. with a matter of this nature. It seems to me it ought to be as much as possible under the control of the Debates Committee. They make their recommendations, and I endeavour to see that they are carried out. With regard to defective translation, as an old member of this House, I may say that I have heard these complaints for the last thirty years, so that they are not new. Whether the translation is worse or better now than it has been in the past, of course I am not prepared to say. But it did seem to me that it would require very careful examination by experts in French and English translation to determine where the fault lies. There are at the Printing Bureau two men who, when complaints were made in this regard, were brought before me, so that I might ascertain whether or not they were faithfully revising the translation. So far as I could find they were faithfully endeavouring to do their work all right. Beyond that, of course, I could not go. There are many members of this staff, several of whom, I think it is admitted, do their work very well, and it is very difficult to tell who is doing the bad work. Therefore it did seem to me that if the intention was to find where the weakness was, it would be necessary to have an inquiry by competent men who understand that work in order to reach a conclusion. I did not feel that I was competent to deal with it. With regard to the arrangement of the staff, it is much the same as it has been heretofore. It was submitted to the Civil Service Commission with the request that they go over it, consult with the men, and arrange it according to their judgment. That was done, and of course I accepted the arrangement as correct.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is well
understood, of course, that all employees of this House are under the supervision of Mr. Speaker; but when the reporting of the debates was introduced in this House in 1875, a special committee was appointed to supervise the debates, and ever since it has been understood that all the employees on that staff were under the orders of that committee. I do not know whether or not these officers are legally under the supervision of Mr. Speaker. Nominally they are, but in reality they have always been under the Debates Committee. All the Speakers that I can remember have done as Mr. Speaker has done at the present time-left the matter altogether in the hands of the committee. I understand, however, that

some of the translators refuse to recognize the powers of the committee, and that is the difficulty that has arisen in this matter.


Mr. PELLETIER:: I certainly think that
the state of things which has been described by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), cannot be tolerated. I was not aware that there were such gross errors in the French ' Hansard.' I have heard of them for the first time this morning.


Wilfrid Laurier: You cannot
read it very carefully.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I must confess that I do not read it, but if I ever do read it, I shall probably find that they have made some big blunders in translating what 1 have .said. But on principle I think that the hon. member for Rouville is right in complaining that such things have happened, and in calling for a remedy. I agree entirely with hon. members opposite that the employees are under the guidance and direction of the Debates Committee, and any attempt to ignore the wishes or orders of that committee should not be tolerated at all. But I understand that this branch of the work is undermanned. A recommendation was made years ago when Mr. Gervais,' who is now a judge of the Court of Appeal, was chairman of the Debates Committee, that another good French translator should be added to the staff. Up to this date, that addition has not been made, for what reason I do not know. I desire to throw no blame on anybody, but, as the Speaker put it a moment ago, these complaints have been made for a long time. Some of these men may be incompetent; I do not know about that; but certainly some of them are overworked, and when a man is overworked it is not to be wondered at if he makes mistakes. I think we should take care of that .situation; and I would suggest that before prorogation there should be a meeting of the Debates Committee in order that an effort may be made to cope mith it. If that appeals to the Speaker and to hon. members who are members of the committee, an emergency meeting of the committee might be held. I do not know about Mr. Larose. If he has taken that position-I do not know that he has-he has no right to take it. However,
I suggest that something should be done at once to relieve the situation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend the Postmaster General states what is absolutely true: some members of that staff are overworked, but they are also handicapped. The mistakes and absurdities, however, do not arise from those who are overworked: they arise from the inability of some members of the staff-and we know them. Sir,
Sir WILFRID LAURIER
during this session I was asked by a former Consul General of France, whom my hon. friend knows well, one of the most distinguished men that we have had in Canada, to send him a copy of ' Hansard ' containing the naval debate. He was very much interested in that subject. I sent him the French edition and the English edition, and I wrote to him asking his choice. To my sorrow and shame, he replied that he would rather read the English version than the French. Here is a Frenchman, a devoted friend of Canada, who writes from Paris that he would rather read the English edition of our ' Hansard ' than the French edition. The majority of the staff are exceedingly able men, but they ara handicapped. Take now the case of Mr. Hughes, who is .suffering in his eyesight, or the case of Mr. Lasalle, who has practically lost the use of his right arm in writing. They appealed to the Speaker at the beginning of the session, and I must thank the Speaker for what he did for them, two very able and trusted translators. Yes, we should cheerfully give those civil servants the help for which they are in need, because, as my hon. friend knows, their work is most difficult. It is expert work, and if there are two or three inferior translators, with the best staff in the world you will have the medley that one can imagine. I would certainly favour the appointment, not of one, but of two other translators of the debates, so as to relieve men like Mr. Lasalle, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Labine, Mr. Gerin, Mr. Girard, and others. Thev are able men, but are overworked and handicapped. At present the translation is spoilt by the interspersion of very inferior translation done by a few others. As regards the supervision of the office, Mr. Larose is also an excellent translator; but he should obey the instructions and commands of the Debates Committee. When he is told that he should revise the copy before it reaches the Printing Bureau, he should obey our orders and he should not take it upon himself to say: ' Well, I will consult the Speaker, and I will not recognize your authority.' Mr. Larose is under our direction, and he must obey our orders. It is because there is no revision of the manuscripts made at the translation office before it reaches the Printing Bureau that we have these absurdities in ' Hansard ' which spoil the good work of efficient translators, and which belittle the value of our French ' Hansard.'


Robert Laird Borden: It is desirable, of course, that the translation should be made as speedily as possible, and correctly made. Is it the opinion of the Debates Committee that the staff of the translation branch, which we are now considering, should be increased?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Debates Committee did not pronounce on that during this session, because the question was the revision of the manuscript before it reached the Printing Bureau. We did not consider the other question; but members of the committee are here. Personally speaking, I have followed this work, I have it at heart, and I take it as a matter of pride that our French ' Hansard ' should be the equal of the English ' Hansard.' Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that this staff should be strengthened. 1 ask my hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Belaud), my hon. friend from Temiscouata (Mr. Gauvreau), my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon), all the French members of the House who take an interest in ' Hansard,' if they are not of opinion that, the staff should be increased? I would give them a chance to be relieved of some of the work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: With regard to Mr. Hughes and Mr. LaSalle, I might explain that Mr. Hughes has done very little work during the present session on account of his illness; but there have been others to do the work. The question which seemed to be of interest was in regard to the revision of the translation and whether the Tevisers should be here or at the Printing Bureau. It was represented to me that it would be an economy to keep them at the Printing Bureau, and for that Tea-son they were put there, because, as the revision commenced and went on at the Printing Bureau the copy was handed over to the typesetters so that the work of typesetting and revision could be carried on simultaneously. If they remained here there would be delays, and the holding back of copy for a time; because, if it were in the hands of the chief here, portions would have to be kept back until other portions were ready to accompany it. But if they were there they could deal with the copy as it came in from moment to moment, and the:ce would be no time lost. These officials revise the translation which goes into the hands of the printer. It seemed to me that there was some merit in that method, and therefore I did not recommend any change in it, although at first I did contemplate giving an order that the revisers of the translation be located here instead of at the Printing Bureau. In regard to the suggestion that there should be one or two more translators, the matter came before me in the midst of the session, during the time that this reorganization was going on, and, intending to have this reorganization made, I thought it well, instead of recommending new appointments, to add to the present staff at the commencement of next session. It is the intention to do that, although it is
not mentioned in this report, and therefore it may not be understood.


Mr. CARVELL:: I would like to Know if the Debates Committee have been consulted as to the- reorganization which is here recommended.


Mr. TAYLOR:: I have to endorse fully the complaint made by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) as to the condition of the first edition of the French ' Hansard,' of the House of Commons, and also to express my regret that, after the matter had been very carefully considered, and a remedy suggested by the Debates Committee which we felt sure would prove to be absolutely effective, our recommendation was turned down, for some reason never disclosed to the committee, and the present ineffective means of dealing with the ' Hansard ' was continued just as it had been before the committee dealt with the subject. I may say that the Debates Committee have been ruled to have no authority at all except to discuss matters affecting ' Hansard '-that it has been ruled that we have no power even to make a recommendation to this House; so that all the Debates Committee could do was to write a polite letter to Mr. Speaker stating that in the opinion of the committee a certain course should be adopted to improve ' Hansard.' We found that the trouble could be very easily rectified, and we made a recommendation which involved not one dollar of expense or any increase of staff-simply that the translation should be revised before the printer got the copy, instead of after it had been printed and distributed, which is the course followed now. From the best inquiries I could make, the two gentlemen who are at the Printing Bureau making this revision are as capable men as can be found anywhere for the work. I discussed the matter with them, and they told me that if they were put, as we recommended they should be put, in the room with the translators, to get the translators' copy just as it came from their hands, and as the news editor of a paper gets his reporters' copy as it comes from their hands, they might revise it and do it just as well as, and even better, than they revise it now. They told me that the work would be no more to them, and that there would be no delay in handing the copy to the printer, and there would be no trouble of any kind whatever. If these two translators, were taken from the Printing Bureau, and put into the translators' office to take the copy and read and revise it before it went to the printer, I am satisfied that the cause of complaint, would be removed; and I have to express my disappointment again that after the Debates Committee had gone so thoroughly into this question and had called atten-

tion to the matter their recommendation was turned down.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I thank my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Taylor), who is an old journalist, and who knows where the trouble lies. My hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) is also an old journalist, and he also knows where the trouble is. It is all very well to say that, in order to rush the printing of ' Hansard, you must send your manuscript to the Printing Bureau to he set up, and that there are two men there for proof reading. But that is not the way to cure the evil. Sir, French is a most difficult language, even much as you may be surprised, let me say that after some practice the French-Canadian member who speaks English in the House finds it easier after a time to speak English than pure and classical French. Let me explain how the translation is done. The copy is sent from the 'Hansard' office to the translators, and is divided into so many pages for each translator, and they begin work early in the morning. There are many different words in English which express the same ideas in French, and if the translator does not see the manuscript his confrere has, and does not understand the context, absurdities creep in. If the chief translator would take the manuscript and with the help of the two translators stationed at the Printing Bureau, examine it before it leaves the translating office, it would not be printed with the absurdities we complain of. Although the Debates Committee expressed the opinion that this should be done, I regret to say that the order of the Debates Committee has been ignored. If it is the opinion of the committee that two more translators should be added, this classification should be delayed until next session, and meanwhile the two translators would be appointed and the Debates Com-mitte would in the meantime examine more carefully the situation, and be in a better position to judge whether or not some persons are entitled to an increase in their salary.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I fail to understand how the recommendation of the Debates Com-mitte has been turned down. The usual course is for the committee to report to the Speaker its recommendations, and the Speaker has authority to carry out the recommendation of the Debates Committee. I fail to realize how the chief translator could turn down such a recommendation of the committee. We all realize that the work of translation is very difficult, and the work of revision is also a matter of difficulty. I believe the work of revision would require more than one man.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There are two men at
the Printing Bureau.
Mr. TAYLOR.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Are we to understand
that the two men at the Printing Bureau are translators, or only proofreaders?


Rodolphe Lemieux: They are appointed as translators and they are described in the reorganization as belonging to the translation branch, but they were sent by Mr. Larose to act as proofreaders. Any journalist knows that a man may be an excellent proofreader and a poor translator; or, on the other hand, he may be an excellent translator and a poor proofreader.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My own opinion was
that the men should be up here. I went to see the place where they work and I found there was no room for them. It was contended that the urgent demand for having the French unrevised edition come out as early as the English made it necessary that these officials should be kept at the Bureau. I still thought there ought to be one or two translators up here, and I went to ascertain if there was room, and I found that the office was fully occupied. I left instructions to the effect that we would endeavour to remedy that next session and provide accommodation, so that we could have one or two men up here, and if it was still thought desirable to keep the others down there, they might continue to revise the proof after it came from the printer.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I realize that it is necessary to keep in the Printing Bureau a certain number of proof readers, and I endorse entirely the position taken by my hon. friend from Rouville, by the Postmaster General, and by the hon. member for New Westminster, that provision for revision should be made at once. But revision involves a vast amount of work, because, to have a proper revision of the translation, the English text has to be read with the French translation. I do not see how one man could do that; in fact, I do not think two men could do it. It would require almost as many revisors as there are translators. I have myself come across some painful errors in the translation; but, of course, errors will slip in anywhere. However, in some oases these errors are unexplainable. I am happy to say, however, that the large majority of these translators are competent. I do not know them personally, but I think as a general rule the translation is fair; and some of my poor English is sometimes put into very excellent French. I think there should be more than two officials added to the translation branch for the work of revision. I also submit that any recommendation that is sent to Mr. Speaker by the Debates Committee, should not be turned down or overruled by the chief translator. That is a thing I cannot understand.


Mr. PEOULX:: If we abolished 'Hansard,' we would save ourselves a lot of trouble and much expense to the country. But if we are to have ' Hansard,' we should have good translation. My hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) says there are some incompetent translators on the staff. If that is so, it should not be. If they are incompetent, they should be appointed to some other position in the Civil Service, and be replaced by competent .men. It is not necessary to add two other translators and keep the incompetent men. So far as I am personally concerned, I have no complaint to make. I can say like my hon. friend (Mr. Beland), that my poor English is sometimes put into very good French.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps it would be better to leave this classification as it is at present, upon the understanding that if the Debates Committee recommend the appointment of two additional men, at the commencement of next session, their recommendation will be acted upon.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


Herménégilde Boulay: I had a few remarks to make a moment ago, but the hon. members for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) and for Westminster (Mr. Taylor) having since dealt with the subjects I wished to allude to, it is useless for me to revert to those same points now. I am not so competent, from a literary point of view, as is the hon. member for Rouville, to speak of the defects in the translation of the speeches, but I know that many complaints have been made at the meeting of the Debates Committee at which I was present. What is the cause of this, I could not say; but I have visited the office of the debates translators on more than one occasion ana I have witnessed that there prevailed some uneasiness. What should this disagreement be attributed to, I do not know. But I know that the complaints voiced by the hon. member for Rouville really exist and that they have been brought to the knowledge of the committee.
I have witnessed, also, that the chief translator, Mr. Larose, seemed to keep an independent office. He never registers his presence, and so we do not know when he Is absent or present. He seems to be in absolute command. He is a public official like the others and I think he should register his presence so that we might be informed as to his being present or absent. I often went to see him at his office and I never could succeed in meeting him. It is possible that his presence was required somewhere else. I do not know about that; but at all events he was not there. I have witnessed, moreover, and anybody can do so, that there seems to exist a complete dissent between the debates translators and their chief. I do not know whether the translators can be called his subordinates, but they do not
seem to depend upon their chief. I think this uneasiness could be done away with if the chief would remedy it by being more conciliating and by taking a share of the work for himself. I have witnessed that Mr. Larose contented himself with distributing the work to the translators. If such are his functions, they are very light. He should register his presence and take a part of the work like all the other translators, and he would earn his money better if he did so. I see that his salary is being increased; I have no objection to that, but he should have a certain amount of work to do for that money. Measures should also be taken to the effect of indicating if he is constantly at the office like the other employees and when he is really absent. In fact, he should take his share of work like the other translators.


The CHAIRMAN:: Does this stand?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As far as I can see, there is no reason for it standing over. Anything that requires to be done can be done by regulation. If the matter is left in my hands, when the committee make a recommendation it can be carried out without trouble.
Translation Branch-House Division.
Laframboise, Louis	$3,000
Desaulniers, D. L	 2,800
Tremblay, Remi	 2,300
Clapin, Sylva	 2,100
Paradis, Oscar	 1,900
St. Louis, H	 2,025
Duckett, Charles E	 1,650
Noailles, Louis,	 1,600
Query, Eli	 2,100
Briand, J. M	   1,900
Vacancy	 1,600
Vacancy	 1,600
Vacancy	 1,600
Vacancy	  1,600
Vacancy	 1,600
Vacancy	 1,600
Vacancy	 1,600
Vacancy	 1,600
Vacancy	 1,600
Vacancy	 1,600


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the meaning of all these vacancies?


George Halsey Perley: Some of the work of translation is being sent from Ottawa to various parts of the Dominion, and it is thought that it would conduce to efficiency if all the work were done in Ottawa. The intention is to provide for ten men, and provision has already been made for naming them, and the next resolution standing in the Prime Minister's name covers this.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I found that this work
was being done by over a hundred translators all over the country. Much of the work was very defective and had to be done over again. It occurred to me that it would be much better to provide for a permanent force of competent men to do the work here, with a man over them. When I

suggested this, the Civil Service Commission provided an examination, and competent men have been chosen, whose names will be found at page 1416 of the Votes and Proceedings.


Edmond Proulx: Who is responsible for
fixing the age limit after the examinations were held? Was it the Internal Economy Commission or the Civil Service Commission? People were notified to come to Ottawa to take the examination, no age limit being fixed. One gentleman came from my own town. When he asked me, as he was over forty, I told him I thought he would not be entitled to try the examination, the age limit for the Civil Service being thirty-five. He said that no age limit had been stated. He wrote to the secretary of the Civil Service Commission, who replied that there was no age limit. He passed the examination successfully, although not among the first ten. After the examinations were held, either the Internal Economy Commission or the Civil Service Commission fixed the age at forty. I know one man who held the fifth place, but who could not be appointed because he was a little over forty- forty-two, I think.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The limit was fixed by the Civil Service Commission, the Internal Economy Commission did not fix it at all.


Edmond Proulx: Were they asked to fix
an age limit?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It seems very singular
that these men were allowed to go through the examination, and were then turned down because of the age limit.


Robert Laird Borden: The statute fixes the age limit, I think. Apparently, the difficulty has arisen through some inaccurate information having been given to the gentlemen whom the hon. member has mentioned. I know nothing at all about it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is true, there is an
age limit, but some years ago the Minister of Justice gave an interpretation of section 31 of the Civil Service Act as regards technical work. Translation 'being considered technical work there is no age limit. But the point in which I am interested is that mentioned by Mr. Speaker, that this work was formerly done by any number of translators outside this House of Parliament, and it was sometimes very inferior work. Now, with a staff of expert translators, we should have good work, and I hope we shall have the public documents published in French more promptly. I said the other day that the French-Can-adian members of the House had just received the Auditor General's report for 1911 -two years late. Amongst those who successfully passed the examination were two supernumerary officials of the House, Mr. SPEAKER.
Messrs. Daoust and Allarie. After having passed the examination, they were under the impression that they could be appointed as translators, but it was found that they had passed the age limit fixed by the commission. They are good men, who have worked very assiduously for several years, and it would be a hardship if they were put out of their positions now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They are both good men, and it was my suggestion that they should be appointed as a result of the examination, but as they are over forty-five years of age they have passed the age limit and the commission instructed me that they could not be appointed. I am, however, endeavouring to get them employment elsewhere in the department.
Hansard section-'Reporting branch:


George Perry Graham: A rumour has apparently reached the reporting branch and the reporters of committees that some new restrictions are to be placed upon them as to how they shall spend the time between sessions, and there is a little alarm amongst these officials. When the Civil Service Act was passed, I think there was in it a clause exempting the 'Hansard' staff, and the reporters from being subject to the House of Commons between the sessions, and it was distinctly provided, I think, that they should be allowed to add to their salaries by doing any work they desired to do when the House was not in session.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is no change in that respect.


Wilfrid Laurier: In the Stationery the office of chief of stenographers seems to be vacant. Has any selection been made?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Joseph Smith has
been doing the work, and has been found to be a very competent man for the position.


Henri Sévérin Béland: He is a good man.


Mr. GERMAN:: I would like to emphasize that; Mr. Smith is a good man.
Post Office and blue-book division.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In view of the statements which have been made from time to time as to the number of persons of my pedigree who have been placed in the Civil Service by myself, I am pleased to be able to state publicly before my hon. friend the Postmaster General and the other French-Canadian members of the House that Mr. F. X. Lemieux, who has for some time been assistant postmaster in the House of Commons, is no relative of mine, although I would feel honoured to bear relationship to l'im, as he is an excellent official. My friends went around the province of Que-

bee during the election campaign with a list of all the Lemieuxs they could find in the blue books, and said: Look at what this Postmaster General has done; he has given all the important offices in the public service to his family. Let me say, once and for all, that only one member of my family was appointed to a position in the Civil Service. He was appointed by the Macdonald-Sicotte Government; he was my revered father, and had been over fifty years in the Civil Service. My friends the Nationalists and Conservatives made a list of every Lemieux they could find in the Civil Service list, and labelled them as being members of my family. I desire to say that this gentleman is not in my family, although I am glad to see that he is getting an increase.
Law Branch.-parliamentary counsel.


Edmond Proulx: In this branch provision is made for a new official to be known as parliamentary counsel. Will this official be employed only during the session?


Robert Laird Borden: He will be a permanent officer, and will perform his duties during the entire year.


Edmond Proulx: Will he'take the place of the Law Clerk of the House?


Robert Laird Borden: He will. It is understood that the Law Clerk, Mr. O'Brien, desires to retire, and it is only just to him to say that during my experience, both before this Government attained office and since, I have found him to be a most capable, industrious and devoted officer, from whom I have obtained a great deal of assistance.


Mr. EMMERSON:: Has anyone been
named for the position?


Robert Laird Borden: No one has been named, or even considered. The change was recommended by the Civil Service Commission and others who made inquiry into the matter, and it was thought advisable to reestablish the position of parliamentary counsel, which was established years ago, but which for some reason was discontinued.


Edmond Proulx: I suppose his services
will be at the disposal of private members? If a private member, for instance, wishes ro introduce a public Bill, he may have it drafted by the parliamentary counsel, and have the benefit of his services?


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish):: Has the report of the body who made inquiries into that branch been submitted to the House; and, if not, why the delay?


Robert Laird Borden: The reorganization really carries out the suggestions of the report that was made.


William Chisholm: Is that report likely to be brought down?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


William Chisholm: When? I asked some questions about that some time ago, and did not get very much satisfaction.


Robert Laird Borden: We will bring it down to-day or to-morrow.


Herménégilde Boulay: I think considerable inconvenience has been experienced because ox the fact that in the parliamentary restaurant the waiters are nearly all Englishspeaking. For my part, I have great complaint in this regard, because I do not understand much English, and I think there should be more French-speaking waiters in the restaurant. There is another, place to which the same thing applies, and which I do not frequent very much, but when I have some friends here we go there, and we do not find any person speaking French. I refer to what we call the buffet- the bar. This lack of French-speakirg waiters is sometimes very inconvenient.


William Chisholm: I would suggest that the Minister of Inland Revenue should take the food inspector whom he appointed for the province of Nova Scotia recently at the magnificent salary of $100, Moses Delorey, and put him in the restaurant. We have no use for him in Antigonish, or in Nova Scotia. While he is a good judge of food laid before him on the table, he knows nothing whatever about the inspection of food, or the qualities of food in a commercial sense. He could not tell butter from margerine, or honey from tomato catsup. We have no use for him down there.


Mr. NANTEL:: I suppose Mr. Chisholm, the preventive officer, has some use for him.


William Chisholm: The preventive officers have no use for him.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I see a vacancy in
1-B, under the law branch. Is it a new appointment, or is it to replace somebody who is retiring?


Robert Laird Borden: This is to replace Mr. Loucks.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No one has been
named?


Robert Laird Borden: No.
Resolution reported, read the first and the second time, and agreed to.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Wilfrid Laurier: I would renew my request of the other day, whether or not any new legislation is to be introduced.


Robert Laird Borden: No, there will be no further legislation. Possibly there may be two or three supplementary estimates, which I shall submit to the right hon. gentleman before introducing them.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is it the inr tention to call up all the items which are now on the Order Paper?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: I would suggest "to the Prime Minister that some arrangement should be made in regard to returns ordered by the (House, but not yet brought down. I find about twenty returns for which I moved at various times from January up to the present that have not yet been brought down. Could the Prime Minister arrange with the officers of the departments to forward copies of these returns when they are completed to the members who moved for them?


Robert Laird Borden: I shall take ioito consideration my hon. friend's suggestion and see whether it can be carried out. Where the return is very voluminous and partly in writing, there might be some difficulty in carrying out the suggestion; but if it is altogether in typewriting, I see no difficulty in sending a copy to the member moving it. I would point out that there have been at least three times as many returns brought down in the present session as in any preceding session of which I know.


Wilfrid Laurier: There are
very few returns except those relating to dismissals.


Robert Laird Borden: I think there are quite a number of others.


Wilfrid Laurier: Not in proportion to the number of dismissals.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend's
statement does no credit to the industry which I have seen displayed on the other side of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: There has been great industry on the part of the Government in dismissals.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think there has been more industry than there was on the part of my hon. friend's Government sixteen years ago. One of the officers told me on my request some two or three months ago, that the index of returns had run, I think, to sixty-five pages, and that Mr. BORDEN.
in no previous session had it ever gone up to thirty pages.


George Perry Graham: I shall move for the index.


Robert Laird Borden: At that rate it would take a considerable time to prepare it and bring it down.


William Chisholm: I would
suggest to the Prime Minister that (he ask the Postmaster General, when bringing down returns, to try and bring them down fully. I have had1 occasion to look over several, and I have found a number of letters missing.
This morning a return was brought down with reference to the postmaster at Arisaig, and on the first page I find a letter dated November 13, 1912, signed by the postmaster and written to Senator Girroir. I have looked over the file and there is no Tecord of that letter. Several cases of the same kind have occurred. I submit that it_ is contempt of the House to refuse to bring down papers simply because the minister thinks they may -contain something out of which a political argument might be made against his department.


Mr. WILSON (Laval):: It took the Prime Minister fourteen months to give me a return ordered by the House in regard to dismissals.


Mr. HUGHES (Minister of Militia and Defence):: What did you do with it when you got it?


Charles Avila Wilson: I did the best I could
with it. Then on the 6th of April last I asked for a return relating to the law branch. That is two months ago. I see that there are some vacancies in that branch, and that some man is going to have a salary of $5,000 as parliamentary counsel. It seems to me that it is only reasonable that I should get the return ordered by the House before we pass these estimates. I do not know whether my right hon. friend expects the House to wait fourteen months more.


Mr. STANFIELD:: I have -been waiting
fouT years for a return.


Wilfrid Laurier: With regard
to the business of the House, there are two items which* if called, would certainly involve a great deal of discussion. There is Order No. 6:	Second reading of Bill No.
163, to amend the Canadian Grain Act.


Robert Laird Borden: That goes out.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then there is the resolution providing for two additional members of the Senate from each of the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan. Is that to be taken up at this stage?


Robert Laird Borden: I did not suppose that it *would be controversial.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is a
violent supposition.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it would have
been a violent supposition to imagine otherwise. However, we will see when we get through the others.



IMPROVEMENT OF HIGHWAYS.

[Stage Direction]
House proceeded to consider amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 32, to encourage and assist the [Improvement of Highways.-Mr. Cochrane.
Mr. COCHRANE moved:: That this House do not agree to the first amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 32 to encourage and assist the improvement of highways for the following reasons:-
1.	Because substantially the same amendment has already been considered and rejected by this House.
2.	Because the amendment is unnecessary and undesirable since (a) the Supply Bill will make provision for the apportion! ment of the proposed subsidies to the respective provinces for the ensuing fiscal year; and since (b) such apportionment can be more conveniently provided for in the annual Supply Bill.
3.	Because the said Bill defines the ends, purposes, conditions, limitations and qualifications to be established in respect of aids and supplies to be granted by this House, and the same are not alterable by the Senate.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker,
it is certainly regrettable that in a matter ol this kind there should be any difference of opinion between the Upper Chamber and the House of Commons. In my estimation the attitude which is taken by the Government is not at all warranted, and the action of the Upper Chamber is fully justified. To make the matter perfectly clear, it is necessary that I should put before the House the text of the Bill, the amendments made to it by the Upper Chamber, and then the reasons alleged by the Government why we should not agree to the action taken by the Senate. The Bill is a short one, and I may read it to the House. It is composed only of six actions. The first section is of no consequence; it is simply the title of the Act. The second section merely defines the meaning of the word 'Minister'; it means Minister of Railways and Canals. Then, the Bill provides as follows:
3. The Governor in Council may, in any year, and upon such terms and subject to such conditions as are prescribed by Order in Council, grant to the several provinces of the Dominion in aid of the improvement of existing highways or bridges, or the construction of new highways or bridges, or fori all or any such purposes, subsidies not ex-1 ceeding in the whole such sum as may in such year be voted by Parliament for that purpose.
4.	Any highway or bridge for which aid is granted to a province shall be improved or, constructed, as the case may be. according to descriptions, conditions and specifications approved by the Governor in Council on the report of the minister, and specified in each case in an agreement between the minister and the government of the province, which agreement the minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, is hereby empowered to make.
5.	Each highway or bridge to be constructed'
or improved shall be defined and described in' such agreement, and provision may be made therein for the future maintenance of suchhighway or bridge in good condition accord-/ ing to a specified standard and to the satisJ faction of the Governor in Council.	'
6.	The minister, with the approval of the
Governor in Council and upon such terms and! conditions as are prescribed by Order in' Council, may undertake the construction of any new highway or bridges or the improve-: ment of any existing highway or bridges_ ini any province, and may expend in such imJ provement or construction the whole or any part of the sums voted by Parliament for such subsidy to that province:	Provided,
however, that the minister shall first^ obtain the necessary authority from the legislature of such province and the consent of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
The Senate have not amended the fourth section. The sixth section they have suppressed altogether, and to the third they have added a sub-section. Before I give the amendment made by the Senate, let me again read section 3 of the Bill:
The Governor in Council may, in any year, and upon such terms and subject to such conditions as are prescribed by Order in, Council, grant to the several provinces of the Dominion in aid of the improvement of existing highways or bridges, or the construction of new highways or bridges, or for all or any sucli purposes, subsidies not exceeding in the whole such sum as may in such year be voted by Parliament for that purpose.
To which the Upper Chamber has added the following sub-section:
The sum of money voted in any year to be expended under this Act shall be apportioned among and paid to the several provinces of the Dominion in proportion to the population of such provinces respectively as shown by the then next preceding census.
Can any one take exception to a* provision being introduced into the Bill that the sum to be appropriated by Parliament each year shall be expended among the provinces according to population? Nobody on that side of the House can find fault with it; in fact, it is not found fault with, as I shall show presently, in the reasons that have been given in the motion now before the House why these amendments should

not be concurred in. It is admitted by the bon. Minister of Railways and Canals- and I think it will be admitted by the right hon. the Prime Minister and by everybody- that the money which is to be appropriated by Parliament for the improvement of highways should be apportioned among the provinces according to population, as stated by the census. If it is agreed that this should be done, why is it not incorporated in the Bill creating the law under which the money is to be expended? Can any good reason be given? I cannot understand what is in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite to cause them to refuse to put in a law what they say shall be their course in carrying out the law, If it is to be their course in practice, why should it not be put in the law? The Government take exception to the provisions which have been introduced into the Bill by the Upper Chamber, and here are the reasons, as stated in the motion, why they do not propose to ask the House to agree to them:
1. Because substantially the same amendment has already been considered and rejected by this House.
Which is very true.
3. Because the amendment is unnecessary and undesirable, since (a) the Supply Bill will make provision for the apportionment of the proposed subsidies to the respective provinces foT the ensuing fiscal year; and since (b) such apportionment can be more conveniently provided for in the annual Supply Bill.
3. Because the said Bill defines the ends, purposes, conditions, limitation and qualifications to be established in respect of aids and supplies to be granted by this House,I and the same are not alterable by the Senate.
Im the first place, it is said we should not agree to the amendment because .substantially the same amendment has already been considered and rejected by the House. That is very true. Last year the same question arose, and the same difference of opinion existed between the House of Commons and the Senate. The House would not agree to the same amendment which was made by the Senate. This year the Senate does not agree to pass the Bill otherwise; and it comes down to this, that either one or the other must give way. Which should give way? Should the Senate give way to the House of Commons, or should the House of Commons give way to the Senate? Of couise, at some time or other, there will be an election upon this point, and it will be decided by the people; but in the meantime, what is to be done? If we are to be moved in this matter by the principles of reason which generally regulate the opinions of men, it seems to me that the House of Commons should give way to the Senate, because the weight of reason is altogether with the Upper Chamber and not with this Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
House. If there were any exception to be taken to the Senate's proposal, if the Government said that it was unfair, unjust or impracticable, then I could well understand the House of Commons saying:	We will
not give way, because wha.t we are isked '.o accept is not reasonable, just or fair. But, on the contrary, it is admitted that what is-asked by the Senate is so just, so fair and so reasonable that the (Government say:	We will act upon the very principle
which is embodied in this amendment. This amendment provides that the money to be devoted to the improvement of roads shall be applied in the different provinces according to population, and yet the Government say that they will not accept it. The refusal seems to be without any justification at all.
In their second reason, the Government merely say that the amendment is:
-unnecessary and undesirable, since the Supply Bill will make provision for the apportionment of the proposed subsidies to the respective provinces for the ensuing fiscal year.
As far as this year is concerned, that is very true. The estimates which have been brought down contain an appropriation of $1,000,000 to 'be expended among the provinces according to population. Item 542 of the supplementary estimates reads:
Canadian Highways Act.
To provide for the payment, under the Canada Highways Act, of the following subsidies to the several provinces of Canada for1 the construction or improvement of highways, or for both such purposes as in the said Act mentioned, that is to say, on $1,500,000 basis:!
Alberta	$ 78,283
British Columbia	 >82,005
Manitoba	 95,106
New Brunswick .,	 73,524
Nova Scotia	 103,870
Ontario	 527,201
Prince Edward Island	 19,584
Quebec	 418,449
Saskatchewan	 102,889

No exception can be taken to this; it is very fair. But the Supply Bill is an annual Bill, and this, when it is passed, will be a permanent statute; and while this year the minister provides that the money shall be distributed according to population among the provinces there is nothing to prevent him next year providing that it shall be appropriated in a different manner. Since it is the intention of the minister that the money shall be apportioned among the provinces according to population, what reason can be given why that should not be provided for in the statute? The Minister of Railways will not contradict me when I say that pressure has been put on him from some quarters to

prevent a distribution according to population.


Francis Cochrane: That is not true.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon.
friend should not say that.


Francis Cochrane: There has been no
pressure put on at all.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon.
friend should not say that, for if he has not, the Prime Minister has received applications-I	have received duplicates of
them-from the province of British Columbia, to the effect that the money should not be apportioned according to population, 'but that a larger proportion of it should be apportioned to British Columbia on the contention that the roads are more difficult of construction in that province than they are in any other. The minister has not been impressed by that argument, and I do not think there is anything in it; but still the pressure is there on the Government, if not on the Minister of Railways personally. The hon. minister heard last year a prominent member of the House, now Mr. Justice Lennox, suggest that the Government should not bind itself to have this money apportioned proportionately among the provinces, but that occasions might arise which might determine the Government to give a larger proportion to one province than to another. That being so, I can understand that the Minister of Railways, consciously or unconsciously-I will say unconsciously, because he says no pressure has been put upon him -has left the door open to the apportionment of the money next year differently from its apportionment this year. If it be not the intention to reserve the power to spend the money differently, then I ask the minister why he does not do as has been done under the provisions of the British North America Act, so that the provinces may know exactly, once and for all, what they are to expect, and be able to act accordingly? If we were to be guided simply by the good intentions of one party or the otner, as Detween man and man, there would be no necessity for courts of law or parliaments, for we could rely on a sense of fair play in every man as being sufficient. But it is because we cannot do so that we have courts of law and parliaments, and that is the reason why the Senate has thought it advisable that once and for ail, as soon as this law is passed, the conditions should be there to guide the Government in the application of it.
I pass on to another reason which is given by the Government why we should not agree to the Senate amendment:
Because such apportionment could be more conveniently provided for in the annual Supply Bill.	, .
l am at a loss to understand what this means. Why the apportionment should be made more conveniently in the annual Supply Bill than in this Bill, one cannot understand.
Another reason given why we should reject the Senate amendment is:
Because the said Bill defines the ends, purposes, conditions, limitations and qualifications to be established in .respect of aid and supplies to be granted by this House, and the same are not alterable by the Se,nate.
Well, the provisions of this Bill are alterable by the Senate, and for the very good reason that it has not been treated by the Government as a money Bill. Last year, as this year, this Bill was introduced without any message from His Royal Highness the Governor General, and when I raised the point of order that it was a money Bill, I was told it was not, and Mr. Speaker so ruled. Therefore, the Senate has properly treated it as not being a money Bill. But there is in this an argument which tells absolutely against the attitude taken by the Government. I will read it again:
Because the said Bill defines the ends, purposes, limitations and qualifications to be established in respect of aid and supplies to be granted by this House, and the same are not alterable by the 'Senate.
This Bill is alterable by the Senate. What is not alterable by the Senate is the Supply Bill. If next year or the year after the Supply Bill should contain a provision different from the provisions contained in the Supply Bill of this year, and should apportion the money to the provinces, not according to population, but according to what the minister believes to be the needs of one province as against another, the Senate would have to accept it without amendment, or to reject it entirely, which, of course, nobody would desire. Therefore! the very reason which the Government gives for rejecting the Senate amendment is a strong argument against the attitude taken by the Government.
Another amendment made by the Senate which has not been touched upon by the motion before the House, is the elimination of clauses from the Bill. Clause 6 reads:
6. The minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council and upon such terms and conditions as are prescribed by Order in Council, may undertake the construction of any new highway or bridges or the improvement of any existing highway or bridges in any province, and may expend in such improvement or construction the whole or any part of the sums voted by Parliament for such subsidy to that province: Provided, however, that the minister shall first obtain the necessary authority from the legislature of such province and the consent of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.



This means that the Minister of Railways contemplates going into highway building in the provinces, contemplates that he, having obtained authority from the legislature, and the consent of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, may build a highway in any one of the provinces. Without attributing any motive, but simply speaking from the rationale of the thing, what reason can be urged on behalf of the Department of Railways undertaking highway construction in any part of Canada? It is not in accordance with the fitness of things.
According to our constitution, the control of highways belongs to the provinces. In the older portions of the provinces, -where there is municipal organization, highway construction is carried on by the municipal authorities; but in those parts of the provinces where municipal organization has not yet been established, the provinces build the highways. The province of Ontario is a large builder of highways every year, so is the province of Quebec, and so with other provinces. Every province has a staff of engineers and others devoted to this work. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways has no such staff at h:s disposal, and if he goes into highway construction he must create a special branch of his department. In any case this work would not be permanent, but only occasional; and, not having permanent work to do the minister cannot- have a permanent staff. Therefore it goes without saying that the work had better be left to the provinces.
I cannot understand why my hon. friend should want to go into this work. It must be clear to him, on reflection, that he had better leave jt where it is, with the provinces. This matter has engaged the attention of the public at large, and especially of the municipal authorities. I moved, some time ago, for the correspondence between the Dominion Government and the provincial governments on this subject, but it has not yet been brought down. We may have it later on; I am satisfied there must have been correspondence between the Dominion Government -and at least some of the provincial governments on this subject. The legislature of Saskatchewan has passed a strong resolution on the subject, declaring that there should be a provincial conference to discuss with the Dominion authorities this whole matter. The Premier of the province of Quebec, Sir Lomer Gouin, gave an interview on this subject, in which he set forth his views in -a very temperate manner-views which, I think, should commend themselves to the House, and especially to the advisers of His Excellency. This interview appears in La Presse of Saturday, May 3, last. It is as follows:	.	., L
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
It is to be regretted that the federal Gov-t eminent did not heed the suggestion to modify their proposed legislation.
_ The object of this Bil-l, as is well known, is to govern the manner in which the subsidies voted each year by Parliament for the improvement of highways generally are to be expended. It says that the federal Government may either grant a sum of money to any one of the provinces for the purpose of making, or improving certain highways; or spend, themseleves, the whole or part of the money for the above purposes, in the province.
In the first case, the province would have to have the work done under conditions and after plans approved of by the federal Government; in the second instance it would be necessary for the Government at Ottawa to obtain the consent of the provincial administration before any work was started.
I am an advocate of good roads and my greatest desire is to see our roadways improved as much as possible. The present legislation, however, is not satisfactory in my opinion, and to a certain extent dangerous. _
I say it is not satisfactory because there is no guarantee as to a fair repartition between the provinces of the money voted by* Parliament. It is true we have been told by the Government that according to the statute-book subsidies must be distributed among the provinces according to population, but, in my estimation, a clause to that effect would be more satisfactory. Governments are subject to change, and Mr. Borden's word would not bind another administration. Why should not the present Government do as the fathers of Confederation did? Why not do in connection with highways what has been done with respect to agriculture? This latter Bill provides that each province shall receive a stated sum; I do not understand why the same principle should not apply to the present measure.
I think it is dangerous in that it encroaches upon provincial rights and tends to reduce local administrations into bondage. Clause 92 of the constitution is very clear in this regard: ' In each province,' it says, ' the legislature may exclusively np-ake laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,-	_
' 8. Municipal institutions in the provinces.
' JO. Local works a,nd undertakings of a local nature.
' 16. Generally all matters of local or private nature in the province.'
What then would be the position of the several provinces should this Bill pass the House in its present form? They would have to barter their rights and prerogatives fori the subsidy, or do without.
And, should we to-day allow the federal Government to interfere with the highways, they could, by means of similar grants, meddle with our school affairs and dictate to us a programme of studies and methods of teaching.
I do not want the impression to go abroad that I am antagonizing the Borden Administration. What I say to-day I would repeat to-morrow to any Liberal government that would introduce legislation so dangerous in>
character, and contrary to the spirit of thd

constitution. The vigorous stand which X made in 1905 upon the question of federal subsidies is well known. I am to-day as I was then, an advocate of provinical autonomy; the federal Government should respect our rights and give us full justice.
There is great force in these views, and I commend them to the House. There is one' thing noted there which is very remarkable. Two measures have been introduced this session to give aid to the provinces, one in agriculture and the other in highways.. The Bill to give aid to agriculture contained the provision that the grant should be apportioned among the provinces, and its distribution is made a part of the Bill. This provision _ is accepted by the Senate without criticism, and stands as law to-day. Why should not the same principle be introduced in this Bill? Why should the Government, introducing two measures absolutely similar in character and almost identical in purpose, discriminate as between one and the other? There is no possible reason for it so far as we have been informed, unless you suppose that behind it there are sinister motives and danger of far-reaching effects upon the elections. I do not wish to bring that consideration forward to-day; but, unless you give us 'better reasons than those given hitherto, we shall be forced to that conclusion.


Robert Laird Borden: The right hon. gentleman has referred to the Agricultural Aid Bill as one that supports the view he has just put forward. He evidently forgets that this Bill did not make the distribution purely on the basis of population, but made it subject to an allowance of $20,000 to each of the provinces. There is no doubt that the Senate took the action which they have taken in regard to this Bill with the full knowledge that their amendment could not be accepted, as it had not been accepted last year; therefore, so far as they are concerned, they are responsible if the Bill does not pass. My right hon. friend accepted full responsibility for their action last year, and he is doubtless prepared to take full responsibility for their action this year; therefore we have a very clear and distinct issue with regard to the matter.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend, in the first instance, said to this House that he would support the Highways Bill, but in the end, if I am not mistaken, he voted against it.


Wilfrid Laurier: Not at all.


Robert Laird Borden: Then I am mistaken as to that ?
378i


Wilfrid Laurier: I certainly voted against it, with the blemishes it had upon it.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not at all disposed to agree with the right hon. gentleman's impressions as to the character of the proposed legislation; I do not think there are any blemishes upon it.


Wilfrid Laurier: My right hon. friend is of that opinion himself.


Robert Laird Borden: Of what opinion ?


Wilfrid Laurier: That this money should be apportioned according to the population of the provinces.


Robert Laird Borden: inces, and, so far as I have ever been ab.e to understand the arguments of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, 1 really cannot comprehend their objection to it. They seem to imagine that there is some extraordinary and sinister purpose behind it all.


George Perry Graham: I have had the experience.


Robert Laird Borden: That was before the hon. gentleman came into this House and when he was a member of the provincial Government of Ontario.


George Perry Graham: It was whep I was trying to get into this House and the Government was trying to keep me out.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not aware that there is anything in this Bill which can touch the argument which the hon. gentleman is now making.	[DOT]


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Perhaps the Minister of Customs could inform the right hon. gentleman what that means.


Robert Laird Borden: The Bill simply provides two things:	in the first place, that the
Governor in Council may make a grant to the provinces, and, in the second place, that that grant shall be applied under certain agreements to be arrived at between the federal Government and the provincial governments. The money which is to be devoted to any one province cannot be diverted to any other province, and this House and the Senate will have perfect control over the situation when the appropriation comes to be made. I repeat again that the Senate would thus have as good control over that situation as they would have if this legislation were proposed by means of a Bill annually placed before Parliament. What was the object of the Bill? The object was to give to the various provinces of Canada, upon an equitable and just-basis, aid for the improvement of public highways. The Senate has not been content to accept the Bill as it was, but has attached to it a condition which we rejected last year, and which we are not disposed to accept this year, namely, that this House shall not be at liberty, even under the most exceptional circumstances, to make any deviation whatever from a strictly population basis. Suppose, for example, some great disaster occurred in one of the provinces, and that there was an urgent need in respect of that province that the population basis should be diverted from in some particular year. Is there any reason why that proposition should not be made and considered in the House of Commons and the Senate? I have expressed my strong opinion on two occasions in this House that this grant should be made upon a population basis, but my right hon. friend himself will admit that circumstances
Mr. BORDEN.
might arise under which he and every other hon. gentleman on that side of the House might agree that some deviation would have to be made from that basis in some particular instance. But if that did not commend itself to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, if it did not commend itself to Their Honours in the Senate, exactly the same remedy would be open to them as that which they have seen fit to exercise, in what I consider an unjustifiable manner, with regard to this Bill. In the one case they would be acting strictly within their rights; they would be rejecting the appropriation altogether because it did not commend itself to their judgment as being a just appropriation. In the other case they have gone beyond their constitutional rights and have seen fit to use their powers in violation of constitutional principles for the purpose of altering and changing the limitations and conditions which it is the undoubted prerogative of this House to establish.
As to the other amendment to which my right hon. friend alluded, and in respect of which the Minister of Railways and Canals will propose another motion in a moment,
I am equally unable to understand how the provision in the Bill interferes in the slightest degree with the autonomy of any province of Canada. I think it safeguards the autonomy of every province, even beyond the constitutional limits fixed by the British North America Act. I see no reason under the British North America Act why the Parliament of Canada might not undertake the construction of a road from one province to another. I see no reason under the British North America Act why the Parliament of Canada might not declare a particular road, running, for example, through the province of Quebec to its boundary line, to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. We could not do this under this Bill; we could not exercise even the powers that are conserved to us by the British North America Act, because it is distinctly provided in this Bill that under no circumstances shall the Governor in Council or the Minister of Railways and Canals spend one single dollar unless they have the authority of the provincial legislature and the consent of the provincial executive. We had this amendment under consideration last year; we have had it under consideration again this year on a motion of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. We did not see our way clear to accept it; and under the circumstances the motion which the Minister of Railways and Canals has proposed is the only motion which the Government, having regard to its self-respect, could present to this House, particularly in view of the fact that very offensive reasons were given by some speakers in the Senate in support of the modifications and amendments which they

proposed to this Bill. There was a direct suggestion from gentlemen there that it was the intention or desire of the Government to use this legislation for some corrupt ot unworthy purpose. That I think was the argument put up hy the leader of the Liberal party in the Senate as a reason why the Senate ought to amend the Bill in this way. I do not attach too much consideration to such an argument so emanating; but it is not to be expected that, when the action of the Senate is supposed to he based on arguments of that character, we should be very willing to accept them. We do not propose to accept them, and we propose to insist on this measure as it stands.


Michael Clark: It
seems as if the history of this Parliament were going to resolve . itself to a large extent into a quarrel between the Government and the Upper Chamber of the Legislature, and, if so, I think it well for my part to intrude upon the House even at this very late hour >and to see that one member at least gets himself right on the quarrel to begin with. Up to now, Sir, history is rather on the side of the Senate. My right hon. friend, in the opening of the remarks which he has just made to the House, said that there was a clear issue as between the Senate and this Chamber on this particular measure, and proceeded to give as his reason for the clearness of that issue that the Senate ought to have been sure from the first that the Government would not accept an amendment which they refused to accept last year. Is my right hon. friend not presuming on the history of the dispute in assuming that that would be the correct finding of the Senate?
What was the main ground of the dispute between the Senate and the Government last year? It was not the Roads Bill, it was the Tariff Commission Bill. It was the Tariff Commission Bill which the Senate rejected, by which rejection they drew upon themselves an extraordinary diatribe from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) at the end of the session which produced an extraordinary scene in this Chamber, that is the call of three cheers for the Speaker, which were given in resounding fashion by a full assembly of hon. members opposite. What has happened to the Tariff Commission Bill? The Senate, according to the argument of my right hon. friend, had a right to expect that this Government were sincere or meant business in their quarrel with them on the Tariff Commission Bill, and they had a right to expect that the war which was declared in such vigorous terms by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on
that occasion would have been carried into the cojmtry. But what actually happened was that the Minister of Trade and Commerce disappeared from Canada and has been largely out of Canada ever since, and the Government of which he is so distinguished a member, _ has proved to the hilt the wisdom of the Senate on the Tariff Commission Bill, by not introducing the measure this year. I ask my right hon. friend what right he or anybody else has to expect the Senate to be so absolutely and confidently wise as to the motives and proceedings of this Administration. If we are to argue from last year, the Senate might reasonably have said to themselves: This Government, after all, is a somewhat imperfect Government but even they will improve with time, we have taught them something, combined with the efforts of Mr. Woodrow Wilson in the United States, about the effectiveness of a tariff commission, and they will probably learn wisdom on the question of roads also. That is my answer to my right hon. friend on the proposed clearness of this issue.
There was, as I pointed out, a great deal of unreality in the attack which was made upon the Senate last year and I am bound to say that there is a great deal of unreality too in the affection of the hon. gentlemen opposite and the Government they support for the people of this country, and the desire they have to improve their roads. If, at the bottom of their minds, their motives were to help the provinces in the matter of better roads, they would not hesitate to accept the amendments of the Senate. I do not hesitate to use that very strong language on this point.
Just think of what my right hon. friend has given as reasons for not accepting the amendments. One of his reasons is that certain members of the Senate have attributed unworthy motives to the Government. That is not an unusual procedure in politics. My experience of politics is that unworthy motives are being continually attributed by one side of politics or the other. Is that the way to approach the consideration of a matter of this importance? The question is are the Senate amendments right? If they are right, what would be the duty of the Government in regard to these suspicions? To say: We cannot accept a right amendment because unworthy motives have been attributed to us in connection with the Bill in the original form? So far from that being his duty, his duty is to disarm the suspicion held by the Senate and shared by some members on this side and held by a large number of people in this country. It is his duty to disarm the suspicion and to consider the amendments absolutely upon their merits.

The Senate would have been justified in amending this Bill, if for nothing else,	because	neither	we	nor	theynor anybody else can possibly know what	is the	object	of	the	Bill.
My right- hon. friend asked the question, what is the object of this Bill, and then, I quite admit, he gave his answer. He said it is to help the provinces in the construction of roads within the provinces. Now, that is all very well so far as it goes, but in the debates of last year an important supporter of my right hon. friend, who now occupies a seat upon a commission, the then member for Kootenay, dilated at considerable length upon the power that would be given under this Bill to construct a national highway from the Atlantic to the Pacific. That possibility in the measure has been referred to in the Senate itself by the leader of the Government in the UTV'er Chamber, so that we have this extraordinary position, that the Prime Minister suggested this afternoon that the object of the Bill is to help the construction of roads within the provinces, while the leader of the Government in the other HouBe referred to the possibility, under this Bill, of the construction of a national high vay across the whole country. The Govsrnment themselves do not know the object of the Bill, or if they do, they do not tell us, and they do not tell the Senate. In regard to the project of constructing a national highway, if that is the object of the Government, why do they not put it in the Bill? Why do they not state that that is their object? Let that project be debated on its merits, and I tell my right hon. friend that if he will take that course he will find that he has less support even from the Conservative provinces than he has at the present moment. It may be all very nice for people to travel from the Atlantic to the Pacific in automobiles, and to call at the city of Calgary, and have a good time there, but-the farmers who keep tire city of Calgary and a lot of people who are driving automobiles, and who want to get their grain and stock along decent roads to market, will not be very much interested in that kind of proceeding. What they want is help to make the roads in the provinces. I have had an experience in this connection. When I first came to this country my team used to stick three times regularly every day between my home and the railway station. That is where, as a farmer, I wanted a good road, and that is where the farmers want good roads. That is where the farmer had provision for good roads under the British North America Act, when, by the wisdom of the Imperial Parliament, the construction of roads was placed in the hands of the provincial legislatures, and not in the hands of the federal Government who now want to usurp Mr. CLARK (Red Deer).
[ that position. That is my comment upon what is said to be the object of my right hon. friend. If any other member of the Government can step in between the leader of the Government in this House, and the leader of the Government in the Upper House, and tell us what the Government mean to do, we shall be better able to give a reasonable decision on this question.
My right hon. friend resents very much the imputation of motives. Mr. -Gladstone once said that we should never impute motives, and as a counsel of -perfection it is very good. But can we expect my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) to reach that point of perfection? Be hints here that some minister in the present Government has used the proposed expenditures upon roads to influence public opinion. I understood him in that sense.


George Perry Graham: He promised expenditures under this Bill.


Michael Clark: Then we are not interpreting motives, we -are witnessing actions. What is the good of my right hon. friend, who can put up a good argument when he has a good case, assuming this _ air of wounded virtue and objecting to his motives being impugned, when what he ought to do is to explain the actions of his * colleagues, and not concern himself with suspicions or motives. The Government ought to get themselves cleared up on this question. If they are a set of angels, let them produce fruits meet for repentance.
I do not want to say very much more on the subject. If there is no sinister motive, dispel that suspicion and accept the amendments of the Senate, and we shall have a chance of improved highways in Canada. It is a pity that we cannot arrive at an agreement on the subject at the present moment. The country is in a condition of very great peace after having fought imaginary Armageddons for five years. I propose that we should cut the battle of Armageddon out of the Book of Revelation, and proceed to produce the millennium in our own way. And one of the ways of getting a little bit of the millennium will be to improve the highways.


Robert Laird Borden: Hear, hear.


Michael Clark: The Government can do
so, and at the same time establish some of that peace of the millennium and also peace between themselves and the other branch of the legislature on this particular subject. They can get to work at once instead of dangling this thing as something to be voted for by the people, and as something to use on platforms in condemnation of those who have criticised - it. I am not imagining this sort of thing. I have referred to the leader of the Government in

the Senate. His colleague in law practice is the representative of Calgary in this House, and the latter went to Calgary last fall and said that if the farmers were struggling with the difficulty of taking their grain to market, they should remember that this Bill for the improvement of highways went to the Senate and was never seen again.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Hear, hear.


Michael Clark: My hon. friend from Peterborough says, ' hear, hear.' He is just as accurate in his history as the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) was on the occasion to which I refer. It was necessary to say that the Bill was never seen again to prove that the Senate killed it. What did happen was that it was seen again ; it is being seen to-day in an amended form. It was not a case of homicide, it was a case of infanticide. If the Government have a good policy either upon highways, or upon anything else, let them produce it, and let them get the political credit that will always go to a Government that produces a good policy, and that helps the people. But do not let them have the suspicion hanging around that they want to get credit for the policy, when they intend to use the money spent under the policy for the benefit of heelers of their own party.
My right hon. friend the Prime Minister spoke in very moderate terms. I would just like to say that while I accept his declaration that he means well under this arrangement, I do not think he is serious in asking us to accept his own intentions as being a guarantee for all time as to what would be done under this Bill, if it were passed in its present shape. He was surely hard up for an argument when he referred to the possibility of disaster as a justification of this Bill. If I understand him correctly, he said that a disaster might at any time destroy roads and might create an urgent need. The words were quite familiar to me. On the road question, the policy of the Prime Minister seems to be to introduce his permanent policy for the relief of an emergency. Surely my right hon. friend was not serious in giving that as his only justification for differing from the Senate on this question. I might use an argument that was used on the other side of the House in the debates which occupied so much of our time this winter. I might point out that in the case of an emergency we would always have the power to grant immediate relief. I borrow that argument from my hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Middlebro). In the course of the debate, I asked my hon. friend a simple question about the possibilities in emergencies, and as to some explanation which I wanted to get in regard to the
policy of the Government on the naval question. I think I asked him whether one contribution constituted his sole idea as to Imperial federation, and the hon. gentleman gave me a speech on earthquakes. He spoke in terms of earthquakes. He said that if we had earthquakes we could contribute at once. I take the argument from the naval debate, and present it to my right hon. friend to soothe him in contemplation of the possibility of internal tempest in Canada. I am glad to withdraw his mind from the possibility of Imperial tempests, and to console him with the certainty that Canada will always be ready to deal with disaster. This is not a question of disaster. I do not think that argument carries you very f &r
I do not want to introduce anything of a very strong party flavour at this time, but my rigiht hon. -friend, if he is inclined to carry this dispute with the Senate to its legitimate outcome, must be prepared to submit it to the judgment of the people.
I felt sure that would be the case a little time ago and I felt sure of it when I heard the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) speak at the end of last session. I am sure that if he had been here now and if he had made another speech like that, following on the declarations which my right hon. friend made on various occasions in regard to anotner matter, we could not, in order to put an end to the embroglio that has arisen between the Senate and the House oi Commons, have avoided a general election. I give my right hon. friend credit for sincerity on that question of a general election. I am not inclined to taunt him with the non-fulfilment of all that he has given us by way of pledges on that question because I have said in this House before that holding an election, especially with a great Imperial issue in the balance, would be a questionable line of policy. Still, unless the Government will learn from the Senate, as they have already done on other matters, in the long run this question will go to the electors. I am sure that my right hon. friend, on personal grounds, would not altogether dislike the occasion. I know that he would be happier in many other positions than in his present one. I think I have read his mind and I have no doubt that he sometimes communes with himself and in the lines of Hamlet wonders. . . .
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take up arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them.
I am sure he holds that kind of communion with himself; but if he does, there is another minister who is in a, different camp


Mr. ANDREW BRODER (Dundas):: Surely the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) has not well considered some of his arguments. This Dominion Government cannot go into a province and make an agreement with that province by which they can override the municipalities, because the province cannot make an agreement of that kind. 'Then, where is his argument?


George Perry Graham: Look at the Bill.


Andrew Broder: That is not the point; the point is this: the provinces have no power to make an agreement which would override the rights of the municipalities, and, therefore the objection of the hon. member falls to the ground. The hon. gentleman knows very well that the Dominion Government could build roads from the Pacific to the Atlantic without this Bill, if they saw fit.


George Perry Graham: There is no doubt about that.


Andrew Broder: Very well. Then the hon. member tells us that this House can make the Bill good by accepting the amendment of the Senate, and my answer is that the Senate can make the Bill good by withdrawing its amendment. That argument, therefore, applies with equal force to both situations. The hon. gentleman tells us about his experience in South Renfrew, but he can well understand that the people of many sections of South Renfrew were made apt scholars on that question by the policy of the provincial Government, of which he was a member. That Government made plenty of promises as to roads.


George Perry Graham: That is not a very good answer.


Andrew Broder: It is a very good
answer, because it is the hon. gentleman himself and the Government to which he belonged in the province that made these apt pupils on the road question. The people were told time and again, by that provincial government, that they would get roads in South Renfrew if they sent such and such a man to Parliament. That was what was taught the people of Ontario by the Liberal Government for twenty-three years, and it is time the hon. gentleman should get some^ of his own medicine; he should not complain. The hon. gentleman complained that this Bill would lead to the exercise of political influence by the Dominion Government, but the proposal of the Senate increases the political influence by handing it out to the various provinces to use it. Legislation generally is intended not to keep people from doing right, but to keep people from doing wrong, and the argument of the hon. gentleman in this instance is to the effect that people should be kept from doing right. The relations between the Dominion and the provinces, and their rights constitutionally, are to some extent a matter of growth, rather than a matter of law, because necessity must have its way in dealing with all these great questions, and we know that the provinces have dealt with the road questions ever since 1843, and yet the complaint of the whole country is that we have not good roads. Is it not time some other authority had

something to say in helping the people to get good roads?	_
A great deal is said about provincial autonomy and all that kind of thing; but I say that the people want good roads, and the proposal of this Government is to help the provinces to give the people good roads, and that is the question that is before the people and not the constitutional issue. It is a question of doing what the people require to be done in the public interest, and yet hon. gentlemen opposite see fit, through the action of the upper House-the same political blood runs through the veins of the gentlemen opposite in this House, although it may be a little more lively; it is the same breeding and the same everything-and they are afraid something will be done for the people. That is what is troubling them, but I am not afraid of that. I would be glad to see something done for the people, and I do not care particularly who does it, so long as it is done. It is all very well for hon. gentlemen opposite to suspect the intentions of the Government, but they would have a much stronger case if they let the Government go on-but they have not the courage to do that-and then attack them if they do wrong. It is time we did something to improve the roads in this country. Take France, with its 18,000 miies of municipal roads. My hon. friend from Red Deer is very much afraid of an automobile going through his country.


Michael Clark: I am afraid
of my wagon sticking.


Andrew Broder: Very well; if you run
behind the wagon you will be perfectly safe.


Michael Clark: I keep my dogs there.


Andrew Broder: New York State has had some experience with automobiles, and the taxes on the automobiles maintain the roads. That would not be a bad idea for this country to adopt. I do not care how many wealthy men from the States or anywhere else come through Canada over good roads, because I look upon them as a splendid advertisement of what this country is and what its prospects are. It would be a good thing for the poorest man in the country to have automobiles coming here and, wealthy men in them. I am not going to quarrel *vs'ith my neighbour because he is rich; if all my neighbours were rich there would be a better chance for me. I don't want a man to be so shaken up on our roads that he will be profane before he ends the journey. I would rather have him travel over a good road. I am not afraid of automobiles nor of good roads. I do not think it would be wrong to have some leading roads of distinctive character in this country; on the contrary, it would be Mr. BRODER.
a good thing. I believe the Senate has made a mistake. The people of this country realize that it is time this question had a chance to be tried, and let the results either commend or condemn those who are responsible for carrying the idea into effect.


William Manley German: 
Mr. W. F. NICKLE (Kingston):: Just a word or two in reply to the Iron, member for Welland (Mr. German). It seems to me extremely unfortunate for the country at large that a great scheme that means so much to the farming community should be kept in abeyance because the members of this Parliament who sit on the other side oi the House and form the majority in the Senate have not sufficient confidence in the honesty and integrity of this Administration to believe that money appropriated in the' manner proposed will be fairly and properly spent for the improvement of highways in the several provinces?
I listened with considerable interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark). Before I came to this House I had followed that hon. gentleman's record with considerable interest. I looked upon him as a radical of the radicals. I
had heard him humourously termed ' Red Michael,' and, as I was somewhat the same complexion myself and had often had my attention drawn to the attributes that the word ' red ' seemed to impute, I expected to find in the hon. gentleman a vehement, fiery man, with the courage of his convictions. But since I have had the honour of a seat in the House, my views of the hon. gentleman have entirely changed. I have almost reached the conviction that he and I should change positions, that I should go over to the Liberal party and that he should sit among the Conservatives. The ex-Radical has become a most extreme Conservative. He supports an Upper House in everything. Whether it be a navy question, on which I give him credit for having strong constitutional views; or a banking act. of which he frankly admits he knows nothing; or a question of roads, of which, he says, he knows something-in every case he supports the Upper House against the House elected directlv by the neople. To summarize the whole question,-and these are the conclusions expressed by the people I represent,-we want good roads in Ontario, more particularly in eastern Ontario, and eastern Ontario welcomed the news that the Dominion would contribute a sum for the construction of these roads. It may not be known to hon. gentlemen opposite-it is to the member} who come from Ontario-that the eastern part of Ontario has not the electric service that the western part of the province has, because electric power is so expensive that it is impossible profitably to operate electric roads. It is equally true that during the regime of the late Administration, in the Government of which the late Minister of Railways and Canals had a portfolio, it was charged that in a good many instances the road money of the province of Ontario was improperly spent. I am not going to say whether or not those charges were correct; it is an unfortunate thing in public life to-day that in the administration of public money those who are dissatisfied with its expenditure are always ready and willing to say unpleasant things about those who have the spending of the money. But so long as governments are governments, and men are men, I suppose governments will spend the money where they think the best advantage will come to their party without shocking public conscience. In other words, they will deal fairly with the people, but more or less with the idea of serving their own interests.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


William Folger Nickle: The hon. member for Rouville says, ' hear, hear.' I am speaking frankly, as I understand this matter, and I want the House to understand me.

I admit that governments are frail. I believe that this is a big issue and that the people of the country want better roads. I think this House and the Senate should rise above the partisan considerations which are allowed to crush out such a beneficial measure simply because they have a dread that something may be improperly done. The right hon. leader of the Opposition frankly tells us, as does the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, that the principle that should _ underlie these appropriations should be distributed upon a population basis. This is the difference between the two parties; the Conservative party says: we are going to spend the money ourselves; the Liberal party and their friends in the Senate say: you are not going to do anything of the sort; we are afraid you will spend the money in a corrupt manner. The hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) admits that the Minister of Railways and Canals is honest and straight-forward, and that this measure will be carried out without favour and without graft. If he believes what he says, why does he not rise above those partisan considerations that seem to influence him and his party and vote for this Bill ? If in the working out of the measure it is true that the Minister of Railways and Canals is not such a man as the hon. member for Welland represents him to be, then I say it is time, when the estimates come down in another year, for the members of the Opposition to refuse the money and to hold the Government to account.


Wilfrid Laurier: That was
proved in Renfrew.


William Folger Nickle: What was proved?
Si,- WILFRID LAURIER: That the Bill might be used for corrupt purposes.


William Folger Nickle: It may have been proved in Renfrew; I should not be surprised if it was, because than the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals there is no better exponent of such a policy.


Edmond Proulx: We should not expose the Minister of Railways to temptation.


William Folger Nickle: I have always believed
that it is easier to avoid temptation than to resist it, but I believe that men are sometimes big enough to resist temptation and not avoid it. For that reason I think the members of the Opposition should give the Government an opportunity of carrying out a policy that means so much to the farming communities of this country.


Mr. R. B. BENNETT (Calgary):: I.understand that some reference was made by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) to certain assertions I made in reference to the Highways Bill last year. I did observe that this Bill was of importance to the prov-Mr. NICKLE.
ince in which I reside, and I desire to repeat that I consider this Bill to be of paramount importance to the people of Alberta. I ventured the other evening to point out that the question of good roads was more important to the people of Alberta in one respect than freight rates, and I have since learned that on account of the bad condition of the highways the residents of one of the most fertile portions of the province, namely the Milk River district, had to pay last year the exorbitant sum of thirty-five cents a bushel to have their crops carried, by tender, if you will, from the farms to the railway stations. This Government entered upon a comprehensive scheme in relation to the improvement of highways. The Prime Minister of this country promised that if he were elected to power he would endeavour to improve the highways of western Canada. Sitting upon the same platform with him in the city of Calgary, I heard him make that promise to the electors of that city, and last fall when I held my annual meeting with my constituents I directed their attention to the fact that this Government implemented more of its pre-election promises in one session than any government that had ever held power since Confederation. I pointed out that the will of the people and of this Government had been thwarted by the Senate, and that the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition had said from his place in this House that he desired to associate himself with the Senate in its action in thus thwarting the will of the people last session. I understand that the hon. member for Red Deer has taken exception to the remarks I made on that occasion. I desire here and now, as I did then and there, to repeat that this House has passed a certain Bill based upon a recognition of the necessity of having good highways, not from a narrow provincial standpoint, but upon the principle of encouraging good highways as a national asset in Canada, and that it ill becomes the Senate of Canada, representing no people, at variance with the very spirit of democracy, to tnwart the will of the people. I did point out to the people of the constituency I have the honour to represent, and my remarks have been criticised by the hon. gentleman whose professions are radical and principles Conservative, whose free trade ideas find expression only in a desire to build up a protective-battleship industry in this country, and who is always ready and willing, at *any excuse, although he as never able to manufacture a reasonable one, to follow the behests of his party, wherever it may lead him. That is his history since he has come to western Canada, and I suppose it will be his history until he goes down to immortal fame as the great prototype of that school of thought which has no followers in this Dominion. I say frankly that any gentleman who comes

into this Parliament with one eye on the press gallery and the other upon 'Hansard' cannot expect very great consideration at the hands of any member who desires to see the will of democracy expressed.
There is behind this Bill a great and abiding principle, and it is this: shall the will of democracy be thwarted and destroyed by an irresponsible body of men sitting in another chamber? This Government came into power with a mandate from the people to develop a system of national highways; this Parliament has passed a Bill on two occasions for the encouragement and development of national highways, not limited to one province, applicable equally to the provinces of the East and the provinces of the West, and the will of this Parliament is being thwarted to-day, as it wTas last year, by an irresponsible Senate. It is time that the Senate was reformed. For more than fifteen long years in western Canada we heard shrieks and cries about reforming the Senate. The Senate has been reformed by the right hon. gentleman opposite to such an extent that they now echo his opposition in this House of Commons to the will of democracy. That is his idea of reforming the Senate, and the people of western Canada are getting sick and tired and weary of it. In the province from which I come they desire to see the Highway Bill passed and an appreciation of national necessity given effect to. I say that the people of western Canada and of the province in which I live will hold the right hon. gentleman and his hollow echoers in another chamber, responsible for their conduct in rejecting this Bill which has been passed by the will of the people of this country. The right hon. gentleman may throw up his hands and say; Quite so-; I am proud of them. When I point out these facts to an audience in the province from which I come, I am told that it was the House of Commons and not the Senate that killed the Bill. It is a reflection upon the intelligence of the people of this country to say that it was the Commons that killed the Bill. Is the will of democracy to be set, aside for the will of the minority? Is this Government to bow to the will of the minority because they have a hollow echo in another Chamber where there is a Liberal majority? That is the position, and yet a man of the intelligence of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) stands up to the people of Calgary and tells them it was not the Senate that killed the Bill, that it was the Conservative party in the Commons that killed the Bill, and he expects the people to take any stock in such an argument. Is it any wonder that the people laughed and jeered at any such thought? They appreciate to the full just what it means.
In the province in which I live any
arrrangement that might be made for the use of this money would have to be made with a Liberal Government and not a Conservative Government. It is true that during the last few months the money of the people has been squandered for election purposes in Alberta. It is true that one hundred men brought in from outside carried a seat for a minister in the very district in which the hon. member for Re'd Deer lives. It is true that an Alberta telephone gang made it possible for Duncan Marshall to be elected Minister of Agriculture. It is true that an employee of the Department of Public Works of Alberta, working upon the highways, has been committed for trial and must stand his trial before the Supreme Court of Alberta for intimidation of electors in connection with the roads and highways of the province of Alberta. His name is Lawler. He was committed at Clyde. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) might tell the House something about that, because his journal made a fitting reference to it.


Mr. OLIVER:: I presume that Lawler was from Manitoba.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, he lives in Alberta, and in the recent election there was not a man from outside of Alberta who came into that province on the Conservative side, but the province was filled with heelers from Saskatchewan and Manitoba on the Liberal side. I could give the names if the hon. member for Edmonton would like to have them.


Frank Oliver: As my hon. friend is so far out of order in dealing with the subject -of the elections in Alberta, he might just as well go on and give us the names. For my part, I would be very glad to have them.
If this House has time to spend in that sort of entertainment let us have all the names my hon. friend has in regard to the elections in Alberta.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If my hon. friend wishes to raise the point of order, and at the same time insinuate that I wish to delay the business of the House, perhaps I should not deal with the election. I have the evidence and the papers-


Frank Oliver: Let the House have the benefit of them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are in my desk upstairs, and I can get them in a few moments.


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman has brought this matter to the attention of the House; let him give the information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will give the information briefly. There is a constituency in Alberta called Clearwater. It sends to the legislature, thanks to the gerrymander of a Liberal Government, one member. Its

total voting number is forty-seven. That is Liberalism rampant in Alberta, that is the Liberalism that has the sign manual of the approval of the hon. member for Edmonton placed upon it. It is true that there are little dissensions as to his giving it the imprimateur of his approval. The Attorney General has a little doubt as to the political morality of the hon. gentleman for Edmonton and I understand that the hon. member for Edmonton has some doubt as to the political morality of the Attorney General. But between them they devised a constituency at Clearwater with a voting population of forty-seven. At the recent election in that constituency there were three candidates, McKenny the Government candidate, Taylor the Conservative candidate, and Joseph Clark, who wrote a letter to the Liberal party, another candidate. These three gentlemen together polled forty-seven votes. When the votes were counted, unfortunately it was found that some of them were tied up in envelopes. But in this instance they were not able to steal them as in two other constituencies, about which perhaps hon. gentlemen would like to hear-


Frank Oliver: Thank you.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -by men who were brought before a judge at Medicine Hat.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the hon. member is going very far from the subject of the motion before the Chair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Thank you. I should not have trespassed on the time of the House, but I wished to point out that in the constituency of Clearwater a hireling of the local Government named Lawlor, sent there as an election agent of McKenny to improve the highways, is now standing trial before the Supreme Court for intimidating electors in connection with highways. It is with this Liberal Government that we would have to negotiate in connection with the expenditure of public money on highways. But we are told that the Senate has decided that this cannot be done-that even that brand of Liberals cannot be trusted.
I summarize the matter in this way. This Government promised the people of western Canada that it would pass legislation that would enable it to devote federal money to improve the national highway system of western Canada. That was said by all parties to be absolutely essential and necessary. This Government came into power on a mandate from the people to carry out their pre-election promises. They did so last session. They placed this Bill on the statute book. The Bill was killed by the Senate. The Liberal party desired to associate itself with the Senate's action. This session the Bill was reintro-Mr. BENNETT (Calgary).
duced and repassed. The Senate has again destroyed it, and again the Liberal party in this House desires to associate itself with the Senate in destroying this Bill and preventing the people of western Canada from getting some measure of relief, because it would afford us some measure of relief; and the thirty-five cents a bushel that we have to pay to transport wheat from the farm to the railway must continue, because a discredited minority are able to get in another Chamber an echo of their voice, and thwart the will of these people. I protest on behalf of the few farmers in my constituency, because it is largely city, against the action of this minority, for we all know that one word from the right hon. gentleman opposite and his servile majority in the Senate would obey his behest and do what he asks them to do.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the hon. member ought to take back the words ' servile majority.'


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall withdraw the
words ' servile ' and say ' willing.'


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon.
member has no right to say that. The majority in the Senate is quite independent, and can act for itself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have not shown
any sign of it.


Frank Oliver: I
do not intend to traverse at any great length the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett, Calgary) in regard to the elections in Alberta, but as you have been good enough to allow him to take the latitude he has taken I hope I may be permitted to take, let us say, measurable longitude. My hon. friend has drawn attention to a case in which a man who happened to be employed by the Government of Alberta in road work has been brought into court for improper practices in the elections. 1 am at a loss to understand in what way that fact and that result, so far as it has gone, is any reflection upon the Liberal Government of Alberta. I call my hon. friend's attention and the attention of the House to the fact that in the province of Manitoba elections do not go that -way. Where a Conservative Government is in power the man who votes against that Government is lucky if he is able to keep out of jail without any question of law.


Mr. ROGERS:: I cannot allow my hon. friend to to make such a statement. Time after time insinuations of this kind have been made in this House. I want to say here and now that there was no man arrested in Manitoba who was not known to the officers oi the law of that province as being a political crook of long standing.


Frank Oliver: The House will observe
that as soon as what by courtesy we may call the argument made by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) is turned back on his friends on that side of the House, it produces what would be vulgarly called a roar. We do not have to find fault with such talk as my hon. friend from Calgary puts up. It is absurd, and everybody knows it, but when we return the compliment, it produces a response from that side because it is true and everybody knows it. When my hon. friend says that the men who were arrested in Manitoba, put in jail without trial, and kept there unwarrantably were known to be crooks, may I be permitted to say, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend has made a statement that he knows is not true.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Robert Rogers: It is absolutely true.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I must order the hon.
gentleman to withdraw that expression. No hon. gentleman has a right to say of another hon. gentleman who makes a statement that he knows it to be untrue.


Frank Oliver: I will withdraw the
statement, but I may be permitted to give the facts in regard to one of those cases. A young man of the name of Prince, horn in St. Boniface, Manitoba, where his parents reside, employed in a law office, engaged in the study of law in Winnipeg, who, I do not think, is more than 21 years of age, and who cannot by any possibility have had any serious connection with any previous elections in Man- .


Mr. BRADBURY:: Why?


Frank Oliver: Because he was too young.


George Henry Bradbury: I think my hon.
friend knows that lots of his own friends who are not more than 18 or 20 years of age, have a great deal to do with elections.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend can speak of his friends and of what they do, but he cannot speak of my friends and of what they do. I desire to say that when the hon. the Minister of Public Works asserts that young Prince was known to be a political crcok, he is aside from the facts, if I may use that statement. Prince is a young man against whose character absolutely nothing can be brought forward, personally, politically, or in any other way, who, out of loyalty to Liberal principles, and only out of loyalty to Liberal principles, desired to influence his fellow citizens of the province of Manitoba in favour of those principles. He dared to exercise the right that we talk of as being the right of all the citizens of Canada, and went to a part of the constituency of Macdonald, where the people are largely of French origin and
language, as Prince himself is, and he was shadowed immediately by the hirelings of the Government of Manitoba, by leeches-


An hon. MEMBER:: Red line leeches.


Frank Oliver: -who are eating up the revenues of the province of Manitoba, who are part of the standing army of election thugs kept up out of the treasury of the province of Manitoba, under the able administration with which the Minister of Public Works was connected.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it would be well for the hon. gentleman to direct his attention to the motion before the House.


Frank Oliver: I shall be very glad to do so: but since my hon. friend from Calgary introduced matter that was so absolutely foreign to the question under consideration, and used such intemperate and unwarranted language, I thought it would not be out of place to see if the rule would work the other way.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the interference or allegation to be that this money might be used improperly in connection with the expenditure on roads, and that the hon. member for Calgary gave an illustration from another source of how that was being done. Therefore his remarks had some kind of relevancy to the question under discussion. But the hon. gentleman is directing his attention to an election in Manitoba, which does not seem to me to have the same relevancy.


Frank Oliver: I thought the point my
non. friend from Calgary was trying to make was that because the Government of Alberta was Liberal, therefore it was crooked.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Lawler
was doing road work, and it was in connection with the intimidation of the voters of Clearwater that he was sent up for trial. The Liberal Government of Alberta now declines to prosecute him. I have the letter in which they were asked to do so, and they have not done so. Two other gentlemen were sent up for trial but the charges were discontinued because these men were innocent.


George Perry Graham: It sounds like Manitoba.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Manitoba ciwiid not
equal that.	.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend brings out very clearly the point I thought he was trying to make, that because the Government of Alberta was & Liberal Government, therefore it was not to be trusted with the management of public affairs, and particularly with the control of road money. Nevertheless he was prepared to assert that this

was a proper Bill, and that the Government of Alberta should be brought under the control of this Government by the terms of this Bill in regard to road work. I do not wish to pursue this matter further; I merely wanted to let my hon. friend from Calgary understand that if he, or my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, desires to introduce such controversial matter in the discussions in this House, they can certainly have all they want of it.


An hon. MEMBER:: And more than they want.


Frank Oliver: Perhaps a little more
than they want. In regard to the matter under consideration, I desire to say that the Government of Alberta builds the roads of that province directly as a Government work, and the people of Alberta believe that that Government is able to do, and as a matter of fact does, good work, and renders a satisfactory return for the money spent on the roads in that province. If my hon. friend from Calgary wants any evidence on that point, I refer him to the elections in which he took such a distinguished part, and as the result of which the Alberta Government have a majority of something like two to one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Over fifty per cent of the electors voted against them.


George Perry Graham: Like the election of 1911.


Frank Oliver: That may or may not be correct, but, to use an argument made use of repeatedly by our friends on the other side of the House, the Government of Alberta represents a majority in the legislature., and is therefore entitled to the con-trolJof the affairs of that province. Perhaps my hon. friend considers he has had sufficient on this subject of the Alberta elections, because if he does not, we can give him plenty more.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would be delighted to have an hour or two with my hon. friend on the evidence I have.
Mr. OLIVER. My hon. friend chooses this time and place when he knows it is not convenient to take time, and when he knows he has the protection of the Chair in maintaining decorum in this House. But when he was in Calgary, he hired a bunch of thugs to put up the arguments which he himself was afraid to put up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I must rise to a point of order. My hon. friend has surely had enough of that. I desire to say with reference to the men to whom he refers, that I did not know they were there. They were a few ex-soldiers and ex-sailors who resented the action of the hon. gentleman in sitting when the National Anthem was sung.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order.
Mr. OLIVER.


Frank Oliver: I would like to know how my hon. friend knew so well who were the men who tried to break up that meeting?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I took the trouble next day to find out.


Frank Oliver: He took the trouble the day before to arrange for it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is false; that is false.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is false.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the hon. member (Mr. Oliver) should direct his attention to the question before the House.


Frank Oliver: I am desirous of doing so, but I am sure you will recognize, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Calgary has interrupted me repeatedly and unjustifiably, and I am merely replying to his interruptions. I have no wish to diverge from the subject under discussion, but I ask not to be interrupted if I am not to be permitted to diverge. What I was trying to establish was that the province of Alberta, discharging its responsibility to the people in the matter of the construction of roads, is doing so in conformity with the constitution of Canada and in conformity with the will of the people, and that when this Parliament undertakes, by legislation that has been passed through Parliament by the will of the majority, to say that this Government knows better how to build roads in Alberta than the Government of Alberta, I disagree absolutely. I will suggest that if the Government of Canada as at present constituted, will attend properly and well to the business of the Dominion under its jurisdiction under the terms of the British North America Act it will find all it can manage satisfactorily, all that is within the compass of its ability to manage, and it will do well to leave to the provinces of Canada that which is specially their business, just as, might I suggest, it will do equally well to leave to the Government of the United Kingdom that which is particularly the business of that Government. This Government is spreading itself a little farther than its merits warrant when it undertakes to deal with matters which are properly the business of the Government and Parliament of the United Kingdom, and equally to interfere with that which is especially the business of the various provinces or Canada.


George Henry Bradbury: Did you not do it
when you were in office?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order.


George Henry Bradbury: The hon. gentleman remembers that when he was in power, he

constructed in my own county twenty-one miles of road with money out of the Dominion treasury.


Frank Oliver: Sure.


George Henry Bradbury: Did you interfere with the duties of the province?


Frank Oliver: No. At that time and up to the present time this Government would not be interfering with the activities of that province by building roads in Manitoba. I must admit that I -was speaking of the province of Alberta. The interference contemplated by this Bill, if exercised in the province of Alberta, would be unwarranted, injurious and unacceptable to the people of Alberta. I know that the Manitoba people want roads, that they want them very much, that they could not get them from the provincial government, and that they would be glad to get them from anybody.


George Henry Bradbury: It was because they did not have the money.


Frank Oliver: They did not have the money. When this Government has, under existing conditions, a revenue greater than the absolute needs of the country require, I consider that the provinces have a right to share in that money. Just as the revenues of the Dominion grow, so the needs of the provincial governments grow, and it is right and proper that the Dominion Government should make provision out of its increased revenues to meet the increased needs of the several provinces. In so far as this measure deals with that condition, I am prepared to support it, and the amendment of the Senate is exactly the provision that will compel it to meet the case. What we want, and all we want, is that when this Government has money that it can afford to devote to the building of roads, it shall give that money to the legislatures of the different provinces in proportion to their population, to be spent by their governments as the people of these provinces see fit. It seems to me that is a fair and reasonable pronosition, and that it is the only fair and reasonable proposition. It is not fair or right that when this Government has a large surplus it should be allowed to devote that surplus, or a share of it, to purely provincial purposes, except according to the principles of the British North America Act applicable to the division of Dominion moneys among the provinces. That is the only way that it should be allowed to deal with the question. It is able to deal with it under the Senate amendment to this Bill, and I want to say that, in so far as the province of Alberta is concerned-and there is already before the Government a memorial from the province of Saskatchewan on the same
point-they object absolutely to the Government of Canada interfering with that which is their special business and which they can discharge with greater advantage to their province than can this Government.


Mr. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright):: I would like to add one word; and the hon. member for 'Calgary (Mr. Bennett) will pardon me if I do not enter into the merits or demerits of the provincial elections in the part of the country from which he comes. We in our province carry on our elections in an honest way, and we are always somewhat shocked and sorry to hear of such things as happened out in Macdonald in the province of the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers), or has happened in the province of Alberta. I hope that the people in certain portions of Manitoba and Alberta will be the better for the argument that has taken place on both sides of the House to-day in reference to provincial elections in those provinces.
But what I wanted to point out, Mr. Speaker, was that when the hon. member for Calgary u*ir. Bennett) made the statement that the Senate killed the Bill, which stands upon the Order Paper as an ' Act to Improve the Highways of Canada,' he said something which was altogether wrong. The Senate has simply amended it in line with the spirit of the British North America Act. Section 118 of the British North America Act, with respect to grants to the provinces, states that the sums therein stipulated shall be paid annually in aid of the provinces at a rate equal to eighty cents per head of the population as ascertained by the census of 1861, and in the case of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, by each subsequent decennial census until the population of each of those two provinces amounts to 400,000 souls, at which rate such grant shall thereafter remain. Grants to the provinces are made, according to the British North America Act, in proportion to population. It seems to me that the amendment is altogether in keeping with the spirit of the British North America Act, and that when the Senate enacted that the constitution should be lived up to, it did not kill the Bill, but it amended it in such a way that the House of Commons ought to accept the amendment. If the Government assume the responsibility of refusing to concur in the amendments made by the Senate, they absolutely and emphatically kill the Highways Bill, because the amendment is a constitutional amendment; the money will be spent for the roads in the provinces and by the provinces. When the Senate amended the Bank Act, the Government accepted the amendments and passed the Bill in this House as



amended. It would be just as reasonable to saw that the Senate killed the Bank Act by its amendment, as to say the Senate killed the Highways Bill by the amendment they made to it. I assume the full responsibility for the words I may have uttered in regard to the Highways Bill, and when we go before the people, as we must go sooner or later, and I hope it will be soon, the Ministry must assume full responsibility for having killed their own creature, if they refuse to aeeept the Senate amendments to the Highways Bill.


Mr. E. H. MACDONALD (Pictou):: The position of affairs with regard to this Bill has been distorted by hon. gentlemen opposite in the House and outside the House. It is evident the Government does not want to pass a Bill through this Parliament, to provide for highway construction in this country. The course adopted by the Government in the last two sessions shows to any unprejudiced mind, that their desire is to masquerade before the people of this country as anxious to assist highway construction, when really they do not want to do anything of the kind.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the hon. gentleman is going too far.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In what way?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not permissible to impute improper motives to any member of the House.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have said that the Government of this country do not want to have this measure passed, and the language I used was but an amplification of that idea. If hon. members are not permitted to make a statement with regard to the course of the Government upon a public question, which has been already so curtailed in this House, the freedom of debate will be once more further curtailed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order. I do not think
the hon. member has the right to criticise the ruling of the Chair. I referred to the well-known rule laid down -by almost every Speaker of the British House of Commons, that it is not permissible to impute improper motives to- any member of the House. If the statement of the hon. member, that there is no desire to- pass the Bill except for masquerading purposes, -is not imputing an improper motive, then I cannot understand what would be.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The language you
have just used, Mr. Speaker, is not the language which I used. What I stated to the House, and what I am prepared to reiterate, is, that the Government did not desire to have this Bill passed; that they are holding ont to the country that they Mr. DEVLIN.
do desire t-o- pass it when, -as a matter of fact, they do not. I think that is parliamentary. It is not imputing improper motives; it is a description of the position of one political party, which I have aright to -criticise as I have done. The fact is that the Government came to the House last year and said: We want to assist the provinces to construct highways; and they repudiated any idea of being anxious to proceed with the construction of highways themselves. The minister declared that the money to be devoted to this purpose would be divided among the provinces according to population. When the Bill came down, there were clauses that would indicate that that was th-e desire of the Government; but there was clause 6, which enabled the Government to arrogate to themselves the expenditure of this money, if they desired to do so. There is where the difficulty is.


Francis Cochrane: It could not be done
without the consent o-f the province.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Quite so. The minister recognizes the constitutionality of the right of the province to be the sole authority to control the highways, but clause 6 enables the Government, if they found a province that was willing to give in to them, to take the right to themselves to expend the money in that province.
The Prime Minister told us they were dividing this money according to population in -the Supply Bill, and when he did so he admitted the constitutionality of the contention of the Opposition; he admitted the sole right of the provinces to deal with this matter. He wants to have clause 6 in the Bill for some particular reason. Last year when the Senate held that the Dominion should not retain that right to -expend the money, and that the Bill was not in accordance with the avowed purpose of the Government, and undertook to reform the Bill in accordance with the avowe-d intention of the Government, the Government threw out the measure. Then the gentlemen opposite went up and down the country talking about the terrible Senate and the terrible Grits who would not allow them to do anything for the highways of this -country.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The gentleman who says: 'hear, hear,' thinks they were able to pull the legs of the unsuspecting voters by such guff as that. This year the Government -comes along with the same Bill, asserting before high Heaven their desire to observe the constitution, and their leader asks Parliament to recognize his -sincerity, because he has put in the estimates an amount to be voted to each province. But. again, there is in the Bill this unconstitutional clause 6 for the purpose of enabling

them to control the expenditure of the money in certain cases. Then, when the Senate does what it did last year, and reforms the Bill in accordance with the expressed views of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Eailways, the farce is again gone through of declaiming against the Senate because they have inserted the very stipulation which the Government themselves say they want in the Bill. The Conservative party are pretending they want to assist the provincial governments of this country to have improved highways; but in the Senate and elsewhere the leaders of the Conservative party speak about a great highway for automobiles that is to run from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Their idea is that the expenditure under the direction of the Minister of Eailways will he on some highway intended to provide for automobile people going from province to province. They did not desire to help the farmers of the West, those constituents of my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Bennett) for whose interest his heart bleeds every hour of the day-in imagination. The Government does not intend to do anything for these people, nor do they intend to do anything for the farmers of eastern Canada. No such notion actuates any hon. gentleman in regard to this question. In the back districts of South Eenfrew, my hon. friend (Mr. Graham) has shown, and all over this country, there are a lot of political heelers watching this section 6. They want it to go into effect. They had visions of inducing the Minister of Eailways, through the patronage dispensers in the several constituencies, to divert to their use quantities of road money which would he very useful in their business if the Government goes to the country. That is the view of the Government in regard to highway improvement. On the other hand, our position is this: For the last forty-six years' the improvement of the highways of the country has been carried on by the provincial governments. Every provincial government has a department dealing with this question-organization perfected, information collected, laws adjusted, so that the highways can be best improved in the different provinces according to their varying traditions.
We say, therefore, give this money to the provinces and let them spend it in accordance with their several policies; let the thing be done in accordance with the principle that had been manitained for the last forty-six years of governmental life in this country. Let us have this work of highway improvement really carried on. The Senate said last year that they wanted to have highway improvement, and wanted to have this money go to the provinces. The Senate say this year the same thing-they want this done in work carried on in a constitutional way. But the Government, by this
379i
motion, negative that proposition; they say they do not want tne highways improved or the money to go to the provinces. There is the difference between the two parties. Some hon. members on the other side have suggested that hon. gentlemen on this side are worrying about the question of responsibility. I desire to say that I assume full responsibility for my attitude on this question. I am prepared to go to my province and say to the people that if this Government want to make laws, they should make them in accordance with their declared intentions in Parliament. The laws of this country ought not to be left to be interpreted according to the vagaries of a Minister of Eailways and Canals, or the theories of a Prime Minister; our laws should be written documents and should mean what they say. I am prepared to say to the people of my province that the Senate have done that which is in the interests of the people of the country. I am prepared to show that the only method by which the federal Government can assist the improvement of highways is that which we propose, and to point out the fact, indisputable before any audience in Parliament or out of it, that the Government does not want to assist highway construction and is only pretending to do so in order to mislead the people.


Mr.   SPEAKEE@: I desire to call the attention of the hon. member to statements which he has made, which I believe are out of order. The decisions of Denison-and they are practically the same as the decisions of Peel-declare that it is out of order to impute unworthy motives to members of the House or to the Government collectively. If it is not imputing unworthy motives to say that the Government are not sincere and do not mean what they say, I do not understand the force of English words.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It would naturally occur to one that, if these statements of my hon. friend from Pictou are out of order, it would be quite proper for the Prime Minister to take objection to them. But it is most remarkable- that every member of the Government can sit there and listen to these statements. There must be something in them, or we should hear some objection from these hon. gentlemen. I am not going to take up more than a moment or two, but I do not feel like giving a silent vote on a matter of such great importance. I am like the hon. member for Pictou-I take full responsibility for my conduct in regard to this matter. I hope there may be an opportunity to vote against the Government .and the course they are pursuing. My'hon. friend the Minister of Eailways made the positive statement introducing this legislation last year, and again this year, that it was his

intention that this money should be distributed to the provinces in proportion to their population. But the Prime Minister this afternoon gave an entirely different version of it. True, he attempted to argue by saying that there might be a calamity in one portion of the country, and if so you must come to their assistance. But how are you going to come to the assistance of one portion of the country except at the expense of another? How are you going to give the province of Ontario $100,000 more than they are entitled to without taking that sum from the other provinces, or else increasing the grant? Why, you have there a confession from the Prime Minister himself. I do not know whether you will charge me with imputing motives, Mr. Speaker-I am simply stating facts And I think the merest neophyte in public affairs can draw the inference very readily.
Then, if that were not enough, you have the statement by another member of the Government in another Chamber that the intention of the Government was to build a highway, an automobile road, from ocean to ocean. If that is the intention, Why do not these hon. gentlemen come down and say so?


Mr. MURPHY:: Who said that?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Hon. Mr. Lougheed in
the Senate. And that statement is absolutely inconsistent with the statements made on behalf of the Government in this House, for it would take more to build the portion of such a road that would run through Ontario in proportion to the population of the province than to build the part running through Nova Scotia. If that member of the Government is right, then the members of the Government in this House are wrong. I would suggest that it would be better for them to get together and compare notes. I make this statement regardless of whether it is imputing motives or not-I do not believe the Government intend in future years to divide this money among the provinces according to population. Any citizen of Canada who will read this amendment and the report of this discussion must come to the conclusion, especially from the lame defence of the Prime Minister this afternoon, that they do not intend in the future to divide this money according to population, but merely to do so this year and next year to divide it as they please. If they intend to divide the money according to population and to hand it over to the provinces to handle, they would agree to the elimination of this section 6.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN (Queens, P.E.I.):: A week ago this .House voted $1,410,000 for dredging in the maritime provinces. That is a vote for the maritime provinces generally, and all that money is expended under the direction of the Minister of Public Mr. CARVELL
Works. For the whole of Canada over three and a half millions is voted this session by this House for dredging, all to be expended under the direction of the Minister of Public Works. There was no man in this House who imputed improper motives to the Government in that. The whole of it may be given to New Brunswick, to Nova Scotia, or to Prince Edward Island; it is altogether in the hands of the minister. It would be exactly the same in the expenditure of the money for roads if the matter were left in the hands of the Minister of Railways and Canals. What difference is there? The Governor in Council can direct how this money shall be spent. Are we to assume, we two hundred and twenty-one gentlemen who occupy seats in this House, that these moneys, as some hon. gentleman has suggested, will be used corruptly? The thing is ridiculous. It is no argument to say that this money will not be used for the benefit of the people. As to the talk about automobile roads, we in Prince Edward Island cannot use the money for automobile roads, because we have no automobiles. But we can use the money to improve our roads, and we require money for that purpose. We are a small province; our revenues are very small; and it is absolutely essential that these revenues should be increased in order to provide for the necessities of the public service. The -people of Nova Scotia as well require that money. What in the world is the objection urged against this measure? There is no real objection; it is simply and purely opposition to the Government; the vote passed by the Senate is a re-echo of the vote registered by the Opposition in this House. There is no argument to support the objection made, and to justify opposition to every Act introduced in this House in the interests of the people of Canada. The Agricultural Aid Bill was opposed very strenuously in this House, but when it went to the Senate they did not vote against it because they felt that it would not be in their interests to oppose all Government measures brought before them for consideration. Last year they made the mistake of opposing this Act and passing an amendment which could not and would not be accepted by the Government, and this year, at the suggestion I suppose of the hon. gentleman who opposed the Bill in this House, the same amendment has been submitted, and cannot possibly be accepted by the Government. I think it is a crying shame that there should be withheld from the people of this country the appropriation provided for in this measure, of which they stand so greatly in need.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Now that we have got away from the matter of the conduct of the elections in

western Canada, a subject that was neither interesting nor edifying, I would like to make some observations with respect to the principle involved in this Bill when it was first introduced into this House in contradistinction to the principles involved in the amendment passed by the Senate and now under discussion. I think that the animadversions upon the action of the Senate in respect of this legislation indulged in by hon. gentlemen opposite is neither according to the rules of the House nor a dignified procedure on their part. The Senate under the British North America Act has its functions to perform with respect to legislation. It has the right to exercise its judgment, and I am sure that it was never conceived that that body should be a donkey-engine so far as its consideration of the measures passed by the House of Commons is concerned. It was never in the minds of the fathers of Confederation that that body should be created merely for the purpose of registering its approval to legislation sent before it" for consideration by this House. I think it manifestly unfair and unjust in every respect that hon. gentlemen of this House should take any position of antagonism or hostility to the Senate. We may not agree with their conclusions; yet their decisions are entitled to the respect of hon. members of this House. I have been amazed in listening to some of the arguments of hon,. gentlemen opposite with respect to the action of the Senate. I think they came with very ill grace from hon. gentlemen opposite, because I think that the tendency of present-day legislation is towards abrogating the functions of Parliament.
The underlying principle in this Bill is similar to the underlying principle of every Bill that has been introduced _ by this Government since it came into power, and that underlying principle is this:	Not parliamentary action
and conclusion as to detail, but the delegation of the powers of Parliament to a body of men known as the Governor in Council. Every Bill-the Railway Act, the Agricultural Act, the Naval Bill-has had incorporated in it the principle of relinquishment on the part of this House of the powers that properly belong to the representatives of the people, and the delegation of those powers to the Governor in Council. Within the last week we have witnessed the extraordinary spectacle of fifteen or sixteen members of this House arrogating to themselves the rights and powers of arranging legislation and formulating an Act, bringing it before this House and having it go through without, in so far as their supporters are concerned, one word of discussion. If it were not that there were on that side those
who are free to give utterance to their convictions, this legislation, which was created by fifteen men, would not have been subjected to any expression of opinion or any opposition.
I have watched the trend of parliamentary government in Canada for some time, and it seems to me that there is a tendency on the part of all cabinets to arrogate to themselves supreme power, not merely with respect to the administration of affairs, but with respect to legislation in Canada. When hon. gentlemen opposite realize that matters are cut-and-dried; that they are placed before this House not for consideration on the part of the supporters of the Government, but with a view to haying them become law by reason of the machine-politics that is growing up in Canada to an extent that it is becoming a menace, they would have the Senate placed in the same position as that in which the Government have placed their own supporters. That was not the purpose, as I interpret the British North America Act, of the establishment of the Senate. They were to be a brake upon the representatives of the people as elected, but a brake instituted to protect the rights of the people and to protect the minority. There is no question of the fact that if you give too great powers to a body of men, they become inebriated and intoxicated as it were, with that power, and the tendency is to have the sense of power carry them away beyond the bounds of reason and of judgment. The Senate of Canada was created for the purpose of restraining that tendency and to be a protection to the people of Canada. I hold that the Senate of Canada in that regard represents the people of Canada just as fully and completely as do the representatives of the people in this House.
My hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Bennett) and my hon. friend from Dundas (Mr. Broder) have stated that we alone are the representatives of democracy, and that the Senate of Canada could in no sense be deemed to be democratic. Mr. Speaker, if this is a democratic body controlled as it is by fifteen men, then I do not understand the meaning of the term democracy. If legislation is to be brought here that is marked out and mapped out and by reason of the machinery that is incident to a Cabinet is to go through, willy nilly, without discussion and without consideration on the part of the people, through their representatives, then it seems that is not democracy, and the men who sit on the other side of the House, I will not use any harsh terms and say are gagged by reason of the position in which they are as supporters of the Government, but I will say men who sit as supporters of the Government are restrained by reason of circumstances and

environments and conditions from voicing criticisms or making suggestions; they cannot be truly said to voice the democracy of Canada, and therefore we need not arrogate to ourselves as members of this House, any monopoly of the right to represent the people of Canada in this regard.
I protest against this form of legislation. I protest against the trend of legislation in that direction. I protest against approving, day after day and week after week, the idea that a Cabinet are not^only the administrators of the affairs oi the country but are practically the sole legislators in Canada. I call as witness many hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. We had an instance here to a certain extent when a certain railway subsidy went through this House, I think no later than yesterday, and I venture to assert that that legislation was adopted by the Parliament of Canada against the well formed judgment of manyjhon. members of the House who sit to your right, and I venture more than that to say that the legislation is not in harmony with the views of the people of Canada. Whatever there may have been in the past, whatever our views of legislation may have been with regard to railway subsidies in the past, I submit that that view has changed among the people, and very materially changed. But it is not simply to that that I was taking exception. We hear a great deal about machine politics in the United States. We have heaTd a great deal in Canada of recent years of the same thing, and perhaps it is a tendency of governments to encourage the power of the political machine. Every enactment that has been offered in connection with the great public services of Canada during this session and during the last session has breathed the idea that a political machine shall soon he worked and that the representatives of the people shall be suppressed and repressed, the aspirations of the people, their views are not to be considered and alone are we to consider what the Cabinet thinks, regardless of whether it may meet with the approval of their supporters or of gentlemen who are opposed to them politically.
My hon. friend from Dundas made a remarkable statement. He said that the highways of the province of Ontario which had been cared for by the provincial governments of the past, which had had the supervision of the municipalities throughout that great province, were in a deplorable condition and that it was because of that, because of the improper management of those highways, that it was time for the Parliament of Canada to step in and take a hand in applying a remedy. Is that consistent with the proper idea of democratic government? Is it consistent with the spirit of the British Mr. EMMERSON.
North America Act? Is it in any way in accord with the ideas which the people of all Canada have? I think not. If the provincial legislatures and governments and municipalities have failed under their circumstances, w'ith a full knowledge of all the local requirements surely we, the central government, removed from the particular locality, cannot claim that we will he able to improve the conditions throughout Canada. But this is a matter with which the people of Canada have to deal; it is a matter which the people of Canada in the exercise of their provincial rights and of their franchises in political matters have a right to determine and I say it is for them to apply the remedy.
I know that some will argue that an autocratic and despotic government is the best for the people. It was too long ago for me to have any memory-indeed, it was before I had an existence-that there was a great fight in Canada over the question of responsible government. My reading has taught me that the Tory party of that day, the Family Compact party of that day, urged the very same arguments against responsible government that are being urged today in respect of the methods of legislation with respect to highways, agriculture, navies and other things in Canada, that it is simply a repetition of history. And I venture this statement, which may perhaps be considered extravagant, that if we go much further in the direction which we are at present travelling under the leadership of this Government, there will have to be another fight for the rights of the people and a revolution with respect to the privileges which were accorded to us by the granting of responsible government. The centralization of power and of patronage, the usurping by the Parliament of Canada of the rights of the people-these were the conditions that existed prior to the time when responsible government was granted. In those days they had a Governor in Council, they had an assembly of legislators appointed by the people, but what power had that assembly? They had the power to vote supplies, it is true, but in so far as the expenditure of the money was concerned, they were in no sense considered. The money was spent by. the Governor in Council; the Governor in Council was all powerful and supreme, and we are drifting back to those antediluvian days, to those days of barbarism, from the standpoint of government.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member is
anticipating a question upon the Order Paper; he is certainly travelling wide of the question before the House.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I was using this as
an illustration of the giving of power to a minister to legislate with regard to detail, and with all due deference to your Honour, if it is to be deplored that legislation by the Parliament of Canada is subject to the influence of lobbyists, it is all the more deplorable that lobbying may be applied to one man who is a minister, or to fifteen men who compose the Cabinet. Under the Parcel Post Act all the details are to be decided by the Postmaster General; and does anyone doubt where will^ be the express companies and their emissaries, between now and the 1st of January, when the Parcel Post Act comes into effect? In like manner where will be the representatives of those interested in the branch

lines, between now and the next session of Parliament? I have no doubt they will he found in the ante-chambers of the Privy Council and in the departmental offices. In the days anterior to responsible government, legislation as to details of expenditure was conducted by the Governor in Council, and history is repeating itself in the passage of these measures which enable the Governor in Council and heads of departments to legislate as to even essential details.
The Prime Minister spoke of the action of the Senate as a personal reflection on the Cabinet and a want of confidence in the Government of the day. I do not look upon it in that light. These gentlemen will not always be in office; this enactment is for the future as well as for the present, and it will form a precedent for future action on the part of Parliaments and of Governments, and in that sense it is iniquitous. 1 do not look upon this question from the standpoint of the personnel of the Government; I look upon it from the basic principle of the character of the legislation itself. I would have no reason to question the integrity of the Prime Minister and his colleagues; my condemnation is of the principle which arrogates to the Government the rights and the duties of Parliament. I recognize this Bill as being in itself hypocritical, because the Prime Minister cannot deny that the amendment of the Senate is simply in accord with his own verbal assurances to Parliament. If these assurances are sincere, and I hope they are, I feel that my right hon. friend would be only doing himself justice if he incorporated the Senate amendment as a rule of conduct with respect to the expenditure of public money for this and future Governments. Under this measure, and measures of a similar character, we have the Government of the country, through its,
I will not say servile supporters, but through men who are supporting them, and whom they can in many ways, which I need not describe, influence-the assailants c-f the rights of the people, and we have on the other hand the Senate of Canada standing as a bulwark to defend democracy and the people's rights.
Motion carried, on division.


Francis Cochrane: That this House do not agree to the eecond amendment in Bill No. 32, for the following reasons:
1.	Because substantially the same amendment has already been considered and rejected by this House.
2.	Because section 6 of the Bill contains a desirable provision for aiding the construction and improvement of highways.
3.	Because it is expedient to make provision for the case of any province which may desire
Mr. EMMERSON.
to have the minister undertake the construction of a. new highway or the improvement of an existing highway.
i. Because the section provides a convenient method of operation between the federal and provincial governments in the construction or improvement of highways.
5.	Because it is desirable to provide every reasonable means of co-operation between the federal government and the provincial governments for the construction and improvement of highways consistently with the preservation of the rights of the provinces.
6.	Because the rights of the provinces are thoroughly safe-guarded in the said section.
7.	Because there can be no action by the federal government under this section except with the authority and approval of the provincial legislature and the provincial government.
8.	Because the said Bill defines the ends, purposes, conditions, limitations and qualifications to be established in respect of aids and supplies to be granted by this House, and the same are not alterable by the Senate.
Motion carried, on division.



VACANCY IN SOUTH LANARK.

Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received notification of a vacancy having occurred in the representation of the electoral district of the south riding of the county of Lanark by the death of the Hon. John Graham Haggart, for the said electoral district, and I have isseud a warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consider amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 185, to amend the Government Railways Act.- Mr. Cochrane.
Francis Cochrane: I move:
That the Senate amendments to Bill No. 185, an Act to amend the Government Railways* Act, be not concurred in, for the following reasons:-
1.	That the said amendments are contrary to one of the principal purposes of the said Bill.
2.	That the said Bill appropriated public moneys for purposes, and it is the undoubted right of this House to direct and appoint in such a Bill the conditions, limitations and qualifications required for its object and purposes; and the said amendments are contrary to the privileges of this House.
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours with the above reasons for not concurring in the said amendments.


Wilfrid Laurier: If I may for one moment refer to a past debate, I would call attention to the very debate which we have just concluded, in which my hon, friend from Calgary (Mr. Bennett) spoke at

some length of the difference between the elective chamber and the upper chamber. The hon. gentleman posed as the champion of democracy. But I think it is evident that at the present time the democratic body is not the elected chamber, but the nominated chamber. To-day the Senate is the champion of popular rights. If ever there was an instance of this, it is the one to which it is my duty at once to call the attention of the House., I will read the Bill which is under discussion; but let me premise the reading by a word descriptive of the general purposes of the Bill. This measure provides for the leasing by the Government of existing roads in connection with the Intercolonial, for the building of new roads, and for the purchasing of new roads. All these things- leasing, building and purchasing of railroads-can be done by the minister with the authority of the Governor in Council, and without the authority of Parliament. In so far as building is concerned, the minister is not authorized to build a railway which exceeds twenty-five miles in length, but he can use his discretion subject to the Governor in Council, about building a road of less length; and he need not have the authority of Parliament. He can purchase a road of 200 miles in length without the authority of Parliament. Is that popular rights? Is that parliamentary government as we have understood it? Is that what we are to expect from the Government now in office? Now, let me read the Bill:
The Minister of Railways and Canals is authorized and empowered, subject to the authority of-
Whom? The Parliament of Canada? No.
-the authority of the Governor in Council, to construct, purchase, lease or otherwise acquire in whole or in part, any line or lines of railway, branch line, railway bridge, railway station, railway terminal, railway ferry or other railway work in the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, or in any of the said provinces, which in his opinion can more conveniently and usefully be operated as part of the Government railways system, or which may be deemed necessary or desirable for the more efficient operation of the said system: provided however, that a copy of every such lease or contract of purchase shall be laid before Parliament within one month after the execution thereof, if Parliament is then sitting, or. if Parliament is not then sitting, within ten days after the opening of the next session thereafter.
In other words, the Minister of Railways can build, lease, or purchase, and the only power this Parliament has over those operations is that within one month after the opening of the session a copy of the contract shall be laid on the table of the House. Parliament cannot act; the transaction is complete. This is more serious than it appears on the surface to be.
I said a moment ago that the hon. minister can build a road twenty-five miles in length without the authority of Parliament, but if he undertakes to build more than twenty-five miles he must have the consent of Parliament. So far as the purchase of railways is concerned, Parliament has no authority whatever. I may be to-ld by the promoter of the Bill that Parliament can refuse to vote the money. What then?
I know that Parliament can refuse to vote the money, but the moment the contract is signed the 200 miles of railway becomes the property of the Government. I do not know what would be the consequence if Parliament were to refuse to vote the appropriation. The transaction may be right or it may be wrong; Parliament may be disposed to approve of it, or it may not, but at the same time, even though Parliament may refuse the vote, we are bound by the contract signed by the minister and approved by the Governor in Council. If this is parliamentary government, I do not know what parliamentary government means. I would have expected that the Government would have provided that the contract could not be completed until it was ratified and confirmed by the House.
I am well aware that there is a disposition in this House to help those parts of the province of New Brunswick which have local railroads, and that it has been the policy of this Government and of the late Government to make these roads a part of the Intercolonial system. Of that I am well aware, and of that I entirely ap-orove; hut if the Government undertakes to purchase property and afterwards refers he contract to Parliament, that is irregular. I hope the Government will hesitate before it caries this matter further, That is the amendment which has been offered by the Senate? I appeal to gentlemen on the other side of the House to apply their intelligence to it and say whether or not it is a reasonable one:
That every such lease or contract of purchase shall he laid before Parliament for ratification.
Is there any hon. gentlemen on the otheT side of the House who will criticise that amendment? Are we to be told that this amendment should not be accepted? Are we to be asked to denounce this action on the part of the Senate? Again I ask, who are the defenders of parliamentary government and democratic principles? Not the majority in the House of Commons, surely; but the members of the Senate of Canada. If there ever was an occasion upon which the truth should be affirmed, it is the present occasion, and I submit that we should approve of the action of the Senate, and not reject the amendment which they have offered.


Robert Laird Borden: My very distinct recollection with regard to this Bill is that when it was originally introduced by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals by way of resolution, criticism was directed against it by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. When the debate was resumed, I sent an amendment over to my hon. friend the member for the city of St. John (Mr. Pugsley) and the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham). I discussed it with them; it was unanimously accepted by them, and the Bill with that amendment went through without a single word of objection and with the' absolute assent of hon. gen-* tlemen on the other side, after I had privately discussed it with the hon. gentlemen who I have mentioned; and others, and when some question was raised about reducing the twenty-five miles to twenty, the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), insisted that it should remain exactly as it was, because he hoped to have a branch constructed in his own county. Therefore, when my right hon. friend denounces this Bill as perfectly outrageous, he is castigating most severely the gentlemen who are sitting beside him, because this amendment was agreed upon distinctly after a formal and informal discussion across the floor of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: I did not take any part in that discussion. Whatever may have been the attitude of my friends around me or of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, when I came to look at the Bill there was one feature of it which greatly surprised me, and that was that the Minister of Railways, with the authority of the Governor in Council, has the power to purchase a line of 200 miles and complete the contract without any reference to Parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: It is quite obvious that
the right hon, gentleman did not know what had been agreed to; otherwise he would not have made the speech he delivered this evening, because in so far as he found fault with the Bill his speech was a direct criticism of the hon. gentlemen who sit around him, and to whom I submitted this amendment before it was unanimously adopted by the House. Apparently the Bill passed the House with the assent of every hon. gentleman, with the exception of the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition.


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Except with the consent
of the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition. So far as this House is concerned, my right hon. friend is a minority of one against 220 hon. gentlemen, who Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I
were perfectly willing to pass this Bill in the form in which it was passed. I repeat again that, after a discussion both formal and informal, and after the amendment which I sent over for criticism to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House had been accepted with the addition, I think, of one or two minor amendments, the Bill went through this House without one single word of dissent from any hon. gentleman. After all that has taken place my hon. friend indulges in most absurd statements about the Senate being a democratic institution in this country and sees very .great evils as likely to arise from that which his own friends, without one w ord of dissent, unanimously accepted when we discussed the Bill in committee. I do not think that much more need to be said except to point out that the Bill - as the Senate has amended it is of absolutely no use. The amendment takes away the whole substance of the Bill. The idea was that the Minister of Railways and Canals, having already made a certain study, as his predecessors did, of the railway lines in the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia which might advantageously be acquired as feeders to the Intercolonial, could be trusted, with the aid of his practical officers, his experts, to purchase a line not exceeding two hundred miles in length. I would have been willing to cut it down to a smaller length. But no hon. member opposite suggested any modification. What does the Bill amount to at the present time? The Minister of Railways can to-morrow, without this Parliament, do anything he can do with this Bill, he can go and make a contract, and submit that contract to Parliament and have it ratified and the Bill permits him to do that. He could do that without the Bill which he could do with it. Therefore the Bill means nothing in its present form.	It did mean something in its previous form. I desired no powers that might he regarded as excessive, nor did the Minister of Railways desire excessive powers. When the question was raised in committee I thought that the Bill as first submitted went too far. I discussed it with the Minister of Railways and he concurred in that opinion and we submitted an amendment to cut down the powers that were being conferred upon the minister, as at first suggested, but still to give him the power of doing something effective, in the way of acquiring these lines, knowing that whatever steps he took must be taken not only on his responsibility as Minister of Railways and Canals but also upon the responsibility of the whole Government, who would possibly not be considered as likely to run into any bargains that would shock the conscience of Parliament or involve an unwise and

unjustifiable expenditure of public money. The acquisition of these lines has been agitated for a long time. My hon. friends opposite passed a measure which I think in the end was not found very workable. The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) introduced a further measure in the summer of 1911 which was not reached on the Order Paper. Since that time the Minister of Railways and Canals has been endeavouring to make some progress, but he has found himself with no power even to negotiate. Therefore he disclosed his general intention to Parliament and sought from Parliament a mandate to take up the matter with the various lines. I fail to see that under the circumstances there was any need of such action by the Senate, and I can only say that if the Senate persists in its stand the result will be _ to postpone for another year any action with regard to the acquisition of these lines. I Should be sorry if that result was brought about, but it seems to me that no other is possible if the Senate does persist.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: As my right hon. friend has referred to me in connection with this Bill, I think perhaps it is right that I should make some remarks, and I may say that my recollection of what took place is exactly in accordance with that of the Prime Minister. I think, in justice to the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, that I should say that he was engaged in other matters at the time this Bill was under discussion, and I do not think that he saw the amendment which my right friend the Prime Minister proposed.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that is so.


William Pugsley: The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), and the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson), who has always taken a very warm interest in the acquisition of branch lines, all read over the amendment, and so far as we are concerned, I think we are committed to it. I certainly was very glad to see that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister went as far as he did. We in the lower provinces, especially in the province of New Brunswick, have been looking for years towards the acquisition of branch lines on the part of the Intercolonial. When this House passed the Bill in 1910, the Senate thought proper to amend it in such a way as seemed to make it quite unworkable. At all events, the then Minister of Railways felt himself unable to make any progress. The people of New Brunswick are getting weary of waiting, and as I Have said, those of us who represent the lower provinces were, I think, all very glad that good progress was made. After the Bill passed I had a consultation with the right hon. the leader
of the Opposition, and he made to me the same objection to the Bill that he has made to-night, therefore he has been entirely consistent in his position with regard to it. Now, the question is what should be done. The Senate is an independent branch of the legislature. It has a right to take whatever view it pleases upon public questions, and ought we not, in view of the great importance of the matter, to do as was done in 1910, have a conference between the committee of this House and a committee of the Senate, with a view to agreeing upon an amendment which would be acceptable to both parties. It seems to me that there is not very much in issue. The amendment, as I understand, is simply that such lease or contract of purchase shall be laid before Parliament for ratification. The Senate has omitted one of the most important features of the Bill, that is the entering into a contract to build twenty-five miles of new road. The Senate does not object to that. Surely it is just as objectionable to allow the Minister of Railways and Canals to enter into a contract to build twenty-five miles of new road, and to commit the country to paying the contractors for that road, as to authorize the minister to acquire a branch which is already built, which is .connected with the Intercolonial, which is a feeder to the Intercolonial, and which it might be advisable to purchase in the public interest. It seems to me that if the contract for the lease or purchase should be laid before Parliament for ratification, so also should the contract to build twenty-five miles of new road. So I think that there is ground for a conference. It seems to me that the matter might be gotten over in this way. The right hon. leader of the Opposition says that there might not be the same objection to leasing branch lines of the Intercolonial. Possibly there might be a compromise. The minister might be authorized to lease a feeder of the Intercolonial without the authority of Parliament. That is, if in any particular case, the minister might think it would be in the public interest to acquire the absolute right to the railway, he might put in the lease a provision that the minister, with the approval of Parlia-[DOT]ment, might purchase the road at a price which should be named in the lease, within a certain period of time which would be specified. It does seem to me that in view of the great importance of this matter, in view of the fact that this has been going on year after year, that resolutions have passed this House unanimously in favour of the acquisition of branch lines, and that if the Bill is lost by reason of the refusal of this House to concur in the amendments of the Senate, we will be just where we were four years ago, not one

step further advanced, nothing accomplished, and as I have said, the whole work will have to be done over again. Do not my right hon. friend the leader of the Government and my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition think it worth while that an effort should be made to arrive at an understanding with the Senate, to approach the matter in a conciliatory spirit from the standpoint of the vast importance to the maritime provinces of the early acquisition of branch lines upon equitable terms, so that an amendment could be put through which would be satisfactory to the Senate, to the Government, and to the members of this House? I throw out this suggestion because I am one of those who believe that it is of vital interest to many sections of the maritime provinces that these branch lines should be taken over and made a part of the Intercolonial system. I believe that that result would be of enormous benefit not only to the sections of the country which aTe served by the branch lines but to the Intercolonial system itself.


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend the Prime Minister also referred to me in his remarks, and perhaps I may be permitted to say a word or two. My recollection of what took place coincides with his, and I can reiterate practically what the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) has said. In response to the expressed wish of the people of the maritime provinces and of the province of Quebec I did undertake to introduce legislation affirming the principle of taking over branch lines on terms, and I made an endeavour to outline those terms in a statute. No person except one who has undertaken that task can quite fully appreciate the difficulties encountered the moment he proceeds to put any such act into practical effect. Each road has a distinct condition of its own, and any general principle laid down as to how a road should b i approached or dealt with might be applicable to one, but not to an adjoining road. One road may pay a revenue over running expenses; another may not. A third may have prospects of future revenue, another may not. But still I think it is the wish of Parliament that these roads, which the people need, should be taken over, even if they will not pay, in order that they may have a continuance of the transportation facilities which they have enjoyed or have transportation facilities where they have not previously existed. On an adjoining road a strictly business basis might be adopted, and business principles applied. These are the difficulties which arise. One line can be leased, another must be purchased. The better way is to buy it outright. So that the different Mr. PUGSLEY.
conditions make it impossible to frame a statute that can be applied to all. I am very much interested in this question of taking over branch lines, and I would urge upon the Government that as there is not much between the Senate and this House-


Francis Cochrane: We do not need a Bill to do that.


George Perry Graham: I understand that, but
it is thought necessary to have a Bill to lay down the principle and to commit Parliament, in both its branches, to the taking over of branch lines. I would urge strongly upon the Government the advisability of arranging a conference by the appointment of a committee to consult with a committee from the Senate, or of seeing if something could not be arrived at that would be reasonable from both points of view, and that would enable this great undertaking to be proceeded with. I may say that I acted on such a committee in connection with legislation unanimously passed by this House when I was Minister of Railw'ays. It was a Bill which was passed twice or three times, and amended very seriously by the Senate. On the last occasion that amendments were made, we had a conference and arrived at a solution by which amendments weTe accepted that did not injure the Bill very materially, and the Bill became law, and stands on the statute-book as an amendment to the Railway Act. I would urge the Government to take that course, and I think a solution would be prrived at which would enable us to proceed with this work.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it would be
necessary to send .an answer to the Senate, and I doubt very much whether a formal conference could be held at this stage of the session, which would accomplish any good result. I think the Minister of Railways would be perfectly willing to hold an informal conference, which would answer the purpose, and some hon. gentlemen of 'the Senate might be appointed.


George Perry Graham: That could be done in formally to-night.	,


Wilfrid Laurier: The matter
can stand.


Francis Cochrane: If you want a conference, should not the motion pass so that the Bill may go back to the Senate, and if they *want a conference, I would be very glad to met them.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would call
the attention of my right hon. friend to this, that under this- contract, power is given to lease and to purchase. I do not think the Government should have the power to lease without coming to Parliament; but I am willing to give W'ay on that

point in view of the great desire we have to .assist in the taking over of those roads. But the one thing to which I object-and I think my right hon. friend on reflection will agree with me-is this: the ownership of the Tailway passes to the country the moment this contract is signed by the Government without any reference to Parliament. I do not think that in any circumstances that can be justified.


Robert Laird Borden: Curiously enough, the
Senate left the Bill in a very singular position in that regard; because they have declared that the contract must be ratified by Parliament, and yet in the concluding part of the Bill, they say that as soon as the contract is made, the railway becomes the property of the Crown and part of the Intercolonial railway. It is perfectly evL dent that they must have overlooked the concluding portion of the Bill when they made their amendment to the earlier portion.


Wilfrid Laurier: Ratification
by Parliament covers that.


Robert Laird Borden: I doubt whether the
language is very apt.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Perhaps I may be
pardoned if I make a few observations. I recollect very distinctly what took place. This Bill was introduced on the 30th of April. There was a discussion on the resolution on that occasion, and my right hon. friend the Prime Minister is not quite accurate in saying that no exception was taken.


Robert Laird Borden: I said that exception
was taken; I said that the Bill was criticised and that is the reason why I proposed the amendment.


Henry Robert Emmerson: On the 30th April, as 'Hansard' will show, I took exception to the character of the legislation.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no question at
all that strong exception was taken to the Bill.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I said that I was so anxious to see the branch lines of the Intercolonial acquired by the Government of Canada and operated as part of the Intercolonial that I would waive my objection to the character of the Bill, giving as it did such full .powers to the minister, and I asked my hon. friend the Minister of Railways on that occasion to reduce the mileage for construction from I think twenty-five miles to ten miles. I pointed out that he already had power to commence construction on a six-mile branch and to build it, and that if during a recess he wanted to start the construction of a twenty-five-mile road, he had the right to build six miles and , to come to Parliament and get authority
for continuing the construction up to twenty-five miles, or to any mileage I asked him to make an amendment limiting the power of construction to ten or fifteen miles, but he was not disposed to do so, and so anxious was I that the measure should go through, and that this long talked of absorption and construction of branch lines should be actively undertaken that I waived the objections on principle that I had to the character of the legislation. I know that the hon. gentleman was also anxious to see the matter go through. I was equally anxious because I have to acknowledge that I have taken a very deep and sincere interest in this policy. I would like to see it carried out and I would even give great powers to the Minister of Railways in respect to the matter. I do not know but what I would go so far as to permit him- to legislate on the matter, although I do not think his sympathies are quite as strong on behalf of the policy as I would like them to be. I think he has doubts and I do not think that he recognizes the branch lines as feeders, because he said on the floor of this House that they are milkers and not feeders. I certainly think it would be very desirable that an understanding should be had with the Senate. We must all be desirous of seeing this policy put into execution and of seeing these lines acquired. I do not think there is such a case of urgency with respect to the construction of branch lines because parliaments are sitting long enough to enable any legislation to be put through to construct the railways. I would strongly urge that there be a conference and that some united action be taken in regard to the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Civil Government-Department of Justice- to increase the salary of the deputy minister to $10,000, $3,000.
['There is some force in what my non. friend has said. The matter will be brought to the attention of the Government and they will give it consideration. I quite agree that the passage of estimates in the form we have been doing is not really the best we might hope for in this House, and we will endeavour at the next session to so arrange the business that the estimates will be brought down at a little earlier date.\nResolutions reported, read the first and the second time and concurred in.']
Wilfrid Laurier: That requires an explanation.


Mr. HAZEN:: My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) is unable to be here this evening, and I have undertaken to look after his estimates. This item is to increase the salary of the Deputy Minister of Justice from $7,000 to $10,000 a year. It is felt that the present Deputy Minister of Justice is a lawyer of very great eminence, and that a lawyer of eminence is required to fill the position of Deputy Minister of Justice and that, having regard to the professional incomes that are commanded to-day at the Bar by men of standing in the legal profession, $10,000 is only a fair and reasonable amount to pay the deputy minister. There is another element in connection with

it. Mr. Newcombe, the Deputy Minister of Justice, frequently appears on behalf of the Government before the Supreme Court and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Up to a few years ago he was paid counsel fees in addition to his salary for services rendered in these courts, but I am told that a few years ago the regulation was changed so that to-day he can only be paid the amount of his salary and he receives nothing additional by way of counsel fees for conducting business of that sort. The result of that has been that where previously his salary was $7,000, a considerable amount was earned by him in addition.


Wilfrid Laurier: Who made
that rule?


John Douglas Hazen: I understand that it is under the Civil Service Act.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it was a decision given by one of the judges of the Supreme Court. In cases where the Crown was successful costs were taxed against the unsuccessful party and in that way the Deputy Minister of Justice received counsel fees. But it was held that inasmuch as he was an official of the Crown receiving a salary, counsel fees could not be collected. That is my recollection of it.


John Douglas Hazen: The official of the Department of Justice who is present tells me that under the Civil Service Act of 1908 it is impossible for the deputy minister to receive fees for the services rendered in addition to his regular salary.


Edmond Proulx: Does he not receive something for acting for clients?


John Douglas Hazen: I think there have been a few cases where that has occurred. I know that in the case of Lovett v.s. the King, which was really a contest between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick as to which province was entitled to the succession duties on a portion of the estate of the late Mr. Lovett, Mr. Newcombe was retained by the Government of Nova Scotia, but in all the cases in which he has taken retainers I understand that he has done so with the permission and approval of the Minister of Justice.


Edmond Proulx: I noticed in the newspapers that he held a brief for the province of Nova Scotia in the criminal appeal on behalf of two persons who had been condemned to 'be hanged.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend may be
quite right in regard to that. I think there have been certain occasions upon which the province of Nova Scotia has availed itself of Mr. Newcombe's services. He is a member of the Bar of Nova Scotia and it has always been with the full permission and approval of the Department of Justice that Mr. HAZEN.
he has done this. He has never neglected his duty as deputy minister in acting for the province of Nova Scotia. .


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Newcombe is undoubtedly a very able lawyer and a very efficient member of the service, "but I doubt very seriously the wisdom of paying the deputy minister more than the minister himself is paid. The minister is an able lawyer, and he only gets a salary of $7,000 a year. I do not believe it is conducive to better appreciation of our Government that the deputy minister should be paid a higher salary than the minister. This session we have undertaken to pay Mr. Gutelius, manager of the Intercolonial railway, $20,000 per annum, which is a very high salary. But, as railway managers are paid, to-day it may be necessary to pay it, and at all events it is in the nature" of an experiment. But, when it comes to a department, either the salary of Mr. Newcombe is too high, or the salary of the minister is not high enough, and it seems to me that the minister should be paid a higher salary than the deputy. I believe, however, that there has been a great deal of loose practice in the Department of Justice. I cannot be very severe with my hon. friends on the other side, because the same thing prevailed under the late Administration; when Mr. NewcomDe was allowed to take retainers and appear as counsel in courts of law. Without breaking any secret, I always found fault with the practice, and I think it should not have been allowed. I am very glad to hear this has been put an end to and that it will not. be permitted in future; did not I understand the Minister of Marine to say that the Deputy Minister of Justice would not be allowed to take retainers in future?


John Douglas Hazen: I have no authority from the Minister of Justice to say so, and I did not intend to convey that idea, because I do not know.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understood that Mr. Newcombe was given this additional increase of salary on the understanding that he would not be permitted to take retainers, and that he would not be allowed to appear as counsel for the Dominion either.


John Douglas Hazen: That is not what I intended to convey. I said that at one time Mr. Newcombe was paid by the Government for services he rendered as counsel in the courts, and that under the existing law he could not receive anything of that kind now, in addition to his $10,000 salary. The effect of-that was to reduce the salary which he formerly received by several thousand dollars per annum. I have no instructions

from the Minister of Justice, who asked me to take charge of his estimates, to convey the idea that Mr. Newcombe will not be allowed under any circumstances in the future, to accept any retainer of any kind.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry to say that I do not think we are justified in voting this increase to Mr. Newcombe if he is to be allowed to take retainers. There is no excuse for that at all; he should not be allowed under any circumstances to do so, and unless the minister is prepared to say he will not be so permitted in future, I shall not for my part consent to this increase of his salary.


Edmond Proulx: '' How much was paid last year to the Deputy Minister of Justice by the Government? I remember we voted something extra for his services.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not recollect the
amount.


Mr MURPHY:: My recollection is that the committee was informed last session that it was in settlement of the account of Mr. Newcombe against the Government up to that date. If that is correct, then the rule, to which the minister referred, must have been made, if made at all. But judging from his answer to the leader of the Opposition, I am afraid no such rule has yet been made, and the impression left on me is, that *his gentleman will go on drawing fees in addition to this increase of salary. It is in my opinion a most anomalous state of affairs that this deputy minister should be in receipt of a salary very-much larger tha;i his minister. That is one aspect of it and the other is that it produces a very bad effect in the other departments. A few days ago I told the committee, and I repeat it now, that the argument advanced in support of this increase; that if it is not given Mr. Newcombe will leave the department, is an argument that has not prevailed in the past. A few years ago, the then Deputy Minister of Railways was offered a much larger salary than he was receiving as deputy minister. He would have remained in the service had his salary been increased, and this not being done he left the service. I do not think there is any sound logic in the position the minister has taken in this case.


John Douglas Hazen: When Mr. Butler was Deputy Minister of Railways, I think his salary was $8,000 a year, while the salary of the minister was only $7,000. My recollection of the amount voted to Mr. Newcombe last year is that it was in settlement of all services rendered by Mr. Newcombe up to 1908 when that new rule came into effect.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Butler was deputy minister and chief engineer and he re
ceived a salary of $5,000 as deputy minister and $3,000 as chief engineer. When Mr Butler left the department, two men succeeded him in these offices and the same salary sufficed to pay the two. The amount paid Mr. Newcombe last year was an account that had been accumulating for several years, as fees for appearing for the Dominion in several cases, and it had been previously recognized in a way but never paid until last year.


William Pugsley: In considering the increase in salary to the Deputy Minister of Justice, we should consider the other recommendations which the Minister of Justice is making. I think it will tend to demoralize the Civil Service if these votes pass. It is proposed to give the deputy minister $10,000, to increase the salary of the assistant deputy to $5,000 a year, which is the same as that paid to the deputies of other departments; to increase the salary of the secretary up to $5,000 a year, and to provide for two additional legal officers at $5,000 each. We therefore have in this department the deputy minister getting $10,000 a year, and four other officials receiving a salary of $5,000 a year each which is the salary of deputy ministers in other departments. It is contrary to the Civil Service Act, and it seems to me it is going to create very grave dissatisfaction in the different departments of the Government; it is a. gross injustice to the other departments. Take the Deputy Minister of Public Works, and I speak of him because I am familiar with his enormous responsibilities and arduous labour, and he receives $5,000 as do the deputy ministers in the other departments. In the Department of Justice it is proposed to make an exception of an extraordinary character, and I do not think it is right. For instance, the chief accountant in the Department of Finance does not receive $5,000 a year, and yet he has charge of the entire finances of the country. I am not disposed to dispute that it is desirable to raise the salaries of the deputy heads of the departments; I think that question is worthy of careful consideration, but it ought to be done as part of a well-considered plan, and made applicable to the departmental heads. It is not a'dvisable to pick out one department and give to its officials far higher salaries than are paid to the officials of other departments.


Robert Laird Borden: My observation of
the Department of Justice during the past eighteen months convinces me that, in the first, place, it is urgently desirable that a man of Mr. New-combe's experience and ability should be retained. The present Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, when Minister of Justice, spoke to me more than once about- the very great loss that would be sustained by the department and the coun-

try if a man of Mr. Newcombe's ability and nearly twenty years experience at that time should be led to remove from the department by the inducements which can be found for such a man in any large city in Canada. There is absolutely no doubt about it that a man of Mr. Newcombe's very great ability as a lawyer could command an income of $20,000 or $30,000 in Toronto, Montreal or Winnipeg. I think I am underestimating the amount of his probable income when I name these figures. Altogether apart from his very great ability, the mere fact that he has been in the Department of Justice for about twenty-two years means that he has an experience that is of simply infinite advantage to the country. Now, we are face to face with this situation-we cannot expect to have a deputy Minister of Justice of this country, a man of the requisite ability and experience and pay him only $7,000 a year. The incongruity which my right hon. friend has pointed out, that there is a larger salary for the deputy than that which is received by the responsible minister, is perfectly apparent; I do not deny it for a moment. But, we have no proposal at the present time to increase the salary of the Minister of Justice or any other minister. Those salaries remain the same as they were over forty years ago. Perhaps that will have to be taken up and considered by the House at some later date. But in the meantime we are confronted with the possibility of losing a man of that ability and experience; and I venture to say that if we undertook to replace Mr. Newcombe with a man of equal ability, though even without the experience that he has, we should find it very difficult indeed to do it for Sin.onn n- even $15,000.
As to the other positions which are alluded to by my hon. friend from the city of St. John, I think it is necessary in the Department of Justice to have a larger staff of thoroughly trained lawyers than we have at the present time. The matters which require consideration by the Department of Justice are continually increasing in volume, in complexity and in importance. I know that in connection with matters of very grave importance to this country, matters touching international relations, matters touching the interests of this country under conditions made by hon. friends opposite, we have found a great deal of difficulty in getting the persistent, continuous attention from the Department of Justice we should have if there were a stronger and larger staff than there is there at the present time. It is necessary in these instances to go outside for counsel from time to time. I am thoroughly convinced that a great deal of work which must necessarily be performed by counsel retained for particular occasions could be done more thoroughly and effectively, and perhaps more satisfactorily, if Mr. BOB-DEN.
we had a stronger staff of lawyers in the Department of Justice. Under conditions as they are in Canada, we cannot get men of the necessary ability and training, men with legal experience, unless we pay them a reasonable salary. For that reason, I do not think the proposals which have been made by the Minister of Justice in the estimate submitted to the House are undesirable; on the contrary, I think it is absolutely in the interests of the country that there should be a stronger and larger staff in the Department of Justice than wep have had jn recent years.


Wilfrid Laurier: So far as I
am personally concerned, it is certainly invidious to have to criticise an item of this kind, when the gentleman concerned is Mr. Newcombe. I am glad to bear the highest possible testimony to the ability of Mt. Newcombe. But at the same time, I must say to my right hon. friend, what he knows very well himself, that there is no such thing as a man indispensable; there is always somebody to take the place of another. In my own experience, we have had a succession of able men as Deputy Ministers of Justice. When Mr. Bernard retired many years ago, he was succeeded by Mr. Lash, a man of immense ability, as we all know, and he by Mr. Burbidge, also a very able man; and he by Mr. Sedgewick-four eminent men. No doubt, it would be very much to be regretted if Mr. Newcombe were to withdraw from the service; but I do not doubt that somebody could be found to fill the office with credit. As to increase of the staff, I have nothing to urge against what the right lion, gentleman has said. I am satisfied that we did not leave the staff, when we left office two years ago, as strong as it should have been. Mr. Fraser had died two or three years before, and also Mr. Power-two men of eminent ability, experts in their respective ways. Mr. Power, for a certain class of work, could not be surpassed, and Mr. Fraser as a draftsman, was equally able. So, I have nothing but commendation for what my right hon. friend says in favour of the strengthening of the staff. But, looking at these estimates, there is in them a source of demoralization of the whole service. If you are to do this for the Department of Justice, you ought to do it under a rule which will apply to every department. The Department of Justice is very important, but no more important than others; Railways, Public Works, Interior, Inland Revenue, Customs, and all the rest are very important departments, and each must be manned as well as possible If "you do what is here proposed in relation to the Department of Justice, you lay up for yourselves any amount of trouble -although I do not know that that would break my heart-but what is far worse,

the public must suffer, for by this action you are placing the Department of Justice beyond the rules of the Civil Service. There will be constant dissatisfaction in the other departments if the officials are not all treated in the same way. Mjr hon. friend said that the Department of Justice should be strengthened, but I must say that he has not been very ardent in the task of strengthening the service of the Department of Justice. What about the Solicitor General? My hon. [DOT]friend has now been in office nearly two years, and he has not yet attempted to consider the matter, or, if he has considered it, he has not yet appointed anyone to that position. Does he mean to say that he cannot find a substitute? Is there no man to fill the position of Solicitor General? I can point to one without going very far from my seat at the present moment. My hon. friend has not done this, but he has made provision for the appointment of two additional legal officers. He has a disposition also to increase the salaries: we have the Deputy Minister at $10,000, Assistant Deputy Minister and Secretary at $5,000, and two additional legal officers at $5,000 each; that is a very large increase. The objection I have to all this is that it is contrary to the regulations of the Civil Service Act, and in my humble estimation is liable to be attended with very serious consequences.


Charles Murphy: What duties are to be
assigned to the two officers who are to be appointed at $5,000 each in violation of the terms of the Civil Service Act?


John Douglas Hazen: They will be lawyers of
good standing who will do counsel work in connection with the department, and such other work as may be necessary for them to do from time to time.


Wilfrid Laurier: Have they
been selected?


John Douglas Hazen: No. The Minister of
Justice says that his experience in the [DOT]department is that money could be saved and work done very much more efficiently if one or two men of standing and education were paid $5,000 a year. He believes it to be a step not only in the interests of efficiency, but in the interests of economy.


Wilfrid Laurier: All this is
for economy?


John Douglas Hazen: This is all for economy.


Edmond Proulx: Will these officers have authority to do work outside of Ottawa?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes. They will be men
capable of doing such work, and no doubt they will be employed to some extent for that purpose.	.


George Perry Graham: The minister will remember that when discussing the removal of Mr. Caron, I made some remarks in which I pointed out the necessity of having a lawyer located at Moncton to handle the claims against and on behalf of the Intercolonial railway? Last night we passed a Bill introduced by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) increasing the amount of all claims which can be tried in the local courts from $200 to $500.	That will
necessitate even more work along that line that the legal representative had before. Up to a few weeks ago the board of management of the Intercolonial railway could be sued by any person having a' claim against the Intercolonial up to a certain amount. That board having passed out of existenee, unless the Act is remedied the old state of ;affairs will exist and the Government of Canada will be sued direct, as there is no substitute named in the Act. This will complicate matters, and nullify to a great extent the Act passed last night as an amendment to the existing law. I would suggest to my hon. friends the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Justice that they take immediate steps to remedy the defect of the Bill we put through last night-this could be remedied by the Senate-and name some person "who could be sued on behalf of the Government for these small claims. I would suggest also that the Minister of Justice take one of these officials he is appointing at $5,000 and send him to Moncton to be the legal representative of the Intercolonial at that point. This .arrangement would keep the work under the supervision of the Justice Department, and comply with the principles of those who hold that the King should not be put in a subservient position in matters of this kind. I would make so bold as to suggest that Mr. Caron is the man for that position.


John Douglas Hazen: I presume my hon. friend the member for Pictou considered that matter in introducing his Bill, because the fact of the abolition of the board of management of the Intercolonial railway must have been well known to him at the time the Bill was put through the committee. I have not carefully read the Bill, but if the hon. member for Pictou is about the House I will see him this evening and suggest that if necessary, steps be taken to have such amendment made in the Senate as will make his Bill effective.


William Chisholm: The hon. member for Pictou called the attention of the Minister of Railways to that alleged defect last night.



To increase the salary of the assistant deputy minister and secretary to $5,000, $1,700.


Wilfrid Laurier: Who is that deputy minister ?


John Douglas Hazen: Mr. Gisborne, who is the assistant deputy minister and also secretary of the department. This amount covers both positions.
To provide for the appointment of two additional legal officers, $10,000.
Mr, MURPHY: I understood the minister to say that this is to provide for the salaries of two gentlemen who are to be appointed from the outside Bar.


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Charles Murphy: Will they be Englishspeaking or French-speaking ?


John Douglas Hazen: Nothing has been said on that subject. I suppose the Minister of Justice will get the best men he can, irrespective of whether they speak French or English. Probably it would be desirable that they should speak both languages.
Administration of justice-additional allowances to judges in connection with circuit court, Montreal, $1,500.
- Mr. LEMIEUX: Will the minister give an explanation of that item ?


John Douglas Hazen: There was a congested
state of affairs in connection with the business of the circuit court in the city of Montreal, and in order to relieve that congestion, three judges from the rural districts were called into Montreal. It was agreed that they should be paid fifteen dollars a day for their services, and this is to provide for the payment of the amount as agreed upon.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it the intention of
the Government to appoint an additional judge for the circuit court of Montreal?


John Douglas Hazen: The Minister of Justice is not here to-night, and I am sorry to say I cannot give the information; I shall have to wait until his return.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish to express the opinion of the Bar and of the judiciary that an addition is necessary. The Secretary of State is a member of the Bar and lie will, I am sure, say with me that such an addition is much needed because there will always be congestion under present conditions. The present congested state of affairs may be relieved by calling in the country judges but they do this work in Montreal at the expense of their own work in their respective districts. I believe the Minister of Justice is aware of the state of affairs in Montreal. At the same time, I want to put in a good word for the present three judges, Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonisk).
Chief Justice LeBoeuf, Mr. Justice Purcell, and Mr. Justice Dorion. They receive only paltry salaries and, for the amount of work they have to perforin, I think thei.r salaries are entirely inadequate.


John Douglas Hazen: Hear, hear. It was only regarded as a temporary expedient. I think that something will have to be done of a more permanent character in order to have the business at Montreal expedited.
Dominion police-further amount required, $18,472.50.


John Douglas Hazen: This amount is required to meet an increase in pay of 25 cents a day to each member of the force, 106 in all. It also provides for 8 additional constables required for duty as follows: 2, Royal Victoria Museum; 3, Robinson Building, Queen Street; 1 the Corry Building, Rideau Street; and 2 to enable each constable to have three weeks' holiday instead of two weeks as heretofore.
Monument to Die heroes of the Long Sault, $5,000.


Edmond Proulx: Where will this monument be erected?


John Douglas Hazen: I presume that my hon. friend, being a native of the province of Quebec, will have more knowledge of the great historical event to be commemorated than I would have. The idea is to erect a monument that would commemorate the heroism of the men who, years ago, went forth to certain death for the purpose of preventing the Iroquois from over-runninig the settlement of Montreal, then a very small place. It is an event well-known in Canadian history and I believe that this proposal meets with the approval of all the people of Canada.


Edmond Proulx: I do not think it is well established where the event took place. Quite a few claim that It took place in my constituency at Little Rideau, on the Ottawa river.
Expenses of the marriage reference, $20,106.44.


John Douglas Hazen: This is to meet the expenses in connection with the marriage references. Hon. gentlemen will remember that there was a reference to the court.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is much to be regretted that the Government did not accent the free gratis advice given by Sir Allen Aylesworth, former Minister of Justice, and the advice given by the then Prime Minister of Canada. If they had done so there would have been no marriage reference. The opinion given at the time by Sir Allen Aylesworth and Sir Wilfrid Laurier has been sustained by every court.


John Douglas Hazen: Still it is well to have it [DOT]determined by a judicial decision.


George Perry Graham: Might I suggest that this item should stand as I see that neither the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) nor the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) is in his place?


Charles Murphy: Will the minister give
the persons to whom this amount is to be paid?


John Douglas Hazen: The department paid the following accounts from the votes for litigated matters of 1912-1913 to T. P. Owens, stenographer, $1,220.62, printers, $990.50; Russell and Company, department solicitors in London, $1,195.62; Mr. Mignault, K.C ., on account of fees $1,000; to Mr. Lafieur, K.C., on account of fees, $1,000; to share of expenses of the Minister of Justice in England, $1,000; total $6,406.74. That is what has been paid up to the present time. The following accounts have been received but not yet paid:	Mr. Mignault, K.C.,
$7,800.60, paid on account $1,000, balance, $6,896.60; Mr. Wallace Nesbitt, K.C., $8,101.44; less account of Mr. C. C. Robinson separately rendered against the department, $420.70, balance, $7,680.74; Mr. J. F. Hell-muth, K.C., $7,500; Mr. E. Lafleur, K.C., $7,500, paid on account, $1,000, balance, $6,500; Mr. C. C. Robinson, $440.70. Total, $29,107.44. The total amount of the accounts, paid and unpaid, is $35,514.18, which the Minister of Justice estimates will be reduced on taxation by an amount of about $9,000, making the net amount about $26,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If I were in order, I
would move that $10,000 be paid to Sir Allen Aylesworth.


George Perry Graham: Is it the intention of the Government to introduce any legislation along this line?


John Douglas Hazen: I think the Prime Minister has said that it is not the intention to introduce any more legislation'this session.
Expenses under the Pecuniary Claims Convention with the United States, $22,500.


John Douglas Hazen: This is simply to correct a clerical error that occurred in the main estimates. In the main estimates, instead of the amount which should have been voted being $25,000, it was $2,500, and this is to make up the amount which it was intended should be voted.
To provide for costs of proceedings before the International Joint Commission, $10,000.


Charles Murphy: What is that?


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend knows that in 1910 a treaty was entered into between Great Britain, Japan, the United States and Russia under which all pelagic sealing on the part of these countries was abolished,
380J	! uttttMtiH
and under which it was agreed that Canada should be paid fifteen per cent of the catch of the United States at the Pribilofi islands, fifteen per cent of the catch at the Japanese islands, and ten per cent of the catch at the Russian islands, and that an advance payment of $200,000 should be made to Canada on account. That $200,000 has been paid, and claims have been made on the part of those who, in consequence of this treaty,_ and of the regulations in the Treaty of Paris have had to cease making a living by pelagic sealing. It has been determined to appoint a commission to inquire into the validity of those claims, and an Order in Council has-been passed appointing Judge Audette, Assistant Judge of the Exchequer Court, as commissioner. Judge Audette will give notice to all interested, and will hold his first court in Victoria on the 15th of July. It may also be necessary to hold a court in Nova Scotia, as several claims have been put in by people at Halifax who contend that they were engaged in the sealing business and that they are entitled to compensation. This vote is to cover the expenses of that commission.


Charles Murphy: Will counsel be appointed to represent the Government?


John Douglas Hazen: That has not been absolutely decided, but my opinion is that it may be necessary to do so, and talking over the matter with Judge Audette, I found that that was his view. The different claimants such as the Victoria Sealing Company and other corporations, will no doubt be represented by counsel, and I think it will be in the public interest-and this is the view of the commissioner-that there should be counsel to represent the Government when the evidence is taken and the facts are inquired into.
Department of Marine and Fisheries-contingencies, $1,000.


Mr. FOSTER (Kings, N.S.):: Does this
item Tefer to the fisheries protection service?


John Douglas Hazen: It refers generally to the contingencies of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


George Eulas Foster: Then I suppose it may be used for the fisheries protection service as well as for any other service. I wish to offer a few remarks on the item of fishery protection, since it affects the rights of the common people of Kings county along the Gaspereaux river. It has been generally understood for some time that hydro electric power would be developed on this river. I wish to say that I am in accord with the development of this power, as I am of all other developments which might be for the benefit of Kings county. I hope it will induce industrial activity, and give employ-

ment to the people, as well as furnish cheap electric power throughout the district. Furthermore, it is anticipated that a large expenditure will be entailed in making the development, thus furnishing employment [DOT]to many men. I may say with becoming modesty that I have been of very considerable service in removing some of the barriers to its development. But there is one thing that I wish to draw to your attention. I have noticed with some dismay that a Tuthless effort is being made by corporations and capitalists to trench on the inalienable rights of the common people. In the Gaspereaux district the fisheries have always contributed' a very important and necessary part of the living of the people of that valley. For centuries a large number of people have derived not a little profit, and in many cases a considerable part of their living, from the fish that frequent these waters. In fact, I do not believe that the people themselves realize to what a very great extent this right has been profitable to them, and I doubt if any just or adequate compensation could be arrived at in exchange for that right. Large quantities of fish go up the river to the Gaspereaux lakes to spawn and during the season the whole inhabitants lay in a winter supply or prepare quantities of these fish for market.
It is understood that the plans of this hydro electric company include the diversion of the whole water flow of this river. It is stated that the lake will be dammed and the entire flow of water will be carried in a trench some nine miles to White Hock, and then dropped in the valley below-a vertical fall of over three hundred feet. If the river is thus robbed of all its water, it will be impossible for the fish to ascend the river to the lake to spawn; in other words, the fish will not propagate, and the fishermen will thus be deprived of a very important asset of much greater value to them than even the ministry can realize. It may be claimed by the promoters of this undertaking that inasmuch as all properties required must be purchased either by private agreement or under expropriation proceedings, all owners will be paid any consequential damages suffered. But I wish to point out that at present there exists on this river an abundance of free fishing stands where gaspereaux can be and are dipped, and salmon taken. Therefore, it is on the people of moderate circumstances who have been in the habit of availing themselves of these stands that a severe and unjustifiable loss will fall if the present plans of the promoters are carried out. It is the rights of these people that I wish particularly to see safeguarded. I therefore draw the matter to the attention of the minister, asking him Mr. POSTER (Kings, N.S.).
to enforce existing regulations, and, if necessary, to promulgate additional regulations so that the existing rights and privileges of the citizens to which I refer may not be ruthlessly interfered with.


John Douglas Hazen: The matter to which my
hon. friend from Kings county refers is a matter of importance. I presume that the work, to which he alludes, is being carried on on the Gaspereaux river, for the development of electric power, and under the' authority of an Act of the Legislature of the province of Nova Scotia. I do not wish to express any opinion as to the validity of that Act, but I presume that, until the contrary is shown, we must take it for granted that the Legislature was acting within its rights in granting such a charter.
I understand the complaint of my hon friend to be that the development of this power will so divert the waters of the Gaspereaux river that there will not be sufficient water left for the fish which go up the river in large numbers, and which constitute a not inconsiderable item in the l!ving of a number of the residents along that stream. At the hon. gentleman's request I shall take it up with the department, carefully look into the matter, and have them take such steps as they can for the purpose of preserving the fisheries.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think it would be
very praiseworthy on the part of the minister to do that I remember that years ag^ it was the custom of the students of Acadia college to visit each spring the waters of the Gaspereaux and regale themselves with the splendid fish to be caught there. I know as the result of conversations with residents of Wolfvdlle that they have very high hopes as a result of the development of this power on the Gaspereaux. The citizens in that locality are very much interested in the results of that development and they are optimistic as to the benefits that will result to them. I would be sorry to see the fisheries endangered, but I am sure that the people in that section of Kings county would not like to see the development of this power retarded. The minister has a very difficult task before him in seeking to adjust the conflicting interests that are apparent.


John Howard Sinclair: I have been waiting
most of the session to mention a matter to the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries in relation to my own constituency. I refer to the regulations regarding fishing for salmon in St. Mary's river. The St. Mary's river is one of the largest rivers in Nova Scotia, about fifty miles in length, and a great salmon fishing river. About. ten miles is tidal water, the salmon go up through the tidal water and the people residing along that part of the river where

the tide flows are allowed to set nets for salmon while those residing above the tide are not allowed under the existing regulations to catch the salmon with nets. This is looked upon as a hardship by the farmers residing along the river and it really has a bad effect because the tendency is to make them all poachers. They cannot understand why they should not be allowed to catch a few salmon for their tables. There is no good reason. If they were allowed two days in the week, say, to fish, in those waters above the tide, and if the law were strictly enforced, I feel certain that it would be much better for the fishery and better for everybody than at present. The same situation existed on one or two rivers in New Brunswick and I understand that the regulations were relaxed in those cases. I want to ask the minister to look into the matter and endeavour to frame some regulation which will enable these people residing above tidal water to catch some salmon in the St. Mary's river. This matter was brought to the attention of the Department of Marine and Fisheries prior to the time that my hon. friend took charge of it, but the influence of the officers of the department seems to be against the proposal. I feel certain that the proposal would work well, that it would tend to the preservation of the fishery and I would ask the minister to give it some attention during the recess.


John Douglas Hazen: I shall certainly comply
with the request of the hon. member for Guysborough to give this matter consideration and get reports on the subject from the fishery officers of the department. But the regulation to which he refers is one which applies to all the rivers. Under certain regulations people are allowed to catch salmon in the tidal waters while in non-tidal waters they are not allowed to catch salmon. They are allowed to catch fish in tidal waters by angling and not with nets as my hon. friend states. The salmon go up the rivers for the purpose of spawning. In the fall they go down the rivers and go out to sea and in the spring they come to the rivers and go up for the purpose of spawning. The theory is that the very minute they get into non-tidal water they get into water in which the conditions are favourable for depositing spawn, and it is not desirable to allow the fish to be caught in such numbers as will be the case when nets and weapons of that sort are used. My hon. friend is quite correct in saying that some exception has been made to the regulation to which he refers. Some years ago, before I came into the department, an exception was made in regard to the river St. John in New Brunswick. Large numbers of salmon, and they are increasing from year
to year I am glad to say, are going up that river. The head of the tide is a point just above the city of Fredericton, and from that point on to Grand Falls, which is the barrier that prevents the salmon from going farther up the river, no fishing was allowed. Some years ago a change was made by which, in certain portions of the non-tidal part of the river, fishermen were allowed to use nets on alternate weeks.


John Howard Sinclair: Has that regulation
worked out well?


John Douglas Hazen: It has not, as far as I can make out, satisfied anybody. The officials of the department were absolutely opposed to it; still it was done. The people who live on the tidal waters think that they have not privilege enough and that they ought to keep their nets down for a longer time than the regulations permit. But that is not unusual with the regulations about fishing. The only satisfaction they give is to the officials of the department who find that after the regulations have been in force a number of years the fish have increased. I will have the matter very carefully looked into. There is not an occasion upon which a petition comes to the department asking for an extension of the season that some very good reasons are not given in favour of it. The policy I have adopted now is not to extend the season in any single case.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Except before an election.


John Douglas Hazen: No, I will not do it then. It is a great pity that the close seasons are not made statutory, instead of being a matter of regulation. If they were statutory a minister could not make a repori to Council and get them changed on a day's notice. It would be far better in the interest of the fisheries and the enforcement of the law if they were regulated by statute.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Douglas Hazen: I will look into the matter referred to by my hon. friend (Mr. Sinclair), and we will endeavour to consider it on its merits, notwithstanding his statement that the officials have been hostile in the past.


John Howard Sinclair: At present the people living on the tidal waters are allowed to fish the entire six days of the week. Would it not be fairer to restrict them to three or four days in the week, and allow the people living above the tidal waters to have a chance. That would be fairer all around and would be better for the fisheries.


John Douglas Hazen: Would my hon. friend
write me a letter making his proposition, and I will submit it to the officials?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I assure the minister
that this regulation is satisfying the people who live along the river St. John. I have either the blame or the credit of being the father of this regulation, and I want to stand by it. Before the regulation was put in force people persistently poached and caught all the fish they could, and the officials did not have very much heart to prosecute them. After the regulation was put into force they got notice that they must respect the law and prosecutions were laid against some, and fines inflicted and collected. With one or two exceptions, the law is being respected to-day. However, I will give in confidence to the minister, the name of one fishery warden in the county of Carleton, who is a determined out-and-out poacher, and that one fish warden and his brothers are in the business every night during the season, not to speak of every day.


John Douglas Hazen: I suppose he was appointed on the principe that an old smuggler is the best to prevent smuggling.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: With that exception, the officers are trying to do their duty, and to-day there are more fish in the St. John and Tobique rivers than ever before. The regulation is working out splendidly and the people are satisfied. If the conditions in other rivers are the same as on the river St. John, the regulation can be applied with great advantage. Why should not the people along the river have the right to fish? Why should they be prevented because there is an antiquated law which says that men can fish in tide water and not ia fresh water. I hope the minister will not repeat the experiment he tried during the progress of the local election in New Brunswick last year, and allow them to fish one month straight ahead instead of the alternate fortnights. If they are allowed to fish one month right ahead Sunday and Monday as they did then, and never take their nets out of the water, there is sure to be trouble. However, that was during an election, and I suppose the Government of the day had to get the votes whatever way they could.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it true that the
department intends to establish a wireless station on the top of Mount Eoyal in Montreal?


John Douglas Hazen: Application has been made to the city of Montreal for a site, and if it is granted a wireless station will he put there. It is in connection with the general aids to navigation we have all along the coast.


Mr. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.):: Will the minister give me some information with respect to the lobster hatchery at Georgetown in my province? The hatchery was Mr. HAZEN.
built some four or five years ago and from its beginning it gave good results. This year a change was made in the management and the results are altogether unsatisfactory now. John McDonald was manager and he has been removed, and I understand that the men who distributed the spawn have been changed. The Paquet Brothers, in Souris, boat-builders, supplied a suitable boat for several years, and gave satisfaction in collecting and distributing the spawn, but I understand other people are doing the work now.


John Douglas Hazen: The collection of spawn
is advertised for by public tender and the lowest tenderer gets the contract, and he must have a boat in accordance with the requirements named in the advertisement. I cannot say who has the contract this year. The manager at the hatchery is Mr. Murdock McLean. The report I got from the officers of my department is that the work is progressing satisfactorily. '


James Joseph Hughes: At what date was that report made?


John Douglas Hazen: I asked about it a few
days ago and was told that the work was getting along satisfactorily.


Samuel Hughes: My information is that
the boat supplied now is entirely too large and draws too much water to come close enough to the canneries to get the spawn. My information is that on the 15th of last month, although the season commenced on the 26th of the previous month, there was not an ounce of spawn in the hatchery.


John Douglas Hazen: I will take the hon. gentleman s statement in ' Hansard ' and make investigation, because it is contrary' to t-ti6 iniormation. X have received.
iur. nuuriES (Kings, P.E.I.):	I desire to ask with reference to a matter I mentioned the other afternoon-whether Captain Norman McIntosh of the life-savin<* station at Souris has been dismissed, and it so, for what reason.


John Douglas Hazen: Norman McIntosh was
dismissed on the recommendation of Commander Thompson, officer in charge of these life-saving stations. I do not wish to put on 'Hansard' the reasons for the dismissal. I do not think it is desirable from Mr. McIntosh's own standpoint, but I would be happy to tell my hon. friend personally, the reason. It is on the report of Commander Thompson that the dismissal is made and it is to promote the efficiency of the service. There was no charge of political partisanship, the action was taken on the recommendation of the responsible officers of the department.


Samuel Hughes: 
John Howard Sinclair: It is most unfortunate
that the minister introduced the spoils system into the life-saving service on the coast. The facts came out in answer to a question asked in the House that out of nineteen life-saving crews on the coast of the maritime provinces the coxswains of twelve had been dismissed, and that of these, seven were dismissed without investigation. I feel certain that prior ^ to the change of Government the life-saving service was looked upon as one that should be altogether outside the changes of politics.. I know that the only life-saving station in my constituency was in charge of the same man in 1896, and from that time on until the Change of Government in 1911. But he apparently showed some tendencies towards the Liberal party, and he had to walk out, another man being appointed in his place. Surely, there is some part of the marine service that might be left out of politics, and one would think that above everything else it should be the life-saving service. The men who man the lifeboats should be the best oarsmen in the harbour, and they should be men ready to take risks. The coxswains of these crews were brave fellows. Search the records and you will find that on more than one occasion some of the coxswains who were dismissed without investigation won medals and other decorations for bravery shown in efforts to save life. It appears that heroism does not count with the present Administration, and even the life-boat service is to be made a part of the spoils system like any other branch.


Samuel Hughes: Where can I see the report to which the minister refers?


John Douglas Hazen: If the hon. gentleman wif come to my office to-morrow.


Samuel Hughes: The minister will be
busy. He knows that there have been many dismissals .from his department _ in my county and I have not said anything about them. I had reasons for mentioning this one.


John Douglas Hazen: If the hon. gentleman will see the deputy minister, he will be afforded an opportunity to read the report.


Mr. RICHARDS:: I desire to ask with
regard to the dismissal of Captain Tohn Champion, in charge of the life-saving boat, at Alberton, Prince county, P.E.I.


John Douglas Hazen: I have no record of the
matter before me, but I will get the information to-morrow morning.


James William Richards: I would call the attention of my hon. friend to the fact that Captain John Champion was a man of great experience and had saved many vessels. He was removed from office without investigation. He was not a man who took an active part in politics. He was appointed to the charge of the lifeboat by the late Administration because of his qualifications for the position. After he was dismissed he took charge of a boat to go out and save the crew of a schooner. He did this not in connection with the lifesaving station, but with a boat of his own. It seems hard that a man so well qualified for the position .should be removed.


Mr. CARROLL:: In March last I put a
question on the Order Paper with reference to the issuing of new licenses for lobster packing in South Cape Breton. I did this

because some men were talking of establishing a co-operation lobster packing house, I got the information of the minister that it was not the intention of the department to issue more licenses until the Shell Fish Commission had reported. Now I find that at the very place where they intended to start their co-operative lobster packing plan a new license is issued.


John Douglas Hazen: Is that Mr. Neville?


William F. Carroll: I think so. I am glad Mr. Neville has got his license, as be is a friend^ of mine and a very fine man. I think if we had got the information at that time there would have been others, especially a number of fishermen, who would have gone into this business, and they rather blame me for it; they think I was in a position to give them the proper information.


John Douglas Hazen: In granting a license to
Mr. Neville, the department was not influenced at all by political considerations, because he is an active member of the party to which my hon. friend belongs. We *wanted to treat Mr. Neville as fairly as we could, and when we made answer to my hon. friend we were perfectly sincere in doing so. It transpired that previous to that date Mr. Neville had been informed by the inspector of the district that a license would be granted to him, and some other officials had told hiim the same thing, with the result that Mr. Neville incurred certain expenses in connection with getting material and building a factory. Under ail the . circumstances, when the matter was submitted to me, I thought it would not be fair to refuse a license to Mr. Neville.


William F. Carroll: The bon. minister's explanation is quite satisfactory.
To provide for the pension of Inspector J. B. Allan, Royal North West Mounted Police, at the rate of $450 per annum, from January 1, 1900, to March 31, 1914, less superannuation allowance, for the above period at $280 per annum; and thereafter the pension of $450 per annum he continued and paid at the said rate, $2,702.50.
Mr. BORDEN- I can explain this item by reading the following memorandum:
Inspector Allan was rendered unfit for further service in the police owing to a gunshot wound in the right shoulder, received while endeavouring to effect the arrest of an escaped Indian prisoner, Almighty Voice. He was retired on the 1st January, 1900, under the Superannuation Act, with ' an allowance of $280, per annum, instead of being granted a pension for wounds, which -would have amounted to $450, per annum, and it is now proposed to rectify this and grant him the larger pension from the 1st April last, with arrears from 1st January 1900, less the amount Mr. CARROLL.
he has already received under the Superannuation Act.
The Comptroller of the Royal North West Mounted Police made a report in regard to this matter, which is in part as follows:
Captain John Beresford Allan, of the active Militia of Canada was appointed an inspector in the Royal Northest Mounted Police on the 1st Ausgust, 1885, and was superannuated on the 31st December, 1899, with an annual al-low'ance of $280 per annum, being unfit for further service in the force, owing to a gunshot wound in the right shoulder, received while endeavouring to effect the capture of an escaped Indian prisoner, Almighty Voice.
Had Inspector Allan received the wound on active service, which necessitated his retirement, he would have been dealt with under the pension clause for officers of the militia of Canada, and would have received a pension for life of $300 per annum.
An inspector in the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, while serving with the active militia has by statute the relative rank of a lieutenant, but in the present case, as In-speetor Allan was a captain in the militia when he was appointed to the police, nearly fifteen years before his retirement, it seems only fair that his pension should be based upon that rank, which in the second degree, namely:	An officer rendered materially incapable as a result of -wounds received in action, would amount to $450 per annum.


Wilfrid Laurier: This case
was dealt with during the regime of the late Administration, and I understand that the action taken was based on the regulations then prevailing in the mounted police force. If it had been possible to give Mr. Allan a greater gratuity than he received, I am sure we would have been glad to do so. He was treated as' a member of the police force, and he is now treated as a member of the militia, which he was not. I have no doubt that Mr. Allan was a most efficient officer, and deserved as much from the country as he received, but the trouble is that we have rules, and if we make exceptions to those rules in dny particular instance we invite violation of them in the future. I must say that while I sympathize deeply with inspector Allan, I think the precedent is a bad one.
To defray the expenses of Mr. Thomas; Adams, of the Local Government Board of Great Britain, on liis proposed visit to Canada in the interests of national housing and town planning, $2,500.


Robert Laird Borden: The Conservation Commission requested us to obtain the services of a gentleman, whose name I do not recall, and who was in the same service in Great Britain, to come here for the purpose set out in this item. The gentleman whose services were first requested was not able to come, but this gentleman, Mr. Thomas Adams, who has had a great experience, is to come for the purpose of giving addresses of that kind in Canada.

Allowance to William J. Stewart, chief hy-drographer, for services performed under Order in Council of 19th October, 1912, in relation to questions under consideration by International Joint Commission, $1,000.


Robert Laird Borden: When we came into
office I found that there was no special provision in the public service for safeguarding the public interest in respect of very important questions that were continually coming up for consideration by the International Joint Commission; some of the questions that arose related to one department, some to another. They were all more or less of an engineering character. Some related to more than one department and the difficulty was that between two stools one could come to the ground. It was thought desirable to have some person whose undivided attention could be given to such questions. I looked around the departments and came to this conclusion that Mr. Stewart, both by his experience and ability as an engineer, and by the experience which he had derived as a member of a commission which had to do with these international matters, would be the person best suited for the purpose. I detached him by Order in Council from the Hydrographic Survey, and since that time he has been giving his undivided attention to this work, with very good results to the country. Under the circumstances, I think it no more than right that Mr. Stewart should have the remuneration now proposed.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is this the same gentleman who has been appointed on a commission to investigate the levels of the St. Lawrence?


Robert Laird Borden: He had experience on a commission of that character.


John Douglas Hazen: He received no extra remuneration for that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He will come in next
year for that position.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think so.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Would the minister like to say he would not?


John Douglas Hazen: I would not like to make
any rash promises.


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon. friend is disposed to think that this is an undesirable allowance, he is not seized of the circumstances. I venture to say that Mr. Stewart has been of service to the country of a value, of one hundred times the amount put in the estimates as compensation for him.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: While that may be all
very true, nevertheless I feel that I have a right at least to voice my views. To my mind it amounts almost to a scandal the manner in which the civil servants of this Government are being boosted by $1,000, $2,000 and $5,000. Here we vote $10,000 this
afternoon for the salary of an ordinary deputy minister. Where will it land us? This gentleman may be everything my right hon. friend says, I presume a good officer and one who has done good service to Canada, and he has no doubt got good pay. Why he gets another thousand dollars I do not know. Almost every day we are called upon to boost up some man's salary in a manner not provided for in the Civil Service Act.
Patrol of the northern waters of Canada* $40,000.


Frank Oliver: Before that item is passed I would ask the minister for some information about an item which appeared in the Ottawa Journal a few days ago stating that the vessel purchased for that expedition was not up to reqiiirements.


John Douglas Hazen: I read the paragraph referred to, and as I thought it might be brought up in the House, I immediately asked for information on this point. I have received the following memorandum from Mr. Desbarats:
I understand that Captain Bartlett intormed Mr. Stefansson that he did not consider the Karluk was the type of vessel to winter in, the northern seas. Mr. Stefansson told him that as the Karluk had already wintered! there several times, and as she was the usuali type of whaling vessel of which a number! wintered every year in the Arctic sea, there! was no reason why she should not be able toi do for the Stefansson expedition what she did for the whaler6.
The vessel is the usual whaling vessel built for Arctic work and numbers of these vessels winter every year near Herschel island and in other parts of the Arctic.
The vessel has been thoroughly overhauled in the Esquimalt dockyard and is considered by those who inspected her to be in a first-class condition and equal to any of the vessels of the whaling fleet.
The vessel wras built with the entire approval of Mr. Stefansson.
Steamboat inspection-further amount required, $10,000.
-Mr. HAZEN: Owing to the expansion of the steamboat inspection it has been found necessary to appoint an officer with technical knowledge and experience to assist in carrying out the increased work. While this looks like an increase, it is practically no increase. A gentleman in the outside service is simply being appointed to the inside service. The gentleman has been -acting as superintendent of naval construction for the department. He used to be paid at the rate of $4,000 a year. The arrangement under which he came out from England was that he should receive $2,500 as salary and that he should also have household expenses, but these came to between $2,500 and $2,700, so that in paying him $4,000 we are not paying as

much as before. The remaining $6,000 is for travelling expenses of the new chairman and this other gentleman, also for incidentals.
Fisheries-to provide for the expenses of investigating claims for compensation under the Pelagic Sealing Treaty, $10,000.


Charles Murphy: It seems to me that the explanation given by .the minister in regard to a former item would rather apply to this one.


John Douglas Hazen: My explanation was intended to apply to this item. There must have been a mistake.


Charles Murphy: The other item must
have had reference to the costs of proceedings before the International Joint Commission.


John Douglas Hazen: That is not in my department.


Robert Laird Borden: That item is to cover the expenses in connection with the commission which deals with boundary waters.
To provide for the cost of building fishery patrol boats for British Columbia, $75,000.


George Perry Graham: How many boats are to be purchased, and are they to be built in Canada?


John Douglas Hazen: This is a revote. The item was voted last year, but the amount was not expended. It was voted for the purpose of providing one fishery patrol steamer, but after further consideration it was decided to build a number of small boats which would be stationed at different parts of the coast. Five new boats are being built under contract, tenders having been called for. They are for British Columbia waters.


George Perry Graham: Will they be built in
Canada?


John Douglas Hazen: The contractors are British Columbia contractors.
To provide for payment to the Department of Public Works, of the ice-breaking tug Sir HectoT, which was lost when going to the assistance of the fisheries patrol steamer, Lady of the Lake, $16,238.


George Perry Graham: I suppose this is a payment by one department to the other?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


George Perry Graham: That would rather uphold the contention that when other departments owe the Department of Railways they should pay what they owe.


Francis Cochrane: Hear, hear.
To provide for amount required to assist in the establishment, maintenance and inspection of cold storage for bait, the conservation and development of deep sea fisheries, and to provide for better transportation facilities for fresh fish, $30,000.
Mr. HAZEN.


William Chisholm: Is it the intention to assist bait freezers?


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend knows that there is legislation under which bait freezers get assistance, and there is some arrangement under which the Department of Agriculture grant assistance to cold storage plants which have provision for bait. There is a provision-I cannot give the exact details-under which bait freezers, as I recollect, on being constructed up to a certain standard, and having a certain capacity, are paid a proportion of the cost of construction.


William Chisholm: My understanding is
that the subvention has been withdrawn from the smaller bait freezers along the coast, and that they are not now assisted.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend may be
right; I cannot answer offhand.


Frank Oliver: What proportion of this
vote, if any, is for the Pacific coast, and for what purpose?


John Douglas Hazen: Practically none of this vote is for the Pacific coast. Under an arrangement that was made, before I came into the department, for the purpose of developing trade in fresh fish to the West, the Government undertook to pay a proportion of the express charges upon that fresh fish. The policy has been eminently successful, and has resulted in a very much increased transhipment of fresh fish, principally from the province of Nova Scotia, and from other parts of the Atlantic coast to Toronto, Montreal and other cities. The increase in the trade has been so great that we have more money to pay as our proportion of the express charges, and this item is largely for that purpose.
Miscellaneous-grant towards the building fund of the Royal Geographical Society, England, $4,866.66.


Charles Murphy: What is that for?


Robert Laird Borden: It is a grant towards the erection of a building by the Royal Geographical Society in England. Australia gave a grant, and so did New Zealand, I think. This society is doing very important work all over the world, a work that is, and has been of service.


Charles Murphy: Are there to be exhibits in the building?


Robert Laird Borden: No, the building is to house the society.
To provide for the expenses of the Conservation Commission, $8,000.


Charles Murphy: What is to be done with this amount?


Robert Laird Borden: I am afraid I cannot give the details as to the exact purpose for which it is required. It is reported to us

by the commission that they require this further amount. They are conducting a variety of work of investigation in different parts of the country, work of an educational character, and I have no doubt that the money is required.


Frank Oliver: When the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture were under consideration we were informed that while the Department of Agriculture was carrying on demonstration work, the Conservation Commission was doing the same. When the commission was first established, I understood that its duties were to be educative and advisory and not demonstrative. Apparently they are entering upon the work of demonstration in agriculture, paralleling the work of the Department of Agriculture. It seems to me to be rather undesirable that the Government of Canada should be carrying on work that might be regarded as overlapping that of another branch of the service.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend will recollect that some questions were raised about this before, and I gave an explanation to the House in the form pf a memorandum from the commission which I think was very satisfactory. My hon. friend, from Beauce (Mr. Beland) who is a member of that commission, also gave very full and, I think, very satisfactory information with regard to it. I do not think there has been any interference with the work of the Department of Agriculture; at all events, if there has been interference or duplication, undoubtedly it should be checked. The observations that my hon.. friend has made in that regard will be taken into account.
Civil Government-Department of Railways and Canals-to provide for one valuator on first division, subdivision ' A,' $3,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: The other day when we concurred in an item of $25,000,000 for the Transcontinental Tailway, my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) was not in the House, but I asked my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) to remind my hon. friend that we wanted to have more information as to the Quebec terminals of the Transcontinetal railway, and my hon. friend the Postmaster General told me he would remind the minister that we would expect some information about that.


Francis Cochrane: I am sorry that I did not get the message.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then I will tell the Minister of Railways what I want. I may say that the arrangements which were made with the Grand Trunk Pacific, some four, five or six years ago, have been cancelled. It was understood practically between the commissioners of the Transcontinental railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific that the station would be at the Champlain market. The commissioners bought the Champlain market from the city of Quebec as a site for that purpose. They paid $100,000, and it was cheap at the price. My hon. friend told me the other day that it was not the intention of the present commission to have the station of the Transcontinental railway at the Champlain market, that that would simply be the site of a small station, but that they would have a union station for the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Canadian Pacific railway, and I do not know if he mentioned another railway at the Palais, that is where the station of the Canadian Pacific railway now is. I do not know if the Canadian Pacific has agreed to that arrangement.


Francis Cochrane: Yes. Provision is also being made for any other railways that wish to come in.


Wilfrid Laurier: But has any concrete arrangement been made with anybody about it?


Francis Cochrane: The agreement is not signed yet, but the plan is agreed upon.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend will admit that at this stage it is not very satisfactory. This arrangement should have been signed. Last year, in the last days of the session, I drew the attention of my hon. friend to this very question. I reminded him that when we left office tenders had been received and accepted for a station at the Champlain market. This has been cancelled, and my hon. friend told me that he was going to Quebec to arrange everything.


Francis Cochrane: We have.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon.
friend has not; he has simply made a tentative arrangement. These things have been decided, but it is not sufficient to decide a thing. You must put it in writing and have it carried out. My hon. friend told me the other day that the station was to be at the Palais, where the station of the Canadian Pacific railway is to-day. The Grand Trunk Pacific, in order to reach that station, must, after leaving Cap Rouge, go back to the St. Charles river and then run over the Canadian Northern for some distance. Then it will have to make a connection with the Canadian Pacific railway, and from the Champlain market, where there is to be a small station, the Grand Trunk Pacific would have to go round by the wharf of the harbor commissioners to the station of the Canadian Pacific Railway. It cannot do that unless there is a loop some 600 feet in length, which my hon. friend told me was

to be done by the harbour commissioners. All this is simply in contemplation, and nothing has been done. There is no arrangement, as far as I know, with the harbour commissioners to build that link, there is no arrangement to have running powers over the Canadian Pacific line, there is no arrangement to have running powers over the line of the Canadian Northern Railway. Am I right in this?


Francis Cochrane: The agreement is not signed, but it is all agreed to, and the draft agreement is being prepared as fast as possible.


Wilfrid Laurier: Why has it
not been signed ?


Francis Cochrane: Because the agreement has only been arrived at within the last few weeks.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is simply in contemplation, it is in the mind of my hon. friend and others, and it has not been reduced to writing. If the agreement was reached three weeks ago, surely there are clerks enough in the office of the commission and in the Department of Railways and Canals to have this agreement put in writing and signed. I do not doubt my hon. friend's intentions, but I do doubt his zeal. I do not think he is perfectly zealous in the desire to have this railway built at all in Quebec. I do not think I do him any injustice in saying that. The line has been blemished from Cochrane to Quebec.


Francis Cochrane: No.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes; these momentum grades, in my humble estimation, are a blemish on the road. That section of the road is not of the same character as the rest of the road.


Francis Cochrane: West of Cochrane it is the same.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am all the
more sorry for it then. Has the agreement been signed with the Canadian Pacific railway for running powers ?


Francis Cochrane: No, but this will all be put into the one agreement. It is not an easy matter to get so many different corporations to enter into an agreement. The city of Quebec only said a week ago what it would do.


Wilfrid Laurier: I know it is not an easy matter to get an agreement of this kind. When anything which was settled, has been unsettled, it is not an easy matter to settle it again. If my hon. friend had carried out the bargain which we made, and had placed the station at the Champlain market, there would be no difficulty at all, but my hon. friend had
Sir WILFRID LAURIER
the commission prevail upon the City Council of Quebec to change the location. Has any agreement been made with the harbour commissioners to build that line of railway ?


Francis Cochrane: No.


Wilfrid Laurier: Until that agreement has been made, until you have that railway constructed, what is the use of your agreement with the Canadian Pacific railway ? Even if you have an agreement with the Canadian Pacific railway to use their rails, that agreement is not worth the paper it is written upon unless you have the link necessary to connect the two lines.


Francis Cochrane: It will not be necessary to have that link at all to get down to the harbour, because the Canadian Pacific railway goes down to the harbour now.


Wilfrid Laurier: But the Canadian Pacific railway does not go to the Champlain market station.


Francis Cochrane: No.


Wilfrid Laurier: Therefore,
there is a link to be built, and my hon. friend told me that it was to be built by the harbour commissioners.


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is no agreement with the harbour commissioners. Has the plan been prepared for the station at Champlain market ?


Francis Cochrane: No.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is that pardonable ?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: No, it is not pardonable. This line is to be completed next year, and yet not a thing has been done to provide terminals at Quebec. For this gross negligence there is no possible excuse.


Francis Cochrane: I am sorry that the right hon. the leader of the Opposition takes it so much to heart. I can state most emphatically that the commission has worked upon this matter zealously for a year. It is not an easy matter to get several corporations to make an agreement. In fact, the agreement is not completed yet at Winnipeg, although the negotiations were undertaken a long time before we came into office. The matter as regards the Quebec terminals is definitely settled now; it is a mere question of drawing up the agreement and getting it signed, and I have -no hesitation in saying that ~we will be ready to receive the Grand Trunk Pacific when it is ready to operate.


Wilfrid Laurier: All we can do is to take my hon. friend's word for it. It is not easy, as he says, to get so many companies to enter into an agreement and it is because of the circumstances under which the difficulty has been created that I feel strongly upon the point. This agreement should have been signed long ago. I am told now that an agreement had been made with the Canadian Northern but not signed. No agreement has been made with the Harbour Commissioners. If that line is to be built by the Harbour Commissioners they have no money for it, and it will not be built when the road is completed.


Francis Cochrane: Does the hon. gentleman think there is room enough at the Champlain market to handle the traffic that I hope will come on that Transcontinental road?


Wilfrid Laurier: It would be
sufficient for the passenger traffic, but 1 admit it would not be sufficient for the freight, which would have to be accommodated higher up. The passenger traffic of the Canadian Pacific railway, landing from their steamers, is provided for under similar conditions on the wharf there.
Railway Department-to provide for a valuator, $3,000.


Francis Cochrane: It is absolutely necessary to have a land valuator in the department. The Transcontinental Railway Commission have a splendid man who has given good service and we propose to take him right over at his present salary of $3,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Have the new freight tariffs on the Intercolonial railway been prepared, and what percentage generally of increase in freight rates has been made by them?


Francis Cochrane: There has been an
increase in the tariff and the justification for it is the great increase in the wages of the,men and in the cost of coal. The average increase would not be over five per cent, but in some instances it is of course more. The new general manager has instructions that if any industry is hard hit by the increase, he should arrange to let them out. I do not think there is enough of an increase to affect any industry, but if there is, he has authority to arrange it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There was a surplus of nearly $1,000,000 last year on the Intercolonial, which would be sufficient to provide for the increase in the salary of the employees and the additional cost of the coal. This being a public utility, owned and operated by the Government for the advantage of the people, the minister is imposing an unfair burden upon
the business enterprises of t he maritime jrovinces by these increased rates. The idea of a public utility is that it should be operated in the interests of the people, and not with a view of making money. By increasing freight charges, the minister continues a very onerous discrimination against the business interests of the maritime provinces. Nova Scotia is the great manufacturing province in the East, and the Minister of Railways controls the only line of transportation that can take the products of that province to other portions of the Dominion. The Intercolonial railway was built as a term of Confederation, in order to bring the extreme East of this Dominion in touch with the central portion. When the manufacturer in Nova Scotia ships over the Grand Trunk railway, he meets the additional difficulty at Montreal, if his goods are destined west of the city, of having his products handed over to another line of railway. There is, therefore, this double handicap against our manufacturers. We are great purchasers of the staple articles produced in central Canada, and if has always been the policy of all governments to recognize that in westbound traffic there should be special consideration foT the products of Nova Scotia, in order that they might be ible to find a market in central Canada. The minister, by imposing these extra rates, is handicapping the business of Nova Scotia. In view of the large subventions which have been given, without any condition, to enterprises in central Canada, the minister is not treating us fairly if he is going to put this additional drag upon the possibility of our .sharing ;n the progress of the country. I protest on behalf of the business interests in my province against this increase in the rates.


William Chisholm: On behalf of the farmers and smaller shippers over the Intercolonial railway, I enter my orotest against the increased rates on the Intercolonial railway. It will mean an increase of about forty per cent on the smaller shippers and farmers and it is going to hurt us in this part of the country. I represent an agricultural community and we ship a great deal of agricultural products to Cape Breton, and the increased rates will seriously hamper the farmers and shippers of cattle and farm products generally. On local traffic, there is I am told an increase in the rates of about forty per cent. A farmer taking goods from the shire town of Antigonish to his home in the country, formerly paid at the rate of twenty-five cents where he will now have to pay thirty-five cents. I protest against this. It will not bring any great increase of revenue to the Intercolonial, and it seriously injures the farmers and smaller shippers.


James Joseph Hughes: The increase in freight rates will in my opinion reduce the revenue of the road in our province. As a matter of fact on a short haul of ten miles it is cheaper to carry light freight by teams than to ship it by the railway, as I know from personal knowledge. It will reduce the value of the road to the people, and I believe it will reduce the revenue also. The fact should be taken into consideration.


Mr. TURGEON:: I also protest against
the increase in rates, on behalf of the lumber interests in the county of Gloucester. That system supplies a large part of the lumber originating in New Brunswick. There are more railway ties taken from that district than from all the rest of the province of New Brunswick. This affects just as much the small operators as the large interests. The farmer with his sons will go into camp along the road and take out quantities of timber and ties. They carry their provisions for the camps and the men, and this will mean that they will have to pay higher rates on these goods. It will certainly handicap these people very much, and I should be surprised if it did not raise the price of ties along the Intercolonial. I hope the hon. gentleman will take this into consideration when he deals with the matter.


Francis Cochrane: I am trying to run
the Intercolonial on a business basis. I can understand that there may be some occasions when it will be a hardship to raise the rates. I think the hon. member for Antigonish must have been quoting on lots of one hundred pounds or less. That increase has taken place. There may be instances where the increase is a little too much. In reference to what the hon. member for Pictou says, I suppose he has reference to the steel industry. That is certainly a big industry. But I think my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) will bear me out that it is questionable if we ever made a dollar in hauling that material to Montreal at the rates which are in existence. I believe that we should give the lowest rates at which we can live. But with the increase in wages, rolling stock upkeep, I am satisfied that increases in rates are necessary. More than that, the larger of the two industries referred to would have the advantage of water rates, and we cannot carry what they can get it done for by boat. I have no desire to make money on the intercolonial, but I do desire, if possible, to have rates that will keep up the rolling stock and give a good service. I am satisfied that the business men will appreciate a good quick service, even if the rates have been raised somewhat in order to give it. It will be my endeavour to give them more in advantage than will offset the increase in the rates.
Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish).


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I will point out one industry that will be handicapped. That will be the coal industry. As the hon. minister knows our province is the only place in -Canada east of Alberta in which there is a coal supply. The navigation of the St. Lawrence being closed in the winter time, and some of our more important coal mines being so situated that they are not able to ship by sea even in the summer-


Francis Cochrane: Our coal tariff has not gone up yet.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then, perhaps I
may be able to say a word to the minister that will induce him not to send it up. Under the conditions I have mentioned, the people in northern New Brunswick and in the province of Quebec who desire to obtain coal in the winter time are compelled to obtain it over the Intercolonial. If the minister puts in force a higher tariff it will prevent the coal miners of Nova Scotia from sending their coal over the same to points at as great distances from the mines as are now reached, and will also do an injury to the people who need that coal in the winter. No doubt, he will say he is serving the public by increasing the tariff as it will make the consumers of coal contribute more to the revenues of the road. I asked the minister not to increase the tariff on the carrying of coal from the East to the West, because it will mean that American coal will be placed in Montreal where, with cheap transportation on the Intercolonial, Nova Scotia coal is now sold.


Francis Cochrane: There is not much brought by train from Nova Scotia to Montreal now, even in the winter season. I will take the recommendation of the hon. member for Pictou into consideration.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The other day I
called the attention of the minister to increases in local rates on the Intercolonial. I presume he is familiar with the details, and I should be glad if he would give a statement of the character of these increases, and what they mean.


Francis Cochrane: I have given one
explanation, but I am quite willing to give another. These increases are due to the increased cost of coal, rolling stock, maintenance and other things. We do not think that the rates bear with hardship upon any interest, as I said before; but where there is hardship, where there is interference with the carrying on of a business in a legitimate way, we will meet it with a special tariff or otherwise.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The explanation is not very comprehensive. I do not offer criti-

eism for the sake of criticising, but I do believe this .increase of rates is a great disadvantage to the people of eastern Canada. -We have listened recently to discussions with respect to discrimination on the part of railways against western Canada in freight charges, and answers given in this House show that the matter has been under consider tion by the Eailway Commission, in answer to the complaints which have been made to the commission, the railways have said that there has been no discrimination as against the western patrons of railways; that the freight rates in the West were not too high, and that the freight rates over the railways in eastern Canada were too low. That has been the issue between the railways and the patrons of railways in tire West. My hon. friend in tie action he has taken has given a pretext for the answer made by the railways to these complaints. He has said to the people of western Canada: your rates are all right; the rates of the railways in eastern Canada are too low. He has demonstrated that fact by increasing freight rates on the-Government railway in eastern Canada. Private railway corporations will not be slow to take advantage of that provision; they will not be slow in advancing that argument before the Eailway Commission, and it would be a complete and ample justification to the Eailway Commission for any resistance the railways may make to the application which has been made by the western people who have occasion to use the railwsvs in the matter of freight. The people of eastern Canada who have occasion to utilize the Intercolonial have done so under conditions which have prevailed since Confederation. The freight rates which have been charged upon that railway have been reasonable, certainly none too low; and to make the increase that has been made is simply dealing with the people unfairly. We all recognize the fact that the building of the Intercolonial was an offset against the expenditure incurred in the construction of canals. There was expended upon the canals of Canada about $90,000,000, and the Intercolonial railway was constructed in the interests of the maritime provinces and in the interests of Ontario and Quebec. One expenditure offset the other; one was an investment in canals for the benefit of Canada; the other was an investment in the Intercolonial for the benefit of Canada. My hon. friend has made an unprecedented increase in the local freight rates, in many instances an increase of forty per cent. As an illustration of that, take the minimum freight charged, which bears very heavily on the people who live a short distance from the centres. The minimum charge on the Intercolonial for a package of freight
was twenty-five cents, and that, is increased to thirty-five cents, an increase of over forty per cent.


Mr. COCHEANE:: That is only on one
hundred pounds or less.
Mr. EMMEESON; It is the minimum charge and it has been recognized that twenty-five cents is a reasonable minimum charge to make. The increase of this amount to thirty-five cents bears heavily on the people generally. I grant you that it has a tendency to interfere with business in the .centres. If a man lives fifteen miles outside of the city of St. John and goes to that centre to do his shopping, sending out a package weighing less than one hundred pounds, he is obliged to pay thirty-five cents, whereas heretofore he wa3 called upon to pay only twenty-five. In the matter of many other charges an increase has been made in many instances of four cents a hundred pounds, and that interferes with the local traffic over the Intercolonial between St. John and Moncton and intermediate points, St. John and Halifax and intermediate points, and so with reference to the other sections of the road. I think that it is an unjust increase and will not only bear heavily upon the small purchaser and the people generally, but will be a direct interference with the business of the towns and villages along the line of the Intercolonial. What justification is there for it? We have considered estimates to-day with respect to the renewal of the Welland canal, which has been already once rebuilt, and upon which it is now proposed to expend $50,000,000. We have abolished the freight tolls over these canals, in the interests of whom? Certainly not in the interests of the people of the maritime provinces. I make the assertion, knowing that it cannot be successfully contradicted, that the freight that goes over the Welland and St. Lawrence canal systems never touches the maritime provinces.


Kenneth Judson Cochrane: Steel rails are shipped from Sydney to Port Arthur.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is through traffic, and it comprises only a very small portion of the traffic that goes through those canals; the main bulk of it is for export trade. So far as the maritime provinces are concerned, they do not participate in the benefits that accrue to the business interests by reason of the abolition of tolls on the canals. I am not complaining of the abolition of those tolls, but I do protest vehemently against the increase of the burdens of the people of the maritime provinces. We have on many occasi^is had illustrations with respect to the feeling that there is against the Intercolonial. My hon. friends opposite have taken ex-

ception to an amendment made by the Senate to a certain Bill, using it as an excuse or a pretext tor not proceeding with the expansion of the Intercolonial and the absorption of branch lines as feeders of that road. It is true the Senate amended this Bill, and it is equally true that a few years ago when the Senate amended a Bill sent to them by a former Government, the Bill was treated in such a way as to make the exercise of its powers impossible. They made it an impossibility to absorb these lines or make them part of the Intercolonial. By their amendment they provide an excuse to my hon. friend, who is opposed to the policy of the absorption of branch lines, who has stated in this House, practically, that he is opposed to that policy.


Francis Cochrane: I never did.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would not wish to misrepresent my hon. friend but he has spoken very slightingly with respect to the character of the roads which would serve as feeders of the Intercolonial railway. He does not repre-ent them as feeders.


Francis Cochrane: Under the Bill that
you have produced yourself you could not take over a road.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend is not strictly accurate with respect to that statement, I remember that, when I had anything to do with the management of the Intercolonial, on; road, the Canadian Eastern railway, was taken over and I remember how I had' to fight that through this Parliament against the most violent opposition on the part of the railway critics then sitting on this side of the House and every minutiae in connection with the road had to be explained. My hon. friend .says that they could not put into execution legislation which I had brought in. My hon. friend knows that the very legislation to which he refers was brought into this House, it is true, by political friends of mine, but I took exception to the character of the legislation as I have taken exception to the character of the legislation proposed by my hon. friend. It was not a matter of party politics with me, it was a matter of the advantage that would accrue to the Intercolonial and to the people of the maritime provinces and, indeed, to the people of all eastern Canada if that policy had been put into effect. My hon. friend has made changes in the management. I am not criticising him in respect to that, I have told him that I believed it was in the interest of the Intercolonial that there should be one manager instead of a divided i*anagement, that the responsibility should be put Upon one man instead of having a divided responsibility. My criticism was imnersenal. I commend my hon. friend Mr. EMMERSON.
for his action in reversing that policy and adopting the policy of appointing one general manager upon whom is placed the responsibility of operating and managing the railway. I think now, as I thought a few years ago, that it would be very much better for the Government to be responsible for the management of the railways, to select one of the many bright young men *who are to-day in the employ of the railway and give him an opportunity, instead of importing someone from another railway.
I make this statement, that the education and training which a man receives on a private corporation railway does not fit him for the position of manager of a government railway, the conditions are different, the sentiments are different, and he never can adjust himself to those new conditions. My predecessor in office, the late Hon. Mr. Blair, tried it and it failed. He tried it more than once. Others have tried it and every experiment has signally failed. In the management of the Intercolonial under my regime responsibility was placed upon Mr. Pottinger, who was, it is true, a member of the managing board. I have nothing but good words to say of Mr. Pottinger but I felt that if, when Mr. Pottinger's term of office expired, I had had the responsibility, I would have taken one of the young men who had been trained on the Intercolonial and given him a chance and tested him. A few years ago I had an opportunity of travelling over practically all the great railway systems of the United States. I found on different western railways superintendents and managers who had received their training on the Intercolonial and this led me to the conclusion that if the Intercolonial could be the nursery of managers and general managers and superintendents for foreign railways it certainly could be the nursery for the training of young men who could manage our own railways. You bring a man from a foreign country and place him upon the Intercolonial. It is true he goes there with every prejudice against it in the first place; he goes there with the idea, and the press and people of the country outside of the maritime provinces have heralded it abroad, that there is incompetence and lack of ability and every man who is selected from another railway and sent there to manage the Intercolonial goes there under the impression that there is no man connected with the road qualified to fill the position. They make this known to the employees of the Intercolonial and so arouse the resentment and the antagonism of the employees of the railway and practically make certain that they themselves will prove failures. I think my hon. friend would have been better advised if he had given a chance to some of the many young men whom I could personally

name, and give them an opportunity of proving the stuff of which they are made. The Intercolonial last year had a surplus of $1,000,000. It is estimated that this year, *even under the conditions which prevailed last year, the surplus will be much larger. That certainly does not show that there was any emergency with respect to the increased freight rates, and there certainly should be no necessity for placing additional burdens upon the people in the maritime provinces and the Canadian public in order to operate that road free from loss. If with the so-called low freight rates on the Intercolonial the revenue and earning power of that road has grown steadily from year to year, I venture to say that with the natural increase of the traffic on the road, without adding any additional burden, the Intercolonial would lay aside year by year an increasingly large surplus. Therefore from that standpoint alone there is no justification in my hon. friend placing this additional burden upon the patrons of the road in the maritime provinces and in Quebec there is no increase with respect to through traffic. Who gets the advantage of that? The Intercolonial reaps an advantage, but the business interests of Ontario reap the fruits, and yet the business interests of the maritime provinces are to be discriminated against in the matter of their freight rates. During the past year there has been an increasing number of accidents and destruction of rolling stock on the Intercolonial. I do not know from what cause, and yet despite that destruction of property my hon. friend is in a position, by reason of the increased traffic on the road, to add very materially to the motive power of the railway. I think that new management was necessary for the Intercolonial railway. I make the statement that during the past winter, and indeed during the past twelve months, not a train on the Intercolonial reached its destination on time. The railway has become a byword and a reproach in that respect, and the travelling public are reduced in numbers because of the want of regularity in the operation of the trains. I venture to say that the Canadian Pacific railway, the competitor of the Intercolonial, reaped an abundant harvest as the result of the lack of care, to say the least, in seeing that the trains on the Intercolonial were operated on time. Every hon, member of this House who has any knowledge whatever of the management of the Intereol-onial railway will agree with the statement I am making. Perhaps my hon. friend feels called upon to increase the local freight rates in order to pay the comparatively large salary which is being given to the present general manager of the Intercolonial. I am not going to criticise the amount of that salary; I 'believe if Mr. Gutelius is the right man he will earn his 381
salary, I have always felt that we did not pay large enough salaries to the men holding responsible positions on the Intercolonial railway. I know it will be said, it is already being said, that in order to have a man brought from the United States, as Mr. Gutelius was brought, and to pay him a large salary it is necessary to increase the freight charges on the Intercolonial, and yet members of the managing board are retained at a very meagre salary, one entirely inadequate to the services which they perform and to the responsibilities which they are obliged to assume. I think this increase in the freight rates is an outrage, I think it is unfair, I think that it has been done without proper consideration. If I had an opportunity to go over the different schedules and classifications I could demonstrate to this House that the increases that have been made range from twenty-five per cent to fifty per cent. They are unjustifiable under the conditions which prevail today with regard to that railway, and when we contrast the treatment of the Intercolonial with the way in which we are treating the canal system, it seems to me that the increase in the rates merits the severest condemnation on the part of members of this House, as I believe it will receive the most severe condemnation on the part of the people of eastern Canada.


Herménégilde Boulay: Mr. Chairman, I
entirely agree with the views expressed by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) with regard to the importation of foreigners to manage the Intercolonial. But- I must give every one his share of credit. In justice I must say that when our opponents were in power .they inaugurated that system by the importation of Messrs. McGovern, Handheld, ' Joggins, Lozo, Burpee, and finally the notorious Brady.
It was introducing a bad practice, for we certainly 'had, .as the hon. member for Westmorland has just stated, men who were qualified in the eastern provinces, without having to get them from abroad. To-day, the same system is unfortunately continued and all the leading officials of the intercolonial are strangers. Messrs. Gutelius, Brady and Tiffin came ito us from the Canadian Pacific. We ought to have in the province of Quebec and in the maritime provinces men who are capable of holding those positions.
I shall not discuss the merit of Mr. Gutelius. He is said to be a prominent railway man, but time will fell. I must, however, differ with the hon. member for Westmorland on one point. I believe his salary is a little too high. Until now we have managed the Intercolonial with men who were paid from four to six thousand dollars a year, and with one leap wre jump to twenty thousand dollars per annum.
revised Edition

This is rather extraordinary and I think there should have been a halting place between those two amounts.
But there is another thing which exists and which I desire t'he House to take note of, because it is a crying injustice towards the province of Quebec. I think the House will agree with me that for the last forty years the appointment of leading officials has been made with utter disregard of the province of Quebec. It is an injustice that should have been noticed and remedied before this day. This remark holds good not only with regard to leading officials, but also to all the officials holding positions which are fairly lucrative. With the exception of Superintendent Macdonald, we have not one man in the province of Quebec who is drawing a high salary. The chief- inspectors of masonry, the .superintendents of buildings, cars and locomotives are all men from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. So much the better for those men, of course, but I do not recognize that these gentlemen from the maritime provinces are endowed with superior qualifications.
We have in the province of Quebec men who are just as able to earn big salaries and to do honour to their positions. I see no reason why, for the last forty years, the railway management has constantly ignored the province of Quebec. The superintendent of track-menders has always been a man from the province of New Brunswick, and still there are between St. Flavie and Campbellton 105 miles of track in the province of Quebec and only 11 miles in New Brunswick. It has always been so for the last forty years.
Why should we, in the province of Quebec, be treated as inferior men? It is time that we should have justice. I made that remark quite recently to the Minister of Railways. The foreman of the labourers was retiring and he recommended to take his place a Mr. Macdonald, of the county of Bonaven-ture. He was recommending a man who for 25 years had been chief foreman of labourers on the Intercolonial; a man who had managed working trains for 25 years and who therefore knows the whole line between Campbellton and St. Flavie better than any one else. He is known by everybody and speaks the two languages fluently. Therefore, there was no reason why he should not have been appointed. Still,*in spite of the foreman's recommendation, the appointment was given to a young man, aged 30, who also hails from New Brunswick. I object to .such proceeding. I protest against such a state of things. Why not choose people from the province of Quebec?
These leading officials do not even speak French, and yet the least that should be fairly allowed to us would be to require that those men taken from New Brunswick or the other provinces should know the Mr. BOULAY.
French language. These men are every day called upon to settle questions in which the parties concerned are French-speaking people, for we must bear in mind that the Intercolonial runs through 500 miles in the province of Quebec. On that account, this is a great hardship, and it is an inconvenience which is at the same time detrimental to the Intercolonial railway.
Mr. Chairman, I was anxious to make these few remarks, and although I am sure the Minister of Railways did not understand them, I hope he will take time to read them in ' Hansard ' and he will find they are justified. If his intention is to deal fairly with us he will see that appointments are made in accordance with the suggestions I have just made.


Mr. A. LACHANCE (Quebec Centre):: Mr. Chairman, as >a representative of the city of Quebec, I feel it my duty to make a few remarks on the administration of the Railway Department with regard to the terminals of the Transcontinental in Quebec. Those who are familiar with that question know that it is of the utmost importance for the city, district and province of Quebec in general. What the explanations and statements of the hon. Minister of Railways on this point amount to is simply this: that a double track shall be laid from Cap Rouge to the site of the Champlain Market, along the river. That is the only announcement clearly set before us by the Government. But they do not seem yet to know exactly what they will do with the Champlain Market. The minister said they intended to build a small station there, but he cannot tell us what it will cost nor when the work of building shall be commenced. He has no plans prepared as yet, and lie does not seem to know what he ought to do nor what he will do. Nevertheless it seems to me that t'he Liberal Government had cleared the way. That Government, after having conferred with the Transcontinental Board of Construction and after having obtained the opinion of prominent engineers and of all the railways intending to come into Quebec, had decided to use the site of the Champlain Market for t'he building of a station and the establishment of all direct communications between the Transcontinental and ocean shipping generally. In 1906 the citizens of Quebec appointed a committee to deal with these questions. That oom-mitttee appointed three engineers, Messrs. Hoare, Doueet and Boswell, to make the necessary examinations and to submit a plan and a report. The first two named pronounced themselves in favour of a maritime station at the Champlain Market; Mr. Boswell, who was then and is stul engineer of the Quebec Harbour Commission, pronounced himself in favour of a tunnel and a station at the Palais, Mr. Doucet's report was confirmed on all points

by Mr. Hoare's report. That report is dated the 21st of October, 1906, and is addressed to Mr. R. Audette, chairman of that committee. It reads as follows:
Quebec, October 21, 1906.
Mr. R. Audette,
Chairman of the Committee on Terminals, Quebec.
Sir,-In connection with the resolution adopted on October 12, 1906, by the Quebec Terminal Committee instructing Messrs. E. A. Hoare, St. George Boswell and myself ' to prepare a blue print copy of plans with statement of estimate with regard to the Quebec terminal, which plans and estimates are to be addressed to the members of the committee, after which the chairman is to call a meeting of the committee/ I beg to report that the above named engineers and myself have met on the 19th instant to deliberate upon the choice of a proper terminus, from the most advantageous and economical standpoint for the railways and navigation traffic. Our decision was unanimous, with regard to the site of deep water wharfs and of large freight yards between Lampson Cove and Pointe Puiseaux, as indicated on the plans and profiles already submitted to the several members of the committee, but afterwards a great diversity of opinion arose as to the extension of the terminal tracks to the terminal! station, one of the engineers claiming that a union station should be established on St. Roch street, to be accessible from the vicinity of Lampson Cove by means of a double track tunnel about 5,000 feet in length, with a curb of 5 degrees radius in the south end (Lamp-S son Cove) and curb of 10 degrees in the north end (St. Roch street), tfhe two engineers being decidedly of opinion that the terminal tracks should be extended along the river from Lamipson Cove to the point where the Champlain market is .now Stuated, and 'where a terminal station would be erected, it being taken for granted that the city, as it is bound to do so, would widen its street or would provide other avenues to give free access between the Louise basin and the site of the terminal station, and that the railways interested would lay tracks along 'the water front, ru.nl ning parallel to Dalhousie street for . the circulation of their trains between their present terminus and the 'terminal station in question.
Being thus unable to unanimously agree on a decision, it became impossible for the engineers to make a joint report. We have, therefore, agreed between us to submit separate reports to the committee for further examination.
There being a unanimous agreement as to the site of the deep water wharfs and of the large freight yards, as shown in the plan, between Lampson Cove and Pointe a Puiseaux, the only thing left to discuss was the question whether it would be preferable to place the terminal station at the point now occupied by the Champlain market, or whether it would be more to the advantage of all interested parties to build that station on iSt. Roch street to be used as a common station by all the railways coming into Quebec. The quantities on which the calculations were based for the cost of construction were established on the figures furnished by Mr. E. A. Hoare, the
381i	:	1
chief engineer of the Quebec Bridge Company, who had caused soundings 'to be taken in order to ascertain the depth of water along the river shore.
In my opinion, a union station on St. Roch street would be disadvantageous if not inn-} practicable for the following reasons:-
1.	The Canadian Pacific, the Quebec and. Lake St. John and the Quebec Railway, Light and Power Company, already have their own terminate, and although I am unable to speak officially as to the Canadian Pacific railway and the Quebec Railway, Light and Power, I know that the Quebec and Lake St. John is utterly opposed to any change in their present arrangements, and to any active participation to the charges that would be saddled upon them for the use of the union station.
2.	It would be impossible to build the union station in the vicinity of St. Roch street without appropriating a large portion of the Canadian Pacific railway's present terminus, since these grounds would have to be put at the disposal of all the railways having access to the union station on the north shore of river St. Charles.
3.	'So many railways coming into the city through river St. Charles would practically block the access to the Louise docks, thb direction of the lines virtually being at right angles from one another. The Canadian Northern, the Quebec and Lake St. John and tfhe Quebec Railway, Light and Power ail come into the city from Limoilou, so that all the railways from St. Roch street to Louise basin! would necessarily cross the main lines of these railways, which would virtually destroy *the usefulness of their terminal stations.
i.	A tunnel whose length would not be over one mile and Whose curbs would be 6 and 10 degrees is utterly inacceptable, and I am sure it would be unanimouMy condemned by all railway managers. Apart from'the enort mous cost of a tunnel wide enough for tswol tracks, the expense involved would not add a dollar's worth to the value of the water front, between Lampson Cove and the Louise docks. '
5. Nothing justifies the expense of such a large sum, for a tunnel of that kind would only be used almost exclusively for the carrying of passengers; in fact it is well known that the large traffic coming from the north and going to points south of the St. Lawrence has its route already traced to the Quebec bridge by a line going from Limoilou through Cap Rouge, as far as the Canadian Northern railway, the Quebec and Lake .St. John and the Quebec Railway, Light and Power are concerned, while the Canadian Pacific railway would have its own connection with the Quebec bridge at Belair.
The extension of the docks from Lampsoni Cove to the site of the Champlain market is, in my opinion, much preferable to a union station, even if the latter was .practicable, for the following reasons:-
1.	Whatever is paid for the development of the river front will be money well spent, since it will add so much to tlie value of the harbour, by the enlargement of the land reclaimed from the water.
2.	Sufficient space can be found along the river to build a terminal station suitable fox all the new roads which Shall come into Quebec when the bridge is built, from the fact

that tlie large passenger and freight traffic brought into Quebec by the different lines of steamers, having the west for their destination, and also the traffic going from west to east will not have to use that terminal station, inasmuch that their trains will be brought along the wharfs where 'the steamers of the various transatlantic lines will be moored.
3.	Along and running parallel to Dalhousie street, it is easy to lay tracks and 'build roads of communication for the accommodation of the lines having already their terminals in Quebec, so as to give them access to the terminal stations. These additional thorough-1 fares for both railways and teams may be built at a very low price, and the cost should be b<^jne partly by the city and partly by the railways using these roads.
_ 1. Such am enlargement -would in no way interfere with the local ferry and steamboat' service, because the present wharfs are in a very dilapidated condition, and, when renewed, will have to be extended and improved. Moreover, there would not be enough traffic on these shore roads to seriously interfere with the circulation between ibhe city and the steamers or ferry landings.
I hereby annex an approximative estimate of the cost of three deep water docks, and tracks connecting them with the Champlain market where the terminal station would be built, and also of the alternative plan of a union station on St. Koch street. The figures are based on the estimates made by Mr. E. A. Bbare.
For the various reasons above mentioned, I am of opinion that it would be a serious mistake to establish our terminal station at ai greater distance from the shore, and that the most advantageous and economical means, and the only plan really practicable is to establish the terminal and station such as indicated on the plans which have been submitted to you.	[DOT]
I have the honour to he, sir,
Tour obedient servant,
A. E. Doucet.
Here are now the decisions taken by the companies interested, including that otf the Canadian Pacific, after mature deliberation upon the engineers' reports:
The report of Mr. Hoare was absolutely in the same sense as that of (Mr. Doucet. To their report were attached the following comparative estimates:
Estimated cost of three deep water docks! at Lampson Cove with -terminal station at the Champlain market:
1.	Three deep water docks at Lampson Cove	$ 3,489,0002.	Wharfs from the docks to the extreme western point of Allan wharf	
1,485,2403.	Railways and equipment of sidings between the docks and theAllan wharf	
963,1004.	Wharfs from Allan wharf toChamplain market, with passenger and freight stations and railways	
3,676,5005.	Extension of Champlain market
to St. Andrew wharf between Dalhousie street and the river. 611,800
*Estimated cost of three deep water docks at Lampson Cove with terminal station at St. Roch street via tunnel:
1.	Three deep water docks at Lampson Cove	$ 3,489,000
2.	Wharfs to the extreme end of
Allan wharf	 1,499,000
3.	Railways and equipment of sidings from Allan wharf to the Lampson Cove docks		963,100
4.	Double track tunnel, terminal
site, railways, buildings, &c__ 4,67'1,000

On 'November 20, 1906, the companies interested, to which the above reports had been sent, had another meeting in Quebec, and, after due deliberation, the following resolutions were passed in committee:-
Railway Terminal.
Resolved, that the Champlain market be chosen for the present as a freight and passenger station, all the whole providing for the building at a later date of a passenger station in the upper town.
That a company be organized, comprising the different railways using the terminals, fo take charge of the bridge and its approaches and of the terminal facilities.
That part of the cost be assumed by the Government, and another- part by 'the railways at a later convention, and that a law be enacted at the present session of 'Parliament to sanction the present arrangement.
Gaspard Lemoine,
President.
It is proposed by W. Dobell, seconded by Gaspard Lemoine, and resolved:
' That the report of the sub-committee of the treasurer of railways received by the Railway Commissioners, he transmitted to the Commissioners of the Transcontinental.'
Ocean Terminal.
Although a depth of 40 feet is sufficient for. the maritime service, considering the perspective of a considerable increase of traffic, and the works actually under way and in contemplation, the sub-committee is of opinion that a line drawn at 55 feet from Lamp-son Cove to the extreme north end of Champlain market is desirable, and that provisions should be made for the accommodation of the local market and the coasting trade beiwTeen this last point and the wharf of Carey Point.
The committee is of opinion that the widening contemplated by the 55 feet line is necessary to facilitate communications by railways and teamsters between the Champlain market terminal and the Louise docks.	I
Wm. iM. 'Macpherson,	'
President.
It is proposed by W. M. \! aepherson, seconded by Thomas Harldng, and resolved:
' That the report of the sub-committee of the ocean terminal be received and transmitted to the Commissioners of the Transcontinental.'
It is proposed 'by W. M. Dobell, seconded by Thomas Harling, and resolved:
' That due instructions be given to the engineers to prepare plans and estimates as to the question, if the Champlain market should not he exclusively used as a passenger station, the freight stations being built, one
Mr. LACHANCE

at the west of Champlain market, and the other on a convenient site along St. Charles river, proper communications being provided between the breakwater and the Carey Point wharf; also plans and estimates tor the widening o-f Daihousie street, with several tide-flocks between Champlain market and Carey Point wharf for the river navigation, the whole being transmitted to the Commissioners of the Transcontinental.'
Snch is the record which has been submitted and committed to ithe Archives in Ottawa. The collapse of the bridge in 1907 has delayed but has not put an end to that scheme. " The sale of the Champlain market in 1910 is sufficient proof that nothing has been changed.
So, in order to establish direct communication between the Transcontinental terminal and the navigation, the following works were suggested in the report:
1. Three deep water docks at Lampson Cove; 2. wharfs from the docks to the extreme western point of Allan wharf; 3. railways and equipment of sidings between the docks and the Allan wharf; 4. wharfs from Allan wharf to Champlain market, with passenger and freight stations and railways; 5. extension of Champlain market to St. Andrew wharf, between Daihousie street and the river.
The Government has completely abandoned its projects, as it has also practically given up using the general traffic from the Transcontinental line facing the river, from Cap Rouge to Champlain market. In fact, here is what the Postmaster General was saying on this subject on May 29, 1913:
We will have the Transcontinental at Quebec in a most beautiful manner. The Transcontinental will come over the viaduct, as I understand it at Cap Rouge, and then will come into Quebec by tbe valley of the Tiver St. Charles, coming down by the Canadian Northern railway connection. Then we will have the union station at the Palais and at the same time the Transcontinental commission and the Minister of Railways are extending the lines of the river front from Sillery to the Champlain market. From the Charm plain market there is a gap over which a railway is going to be built. So that the Trans-: continental now will go encircling the whole city of Quebec. These are the arrangements and it is no wonder that the people are so well satisfied with them.
However, the vagueness of the declarations of the Government on the use of the Champlain market site confirms that conclusion. Secondly, he is proposing to rent the right of way on the Canadian Northern and on the Canadian Pacific, so as to bring up the traffic of the Transcontinental from Cap Rouge, through the St. Charles valley, to the wharfs where are moored the ocean steamers.
Therefore, the Government is giving up the advantage to have its own track and puts itself at the mercy of the Canadian Northern and the Canadian Pacific. More
than that, the Quebec Harbour Commissioners are even going to build the required line from the Champlain market site to the central station which it is proposed to erect at the Palais, and thence to -the wharfs where the steamers come alongside. I have the greatest confidence in the Quebec Harbour Commission, which is composed undoubtedly of men who have at heart the interest of our city and our harbour; but I cannot see why the Government should not itself build that line, which, after all, is the continuation of the terminal tracks.
According to that policy, the Government will have to make arrangements with that company and that commission, and to pay those rentals for the circulation of the Transcontinental. Would it not have been more advantageous to have used the thousands of dollars which are going to be paid annually to go on with the works at the Champlain market and farther up, which works would have been the property of t'he Government and of which it would have had the absolute control? [DOT] Such is the principle which has been affirmed in the report which I have just read.
Then, what justification has the Government given for having stopped those works since it has assumed power in September, 1911? None whatever. At that date, work had been started on the terminal tracks, and they were just about beginning the foundations of the shops and of the station. I am not naturally, at this moment, criticising the decisions which had been arrived at, as to the site where'those shops and that station were -to be erected. That is a settled question, and I accept that decision. And the result of all those delays, of all those interviews, of all those delegations, has been the policy which I have just exposed, that is to say the negligence of the Government to use its own terminal tracks and so putting itself at the mercy of the companies, which I have just mentioned.
I will frankly tell the Government what a great many people are thinking of all those changes which do not seem to be justified. It is that what the Government and the parties interested have in mind is to prevent practically the city of Quebec from becoming the terminus of the Transcontinental during the season of navigation. It must be admitted that those who have all that in mind are to a certain extent justified to think so by the alterations which have been authorized by the Government on the grades of the Transcontinental, from Cochrane to Quebec.
From the discussion which has taken place in this House, and also from the correspondence exchanged between Mr. Leonard, president of the Transcontinental Commission, and Mr. Chamberlain, president of the Grand Trunk, there comes out the implicit admittance that such altera-

tions of those grades will result in affecting considerably the hauling capacity of the trains. And the fact is so evident that Mr. Leonard declares that it would be then an easy thing to come back to the maximums and minimums of grades as established at first. Then, if there is an uncertainty as to the result of those changes, why has not the Government stood by the first decisions of the engineers on that question, and which were that the Transcontinental has been built from Cochrane to the Pacific ocean, and from Quebec to Moncton? Why have those alterations been authorized only from the section between Cochrane and Quebec?
The only justification given by the Government is that there will be a saving of money on the construction. But, surely, it cannot hope that serious people will believe that, under pretext of saving a few thousand dollars on an enterprise of 160 millions, it could be justifiable to compromise on that section the efficacity of the railway.
The Government has put $3,500,000 at the disposition of the Quebec Harbour Commissioners. That sum of money is destined to the works required, so that the city and the harbour of Quebec may be put in a position to handle t'he considerable traffic which will come by way of the Transcontinental.
But of what use can be those works if, through the alterations of the grades, that traffic in which Quebec is interested is now reduced tq a minimum?
We have there the actual situation. In short, nothing is determined and nothing is decided. The Government says they want to erect a small station at Champlain! market, and a central station at the Palais, but nobody knows when those works will be started, what will be those stations and what they will cost. They do not even know if the seven or eight railway companies, which would have interest in using the central station, are concurring in those views. The Government wants to use the line which will be built by the Harbour Commission, as I have already said, and also the line of the Canadian Northern and that of the Canadian Pacific, but there has been no arrangement made to that end with those companies; and if the Government cannot come to any arrangement with those companies, in what position will it be, and consequently in what situation will then be the city of Quebec, -as terminus of the Transcontinental?
The hon. Postmaster General has stated, the other day, that the citizens of Quebec were delighted with those arrangements. It may be that some people who are interested in the scheme have so declared their satisfaction. But I have reason to believe that the majority of the citizens are not so well satisfied, and that what they Mr. LACHANCE
desire is to see the Transcontinental entering Quebec on its own line, and to have communication established with the ocean navigation and the maritime trade by means of works which would be its own property, and of which it would have the absolute -control, independently of all other companies.
Railways and Canals, chargeable to capital-intercolonial railway, Bathurst-new station, $8,000.


Onésiphore Turgeon: Is the contract let for the construction of that new station?


Francis Cochrane: Not yet.
Diversion of line between North Sydney and Leibche's Creek, $100,000.


George Perry Graham: Which line is that?


Francis Cochrane: I do not think there has been any decision made as to which one it will be. The front line will cost $750,000, and the back one about half that. This will not complete it, but it will make a start.


George Perry Graham: As I understand, there
are two lines, one going along the water front and the other farther back. The question as -between these two lines is one that I suppose my hon. friend will decide?


Francis Cochrane: Yes, I will go down there and look over the ground.
Halifax-electrical equipment for charging electric lighted cars, $3,500.


Mr. BOIVIN:: Is it the intention of the minister to put electric light in all the cars?


Francis Cochrane: No, we will start with a few of the sleeping and dining cars.
Installation of block system in connection with operation, $140,000.


George Perry Graham: Will that install the
whole system?


Francis Cochrane: No, that will only
cover forty-one miles, between Moncton and St. John.


George Perry Graham: You are going to install it first on the line, used by the Canadian Pacific railway as well as the Intercolonial railway?


Francis Cochrane: Yes, where there are the most trains.


George Perry Graham: You are going to establish it first where extra traffic is?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Canadian Pacific
railway are extending the block system from McAdam Junction to St. John, and this will simply be a continuation of it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How is the minister getting along with giving the Canadian Pacific railway running rights to Halifax?


Francis Cochrane: I hope that we will
get down to an agreement before navigation closes.


Herménégilde Boulay: Will the minister explain what the block system is?


Francis Cochrane: My hon. friend is a
railway man and he will probably understand it. No two trains will be allowed on the same block at the same time.
Moncton-elimination of level crossings and grades, $100,000.


George Perry Graham: How many are there?


Francis Cochrane: This is to do away
with that grade at Moncton.
Moncton-installation of cork roofing, $26,-
000.


Francis Cochrane: I have not heard of anything.
Prince Edward Island railway-branch line -Harmony to Elmira-revote, $1,500.


James Joseph Hughes: Can the minister tell me how much _ it cost the Government to complete this road after taking it off the contractor's hands?


Francis Cochrane: The statement is
being prepared and I can send a copy to my hon. friend.


Samuel Hughes: The Government did a
good deal of work that the contractors were obliged to do, I understand. The contractors had not finished their contract when the Government took it off their hands.


Francis Cochrane: We found that the
cement packed roof with the heat and consequent condensation in the wintertime got very bad, and this is to provide a cork lining.
Pug wash-spur line-Pug wash, $58,060.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Will that be put
under contract this summer?


Francis Cochrane: Yes, the grading and all that is to be done by contract.
St. John-spur line to Courtenay Bay, $135.060.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will that be contract
work?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.
To increase accommodation and facilities along the line-further amount required, $83,500.


Francis Cochrane: The details of this
item are as follows:
Station at Graham	
Loading platform at Bic	 [DOT][DOT] [DOT][DOT] Turntable and covering at Sayabec.. ..
Sidings at St. Jean Chrysostome	
Water supply at Dorchester	
Motive power for Fredericton and
Grand Narrows bridges	
Road at St. Charles de Bellechasse . [DOT] Additional telegraph wire, Ste. Rosalie
Junction to Moncton	 :. [DOT][DOT] [DOT][DOT] Settlement of McConnell claim tor damage to land at Boiestown [DOT] [DOT] .. Settlement of Ross claim for damage to pronerty by construction of the
Y at Stellarton	
Unforeseen


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Has the minister
any information as to any system of running trains between Truro and Port Mul-grave which would interfere with the present location of the men at Stellarton?


Francis Cochrane: There has been
nothing done.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is anything contemplated?


Francis Cochrane: They gave up the contract, and it was finished by day labour anl charged to them.


Samuel Hughes: That work cost two or
three times more than it should have cost; it was scandalously managed.


Francis Cochrane: I will send you a statement.


Samuel Hughes: I asked the minister to do^more; I asked him to make an inquiry.


Francis Cochrane: If I give you a statement it will be an inquiry, I tell you.


Samuel Hughes: Then I think the minister will be surprised.


Francis Cochrane: Perhaps I will.


Samuel Hughes: The minister told me the other day he would pay a visit to Prince Edward Island this summer, and look over that part of the road. I would be pleased if he would give me an opportunity of meeting him, and I might point out some things to him. I believe the minister to be an honest man; I have faith in him that he does not want the department to be robbed.


George Perry Graham: I think my hon. friend
(Mr. Hughes) will want something when he gets you down on the Island.


Francis Cochrane: All right.


Samuel Hughes: I asked the minister the other day why did not the steamer that called at Charlottetown call at the railway wharf?


Francis Cochrane: I will look into that
when I go down there.


Samuel Hughes: Why, it is a small
matter. The department could get that information by telegram. I am afraid I will have to take back my commendation of the minister. It is a matter of considerable importance to the people of the Magdalen

Islands to get their freight at the railway wharf, because the freight now has to be carted from a private wharf, and the people have to bear the expense.


Francis Cochrane: How long have they been doing that ?


Samuel Hughes: This season.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want to assure my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Hughes) that the department charged up every dollar to the contractors they possibly could charge up. It is not the minister's fault. There may have been stealing, and I do not know anything about that, but things were charged up to these contractors that the department had no right to charge against them. If ever contractors were driven to the wall and made come up to the scratch, it was the contractors on the Elmire branch. They charged to these contractors goods which were sold by a merchant to a sub-contractor, and which goods never went on the work at all; items such as clothing and underclothing, and ladies' dresses and hats, and things of that kind; which were sold by a merchant to a man who happened to be a sub-contractor, and the department made the contractors pay these bills. If ever men were used harshly by a department, it was the contractors of the Elmire branch, and my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Hughes) need not think the contractors got anything out of that. If there was crooked work done it was done by the people of Prince Edward Island themselves.


Hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Samuel Hughes: No, I will not allow that statement to go. I know there was crooked work done, but I have pretty fair proof that the departmental officers were cognizant of it.


Francis Cochrane: I will be glad to get that information from you.


Samuel Hughes: I know that two men supplied the same material and it was knocking about the work. Paint was supplied by Matthews and McLean, of Souris, and Simon Crabb, of Charlottetown. I do not blame these gentlemen, because it was ordered from them, but whoever was responsible for it should be called to account. That paint was knocking around and finally disappeared. The management was absolutely incapable.
Private car, $18,000.


George Perry Graham: Who is this private car for ?


Francis Cochrane: For all.


George Perry Graham: This is called a ' private ' car; they used to be called ' official ' cars.
Mr. HUGHES (Kings. P.E.I.).


Francis Cochrane: Official car is the proper name for it.


George Perry Graham: The Minister of Militia has a private car of his own, and I presume this is for some other minister. I have known a government to be criticised for having private cars when they had less than the present Government are able to own. Is this car for any particular person?


Francis Cochrane: It is not.


George Perry Graham: Does anybody use the
private car of the Minister of Militia outside of himself-and his friends of course?


Mr. REID (Minister of Customs):: Yes.


George Perry Graham: Is the car of the Minister of Militia under the control of the Railway Department?


Francis Cochrane: I do not think it is.


George Perry Graham: Well, I think it ought to be. It is a very bad principle to establish. Every minister now will want a private car and I can see difficulties ahead.


Francis Cochrane: We will call this an 'official' car instead of a 'private' car."


George Perry Graham: It would be better because the Minister of Militia may want a private car to go down to the St. Jerome Club and to carry on it that special brand of cigars which he is said to take down there. I am not objecting to ministers using cars in reason, because it facilitates their transaction of business, but I warn the minister to be careful about private cars, because the Minister of Militia having got one, the ATinister of Railways may be ordered to buy one for each member of the Government. Will this car be bought in Canada?


Francis Cochrane: No, it has not.


Air GRAHAM:: It has been already purchased?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


George Perry Graham: Seeing there are so many manufacturers of high class cars in Canada; cars that are fit for any minister of the present Government to travel in, some of the manufacturers think the Government should buy these cars in Canada.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Now that the managing board of the Intercolonial railway has been abolished, could you not distribute their private cars amongst the members of the Government and thus save expense?


Francis Cochrane: I move that the word 'private' in this item be changed to official.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: When was this car purchased?


Francis Cochrane: A month ago.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Where?


Francis Cochrane: At Bangor, Maine.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Was it purchased for the particular use of any official of the Intercolonial?


Francis Cochrane: No, it is one of the
official cars.


George Perry Graham: Is it a new car?


Francis Cochrane: It was built a little
over a year ago.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is this the purchase price?	*


Francis Cochrane: Yes-$18,000.


George Perry Graham: Does not my hon. friend think it is a wrong principle to make a purchase before the money has been voted by Parliament?


Francis Cochrane: It was a good opportunity.


George Perry Graham: Purchases are not supposed to be made by the Government until there is a vote. Otherwise, the Government could buy anything they liked and come to Parliament afterwards for the money. The true parliamentary principle is to get the vote first and make the purchase afterwards." Suppose this House should refuse to vote the money for this car-I do not suppose it will be so cruel, seeing the need for the car was so great-see what a predicament the Government would be in.


Henry Robert Emmerson: And what about the law with respect to tender and contract except in cases of great urgency? That does not seem to have been observed. I assume that the urgency of the case was not such-


Francis Cochrane: It was the opportunity.


George Perry Graham: No, it was a great need- an emergency.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: From whom was the car bought?


Francis Cochrane: From the Bangor and Aroostook line.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What would be the cost of a new car such as this?


Francis Cochrane: I think they stated
that it cost over $27,000. It had been used only a little over a year.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The abolition of the board has thrown two or three other cars-


Francis Cochrane: Only two.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The Minister of Militia has a car. So, though we have no more ministers, we have four more official cars than we had eighteen months ago.


Francis Cochrane: Not four.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You have two that are taken from the officials of the Intercolonial, members of the board?


Francis Cochrane: No, Mr. Burpee still has his car.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Pottinger's car i^ taken and Mr. Tiffin's.


Francis Cochrane: Mr. Gutelius takes one.


John Stanfield: Mr. Pottinger's. car is hardly safe to ride in. I was in it for an hour and was glad to get out.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Surely the chief
whip is entitled to a special car, too. All this means that we have three more ears for the use of the minister than we had eighteen months ago. I would point out to the minister that he really has no right to have this vote passed at all. He had no business to buy the car without a vote of Parliament; and it is only by grace of the Opposition at this stage of the session that this vote is allowed. Why should the minister purchase cars in the United States? The hon. member for Queens and Shelburne (Mr. McCurdy) is interested in a car company, and they are in a position to manufacture private cars quite as good as those manufactured for the Bangor & Aroostook road. If private cars are to be obtained, I would prefer for one, to vote the money to the minister to pay for a new car purchased in Canada than to go to a Yankee road for a second-hand car. When we come into power, we do not want second-hand cars. The minister should understand that he cannot depend on another occasion, to put over on the House the buying of second-hand cars in the United States.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was necessary, not very long ago, to furnish a new car for the Governor General, Earl Grey. That ear was built at Amherst by Rhodes Curry & Company. Certainly, it did not cost $27,000. It, was built, I think at an expense of $20,000.


Francis Cochrane: Furnished?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Ready for use, if I remember well. It may not have had the beds and that sort of thing, but these certainly would not cost $7,000. And that car was purchased' by tender and contract. Was this car bought from the Bangor & Aroostook road directly, or was there some individual intermediary?


Francis Cochrane: Direct from the railway company-there was a change of president.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Before we leave these items; I would like to call trie minister's attention to the petition I sent in some time ago for the more frequent running of the train between Trenton and Pictou Landing. There has been a great increase in population along that line of railway.

The train is run as a local. The workmen in the various industries use it, but it is not run early enough in the morning to carry them to their work. If the minister will look into this matter, I shall be obliged.


Francis Cochrane: I think I already have a note of that.
Canada Highways Act.
To provide for the payment, under the Canada Highways Act, of the following subsidies to the several provinces of Canada for the construction or improvement of highways, or for both such purposes as in the said Act mentioned, that is to say, on $1,500,-
000 basis:
Alberta	$ 78,282 00
British Columbia	
82,005	00Manitoba	
95,196	00New Brunswick	
73,521	00Nova Scotia	
102,870	00Ontario	
527,201	00Prince Edward Island.. ..	19,581	00Quebec	
418,419	00Saskatchewan	
102,889	00
1,500,000 00


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not wish to take up much time, but I want to make a proposition to the Minister of Railways with regard to this item. We know from discussion in this House earlier in the present sitting that the Canada Highways Act will not become law this year. So, it looks as if the provinces would be deprived of this $1,500,000. I assure the minister that it will be a great harship to practically all the provinces. I am not going into a discussion of who is right and who is wrong in the matter-we have threshed that out already. But as I view it, the provinces want to get this money. Speaking for my own province we need it, the worst way. If the minister can find worse roads in Canada, those roads will be found to be pretty bad. This $73,000 for New Brunswick would not be very much, but it would be something. It would be a great benefit to the people if we could use it for ordinary temporary work, not even for permanent work. Would not the minister be willing to change this vote to such an extent, that for this year at least this amount of money would go to the provinces just in the form of a subsidy? Such a course would not bind the minister to anything in the future, nor would it. create any dangerous precedent. The hon. minister may have time next year to repent of his rash act in refusing to bring down and put through proper legislation, and the people would have the benefit of this amount of money. This could easily be effected by striking out a few words which would make this appropriation a subsidy to the provinces.


Francis Cochrane: I am afraid I cannot comply with the suggestion of the hon.
Mr. MACDONALD.
member for Carle ton. I am sorry that there is a disagreement with regard to this matter, but I have seen a good deal of road money expended and in many cases I do not think it was spent in the interest of the provinces or the country it was supposed to serve. I think the Dominion can take a stronger stand on this than the different provinces can. We have officials who are capable of laying down the specifications for permanent roads equal to anything in this country, and I think if we did nothing more than lay down a specification of that kind and carry it out we would do a great deal and show the people the benefit of making permanent roads. The first essential of good road building is drainage, and the people do not seem to realize that; they turn up the sod and let the water soak through it during the wet season. I hope that before the House prorogues the Senate will see the error of their ways.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am sorry indeed that the minister takes such a pessimistic view of the matter. There will be greater disappointment all over Canada, especially in my province The Premier of Nova Scotia will be disappointed, because, when be has not been attending the Presbyterian congress at Toronto, he has been travelling through the country interviewing newspapers and saying what he will do with the $73,000 if the wicked Senate does not defeat the Bill. He wants that $73,000; he has ample opportunity for spending it, and if it were $730,000 he could squander it all in a few months. Possibly some little benefit might come from it as well. He is providing far provincial engineers and county engineers who will, perhaps, be able to carry on the work as efficiently as the minister could. I hope the minister will consider hi3 rather hastily formed decision, and decide to amend this resolution as I have suggested. He would not change the vote or its destination; he would simply change the condition under which it i* granted.


Francis Cochrane: I intended to make a definite arrangement with the provinces as to the roads upon which this money should be expended.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That can he done under the arrangement I suggest. I was somewhat surprised upon looking at the public accounts this afternoon to find that in 1867 the total taxes collected from the people of Canada were $11,700,000, and that subsidies were paid to the provinces to the amount of $2,753,000, or 24 per cent. In 1911 and 1912 we collected $105,847,000, and only paid $10,281,000 in subsidies, or only 10 per cent. Having regard to the. increased levenue of last year, this percentage would probably be decreased by 2 per cent. This

is a wonderful shrinkage, yet, in proportion to the revenue of Canada, the provinces have not the money to-day that they had forty years ago. My hon. friend could very weli afford to increase the subsidy,_ and make this a grant to the provinces. He will at least have washed his hands of the matter and any blame will have to fall upon the wicked Senate. I move that this resolution be amended by striking out of line3 1 and 2 thereof the words ' under the Canada Highways Act,' and by striking out of lines 4 and 5 thereof the words ' as in the said. Act mentioned.' The amended resolution will be as follows:.
To provide for the payment of the following subsidies to the several provinces of Canada for the construction or improvement of highways or for both such purposes, that is to say on $1,500,000 basis.
Including the amounts as apportioned to the different provinces in the resolution.


William Folger Nickle: I think I shall have to rule this out of order. The Governor General sent this resolution down with his message, stating a definite method of expenditure, and any resolution altering that method of expenditure is, in my judgment, out of order.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
George Perry Graham: Is this for the Severn
river end?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.
Canadian Highways Improvement Act-amount required for operation of Act, including organization and payment of staff to carry out provisions thereof, $25,000.


George Perry Graham: Would the minister tell us in a word or two what his organization will be for the operation of the Highways Act?


Francis Cochrane: I have not given it
any consideration. I suppose we would require to have somebody to act in the capacity of deputy minister to take charge, and there would have to be some office staff and some inspectors, but there has been no organization as yet.
Branch lines-working expenses, $500,000.


George Perry Graham: Has anything evolved
from the suggestions made earlier in the night with regard to a conference with the Senate?


Francis Cochrane: A member of the
House asked me if I would meet a senator, and I said I would, but I have had no word since.


George Perry Graham: I would again urge the
advisability of an informal conference, so that we might arrive at some basis of agreement by which this Bill could go through.
Transcontinental railway-operation of the line from Moncton to Edmundston, $100,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What is the intention
as to the operation of the Transcontinental during the present year?


Francis Cochrane: The intention is to
operate that line in New Brunswick. Mr. Gutelius told me the other day that he was going to operate it from the boundary of Quebec.

Mr. CARAEuL: Will it be operated as a separate system, or as part of the Intercolonial?


Francis Cochrane: As a part of the Intercolonial, but on a separate account.


George Perry Graham: Before we pass from the Railways and Canals estimates, I desire to call attention of the Minister of Railways to the fact that I received correspondence lately about what will be known as the Morton locks if constructed. The people in that vicinity say that the Finance Minister promised them that this work would be done.


Francis Cochrane: vVe have surveyors
and inspectors investigating the matter, and we will give a decision later.


George Perry Graham: The lock will not be
built this year.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I have the Fraser
papers here.


William Chisholm: What was the charge?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The charge was political partisanship and he refused to sign the declaration which was sent to him. My hon. friend wrote me a letter telling me he was doing so on his advice.


William Chisholm: Perhaps you had better read the letter. Who laid the charge?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Senator Girroir.


William Chisholm: Will you read the charge?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It was transmitted by Senator Girroir and laid by the president and secretary of the Liberal-Conservative Club.


Francis Cochrane: No, but we can investigate.


Mr. WHITE:: They told me that you had promised it for years.


George Perry Graham: -I hope the promise will be kept.
Post Office-outside service-further amount required for provisional allowance, $11,ICO.


Georges Henri Boivin: The other night I asked
the Postmaster General if he would give me some information concerning the dismissal of Mr. Masse, postmaster of Roxton Falls, and if he would give me specific instances of political partisanship of which Mr. Masse was accused. He said he would have the information when the supplementary estimates were reached.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Note was taken by
the officers of the department of all the requests made, but they tell me that no note was taken of my hon. friend's request. I will undertake ' to write to him, however, and give him the information.


William Chisholm: Will the minister tell me who has succeeded F. R. Irish as postmaster at Afton, and who has succeeded Alexander Fraser, postmaster at Fraser's Grant.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Were the papers in
these cases not laid before the House today?


William Chisholm: Not that I am aware of. There have been so many dismissals that perhaps the minister has become confused.	.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If my hon. friend
will write to me, I will try and give him the information.


William Chisholm: I think I am justified in making a protest in the way I have received information from the Post Office Department.
Mr. COCHRANE


William Chisholm: 


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: ident; and William


William Chisholm: ter appointed?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 


William Chisholm: association?
Who are they?
W. R. Sterns, pres-J. Rogers, secretary.
Who is the postmas-
W. J. Rogers.
The secretary of the


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: A pretty good man. You must take cog-


William Chisholm: _______________&
nizance of the fact that he is a partisan What about F. R. Irish?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is a clear case, he resigned.


William Chisholm: Who preferred the
charge against him??


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It is a case of resignation.


William Chisholm: The minister cannot
get away from it in that way. There was a charge of partisanship made against him and he resigned.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I have no charge,
simply a resignation.


William Chisholm: Why? It was compulsory.


William Chisholm: Who were the parties who laid the charge?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Sterns and Rogers.


William Chisholm: Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to read what the charge is?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: To the Hon. Postmaster General,
Ottawa,
We the undersigned, president and secretary of the Liberal-Conservative Club, for polling district No. 10 in the county of Antigonish and the province of Nova Scotia,

hereby recommend the dismissal of Frederick R. Irish, postmaster of Afton in the county of Antigonish as postmaster because the said Frederick R. Irish has been an active partisan. The following are the specific charges against the sa'id Frederick R. Irish:
Charges-attended Liberal caucuses, chairman at Liberal meetings and spoke in favour of Liberal party at meetings; acted as agent of Liberal candidates in polling booth and canvassed for the Liberal party generally.
We sent him the papers, and as a result
he resigned;


William Chisholm: Will you read his letter of resignation?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Afton, April 19, 1913.
Post Office Inspector,
Halifax.
Dear Sir,-On the 4th instant I mailed my resignation as postmaster to the department at Ottawa to take effect on the 18th instant. Have not heard from them about it. I want to be relieved as soon as possible as my assistant is away at present and my business compels me to be absent a good part of the time. Please let me know when the transfer will be made as I do not wish to have an assistant appointed for such a short time.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) Fred. R. Irish,
Postmaster.


William Chisholm: Who was appointed
as his successor?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: William R. Sterns.


William Chisholm: At this late hour I do not propose to take up the time of the House, but I wished to get this information. I found there was no other way in which I could get it except by bringing it to in the House this evening. It is true that Mr, Irish did resign. He resigned because there was a charge of partisanship preferred against him by W. C. Chisholm, the secretary of the club. W. C. Chisholm is now the Indian agent and I observe that he has ceased to sign his name to these charges. He was an active partisan all his life, and when these charges were -made he signed the documents. It is rather refreshing to find W. J. Rogers making charges of this kind while at the same time seeking office. As far as Mr. Irish is concerned he has been a Liberal all his life. The office has been in that family for upwards of fifty years. His is the most centrally located place there, and the people of the district protested emphatically against the removal of the office. But the office was removed a month ago from a location that suited the convenience of the people. When Mr. Irish found that Partisanship had run mad down there and that charges had been made against him he res'gned. As far as Fraser is concerned, I am not going into his case but I will say to the minister that he has in his department information that is absolutely at variance with the facts, but information that he seizes upon in order to find an excuse for the dismissals that he makes. Mr. Fraser is not and never has been a partisan. I wrote a letter to the Department of Marine and Fisheries in compliance with his request stating that Fraser had received notice that he would be dismissed unless he made this declaration, a declaration that no conscientious man would make, a declaration that must have been drafted either by a knave or an ignorant person. If the intention was to draw up the declaration so that a man to whom it was submitted could not make it then the author of it was a knave. If, on the other hand, we are to look at the affidavit in the form in which it is drafted we must come to the conclusion that the author of it did not know very much about drawing up affidavits because the declaration covers all times. It states: I never paid any money, I have not given any liquor, I have not carried any voters to the polls at any time whatever. He is asked to declare that he has never done so. If a man is a tax-paver and he pays his taxes to the tax-collector and the tax-collector happens to be a voter he cannot make that declaration because he has paid money to a voter. If he had treated his neighbour at Christmas time he could not make that declaration because he would be swearing to what was untrue. The declaration was drawn in a form so that no conscientious man could make it.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: A good many Grits signed it.


William Chisholm: Perhaps so, because it was represented to them it only referred to elections. Grits signed that declaration. and the moment it was received in the department the Postmaster General wrote them expressing surprise that they should . sign such a declaration and virtually charged them with perjury. I refer to the case of McDonald, postmaster at McArras Brook, who signed one of those declarations and the department wrote: We are surprised you would make a declaration of that kind; do you understand it amounts to an oath; we must ask for an investigation. The investigation was held, and Duchemin was there, and there was no evidence against the man, and he still holds his job. When Mr. Fraser received that declaration from the Postmaster General he at once said: What is the use of signing it, because if I sign it 1 wiii be dismissed as my neighbours were, and probably charged with perjury. A more shameful, dastardly method of dealing with respectable men than that in which the Postmaster General has been dealing with

honest citizens, was never known before. Such treatment as that deserves the condemnation of everybody. Senator Girroir asked that James Stewart, of Middleton, be dismissed because the office was taken away from John McDonald and given to James Stewart, some time after 1896. The facts are that James Stewart refused again and again to take the office until he was pressed by the people of the district to do so because his place was centrally located and better adapted for the purpose than John McDonald's, which was at the extreme end of the section. If the minister looked at his records in the department, he would have found that to be the case. In the case of Lachlin McNeil, postmaster, Senator Girroir asked that he be removed and the office given to Peter Perrault, because the office was taken away from Perrault and given to McNeil some years ago on account of partisanship. The minister looked at the files in his department and he found that Girriornis stated the facts that' Peter Perrault had resigned and removed from the section some time before McNeil had got the office, and Perrault's son got tired of keeping the office and asked that the office be taken away. The next thing was a charge of partisanship against Lachlin McNeil, and he was asked to make a declaration, but he declined to make it in that form, but he was ready to swear that he never was guilty of any kind of active partisanship in municipal, local or Dominion elections. And what do you think, but the minister dismissed McNeil for not signing the declaration? The minister drew up a declaration that no conscientious man could make, and when he found a man would not sign it he dismissed him.


John Howard Sinclair: I wish to get an explanation from the Postmaster General in connection with the following returns which have been ordered by the House. I do not expect the returns to be brought down before the close of the session, but I wish to state to the minister what they are, on the understanding that he will have his officers forward these letters as ordered by the House, to my address. I refer to the dismissal of J. J. McNeil, postmaster at Giant's Lake; the papers relating to mail contract between Sherbrooke and Sheet Harbour; dismissal of George Taylor, postmaster at Beckerton; dismissal of Captain F. Myres, postmaster at Coal Harbour; dismissal of J. F. Reeves, postmaster at Mul-grave; dismissal of Rufus Carrigan, postmaster at Sand Point; dismissal of William McKinnon, postmaster at Erinville; dismissal of Parker S. Hart, postmaster at South Manchester, all in Nova Scotia.
Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish).


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will have copies made of these returns, and one copy will be sent to my hon. friend, and the other placed in the House.


Edmond Proulx: How many postmasters have been dismissed since the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pelletier) became Postmaster General?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I cannot say offhand.


Edmond Proulx: Approximately?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I do not know.


Mr. TOBIN:: I want to know for what
reason the contract of Mr. E. Bougie, for carrying the mail between the post office and the railway station at Brompton Mills was cancelled? I have made enquiry as to this some time ago, and have received a copy of the records in the case; but it does not say for what reason the contract was cancelled.


Edmund William Tobin: On March 10 last, I put
certain questions on the paper with regard to this matter, and received an answer from the Postmaster General. They are as follows:
1.	Has notice been given to Mr. E. Bougie that his contract to carry the mails between the post office and the railway station at Bromptonville will be cancelled on March 31, 1913?
2.	If so, what are reasons for cancelling the contract, and upon whose recommendation or at whose suggestion did the department take this action?
3.	Has any application been made by anyone to have this contract? If so, what are the names of the applicants and by whom are they recommended?
4.	Has any petition been received asking that this contract be not cancelled?
Mr. Pelletier:	Three months' notice was
given, according to a clause in the contract. No arrangement has yet been made.
Now, this is a case which the Postmaster General cannot justify, nor can any officer in his department. Mr. Bougie is a man 84 years old, a cripple, with no other means of support.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What is the amount?


Edmund William Tobin: Ten dollars a month-$120 a year. I talked this matter over with the Postmaster General personally and asked him to investigate the case, which he promised to do. Among the letters on the file brought down to the House is the following:
Ottawa, February 20, 1913.
Dear Sir,-I am directed by the Postmaster General to enclose herewith a copy of a letter received at the department from Mr. Louis Lavoie, of Bromptonville, together with a copy of the petition from the residents of Bromptonville, asking for the retention of Mr. Evariste Bougie as contractor for the mail

service between Bromptonville and railway station.
Will you kindly favour the department with an expression of your views on this matter.
Yours truly.
(Sgd.) if. B. Verret, Assistant Deputy Postmaster General. John Hayes, Esq., M.D.,
Richmond, P.Q.
And there is a petition to the Postmaster General signed by over a hundred of the residents of Bromptonville in favour o-f Mr. Bougie being kept in his position. But I do not see any letter in answer to this petition, even acknowledging its receipt. There was no complaint by anybody against Mr. Bougie. There were parties who wanted to have him dismissed, not for political reasons, but because they said: We have got to keep our friends together, and to do that we must cut the head off this old man. The contract was given to a retired gentleman who has a revenue of $30 or $40 a month and who is alone. I think the Postmaster General should tell me and tell this House, that when he investigates this matter, if he finds an injustice has been done, he will see that it is rectified. If he will make me that promise-iwhich he ought to make, because no justification can be shown for this dismissal, and there is no partisanship in the case-I shall be satisfied. Mr. Bougie is too old a man to take part in politics. He certainly has not taken part in politics for a number of years, if he ever did.


William Chisholm: Perhaps he has a
brother-in-law who is a Grit.


Edmund William Tobin: I think he is a Grit, but
no charge of offensive partisanship is made against him. I hope the Postmaster General will see that justice is done.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I have told the hon. gentleman I will look into the matter. I have told him that personally, and I repeat it.


Edmund William Tobin: But if the hon. gentleman
finds no case of partisanship against Mr. Bougie will he see that he is reinstated?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: When I say I will investigate the matter, it seems to me that I go as far as I can go.


Edmund William Tobin: But if there is no reason for his dismissal-


Georges Henri Boivin: If there are no reasons, the Postmaster General will try to find some.


Edmund William Tobin: I would call the attention of the Postmaster General also to the fact that some time ago I asked with regard to the carriage of the mails between Frangois Xavier de Brompton and Windsor Mills. Tenders were called for, and two tenders were put in for the same amount. Both tenderers happened to be Grits. Neither
of them was given the contract. The matter was delayed so that a Tory could get in a tender for a few dollars less, and the contract was awarded to him. I do not know whether that is the new policy in the department since the present Postmaster General took office, but I know that under the late regime, when I came here to discuss tenders for my friends and went to the Deputy Postmaster General of that time or to Mr. Anderson, I was told:	This is a
business department; if your friend is the lowest tenderer he will get the contract, otherwise he will not. That is the way we were treated for fifteen years or more in the Post Office Department. But with the advent to power of the present Government we have the introduction of the spoils system. I hope the Postmaster General will take note of this matter, and if in future he wants to run his department on business, principles that when tenders are called the lowest tenderer will be given the contract. Now, I desire to ask, is it the intention of the Postmaster General to increase the salaries of postmasters in the rural districts?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am sure my hon.
friend wishes to be fair. This question has been put to me at least twenty times during this session. I have answered it, and am prepared to do so again; but why always the same question?


Edmund William Tobin: This is the first time I have put it. I would urge upon the minister that $35 a year for keeping a post office open from six in morning until nine at night is too little pay for so much work. The salary does not even pay to keep the room clean. And for a number of years past there has been a great deal more for these postmasters to do. Post offices are apt to be located where there is a cheese or butter factory, and people come in for their mail at all hours.
I believe that these postmasters deserve an increase of salary. I hope the Postmaster General will look into the matter and pay his officers a sufficient salary for the work they are doing, and for which they are now so poorly paid. Some time ago I moved for two or three returns, one of which was for a copy of all correspondence regarding the tenders for the carrying of mails between St. Francis Xavier de Brompton and Windsor'Mills. I would like to know if the Postmaster General would be good enough to get that information for me and mail it to my address.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will.


Edmund William Tobin: If the Postmaster General will investigate Mr. Bougie's case and send me this return, besides increasing the salaries of the postmasters in the rural districts, I will be satisfied.


William Chisholm: Will the Postmaster General make inquiry into the location of the post offices at Doctor's Brook and at Middleton in Antigonish county ? The office at Doctor's Brook was moved from Dougald Macdonald's, and is now at the extreme west end of the district. The present postmaster has been receiving his mail in the adjoining post office, yet the Doctor's Brook post office has been sent to his place. The same may be said of the office at Middleton. I want the Postmaster General to get his officials to make a report on this, and I would ask them in all justice to find some Tory in the centre of the districts who will keep an office that will be convenient for the people.


James Joseph Hughes: Who is carrying the mail between Lome Valley and the Forty-eight Boad on the Prince Edward Island railway ? I have asked this .question several times, and the minister said he would get the information for me later. I want to know the number of tenders that were received, the amount of each tender, and the person to whom the tender was awarded.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will take up ' Hansard ' to-morrow morning and have my staff write to my hon. friends the most friendly and amiable letters, giving them all the information they want.


Samuel Hughes: I think the minister might answer my question; I have asked it of him several times.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am telling my hon. friend that I will take ' Hansard ' tomorrow, refer to the questions asked by my hon. friends opposite, and write to them, giving them all the information they want.


William Chisholm: At the same time, will the hon. minister state why the office was removed from McMillan's at North Grant to Delaneys ?


Georges Henri Boivin: In addition to giving the information concerning Mr. J. Masse, which I asked for on May 29, I would like the Postmaster General to let me know who has the contract for the rural mail delivery recently established from the post office at North Hatley, in the county of Stanstead, what is the contract price, who was the lowest tenderer, and what was the amount of the lowest tender.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will. I may say that I promised the hon. member for Rouville that I would put some information on ' Hansard ' for him as to the answer given with regard to the rural mail boxes. I will hand it to ' Hansard ' so that he will find it there:
Mr. TOTSTN.
Memorandum for the Honourable,
L. P. Pelletier. K.C., M.P., Postmaster General,
Ottawa.
With regard to the statement of the Hon. R. Lemieux, M.P., that the information contained in the Postmaster General's reply to the inquiry of Mr. Rainville, M.P., regarding the payment for the rural mail boxes did not agree with the information contained in the departmental file in connection with the purchase of rural mail boxes, a copy of which was. furnished Mr. Lemieux, the superintendent begs to say that the data contained in the reply furnished to the Postmaster General to the inquiry of Mr. Rainville on the 17th ultimo, is absolutely correct. The memorandum contained in departmental file, to which Mr. Lemieux referred and of which a copy is herewith attached, refers to the second lot of 50,000 boxes. This second lot. while they were received during the period from September, 1911, to January, 1912, were not paid for until the 17th June, 1912, whereas the first 50,000 were, under the terms of the contract, to be paid for as they were received by the department from the contractors. Payments were made a3 indicated in the reply to Mr. Rainville, during the months of July>
August and September of 1911.
The following questions and answers appear on ' Hansard ' of April 17, 1913:
Mr. Rainville:
1.	When and how were the hundred and ten thousand boxes for the rural mail paid for, which were purchased by the preceding Government without tender?
2.	Was there in 1911 a greater number of
boxes purchased than were required?	.
3.	Did the present Government succeed in obtaining a reduction on the price of these boxes, and has it consequently paid a lower price than that agreed to by the preceding! Government ?
4.	Was a certain number of these boxes paid for during the election period of 1911? If so, how many boxes, and w-hat amount?
Mr. Pelletier:
1:
Date of payment.	No. of boxes. Amount paid	
January, 28, 1909 ..	.. 6,000	$ 18,000February 1, 1910..	.. 4,000	12,000July 4, 1911	.. 20,000	60,000August 2, 1911.. ..	.. 10,000	30.000September 1, 1911..	.. 10,000	30.000September 20, 1911	.. 10,000	30,000June 17, 1912.. ..	.. 50,000	135,0002.	Up to 31st December, 1911, only 18,846 of these boxes had been used. The rest of this question is answered by number 1.3.	Yes. A reduction of 10 per cent on the price of the last 50,000 boxes was obtained; the manufacturers receiving $135,000 instead of $150,000 as agTeed upon by the preceding Government.
4:
Date of payment. No. of boxes. Amount paid
July 4, 1911	
20,000	$ 60,000August 2, 1911	
10,000	30,000September 1, 1911.. .. 10,000	30,000September 20, 1911 .. 10,000	30,000
Deliveries at Toronto of the second lot of 50,000 boxes and fittings in lots of 10,000.

10.000	delivered between September 9 and
November 4, 1911.
10.000	delivered between November 5 and December 6, 1911.
10.000	delivered between December 7 and December 22, 1911.
10.000	delivered between December 23, 1911,
and January 2, 1912.
10.000	delivered between January 3 to January 12.
50.000	with the exception of 5,332 cranes and
2.952 hoods and locks, completion of delivery of which was promised during week ending January 20.	.
Customs, salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports in the Dominion, including overtime of officers, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $165,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Would the minister
kindly give us the general principles upon which these salaries are to be increased?


John Dowsley Reid: The Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of Customs suggested that increase should be given to certain officers throughout the Dominion, and I followed out their recommendation. They know the. officers who are deserving; in fact we have tried to give an increase to almost the whole staff.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is satisfactory. I
must say that I think the customs officials in the outside service are probably the poorest paid officials in the service of the Government. When you compare the salaries which you are paying to your officials for doing splendid work all over ;he country with the salaries you are paying in the inside service in Ottawa, it must make some of my friends feel almost like thirty cents. I am very glad indeed that the Minister of Customs has taken this matter up and endeavoured to treat these (fficials fairly.


John Dowsley Reid: I agree with the hon. member that the salaries are low. We have been trying to get good men and to pay as good salaries as we possibly can.


James Joseph Hughes: I find a very great discrepancy and discrimination in Prince Edward Island with regard to the salaries paid the customs officers. At the port of Georgetown the salary paid to the regular officer is $700. The officer who was there for several years has been superannuated and given an allowance of $490. Although this gentleman was somewhat advanced in years, he was quite capable of doing the work, but he was superannuated for the purpose of making a position for another man. These two men are getting a salary of nearly $1,200, and the amount of work is very small; only about $234 are collected. At the port of Montague $973 were collected last year, and one man is doing the work at a salary of
382	______^
$400. That is not fair to the official in the office at Montague. At the port of Souris, $700 is paid, and $2,000 collected. I want to make a plea for these men and the other officials at Murray River, Murray Harbour, Cardigan, Vernon River Bridge, Pinette, Crapaud, Tignish, Alberton and Mount Stewart. It is not fair that these men should get a much smaller salary in proportion to the amount collected than the men at Georgetown have been receiving. Of course the superannuation of the official at Georgetown was not in the interests of the service, but I want to see all the other men get fair play and a square deal.


John Dowsley Reid: I think the salaries paid to
the other officers are the same salaries that have been paid there for some time. In respect of some of these officials, they are not supposed to do this work alone; they are there for the purpose of clearing vessels coming in and going out.
At many of the places mentioned by the hon. member there is no revenue and yet they may clear quite a number of vessels.


Samuel Hughes: I am sure that there would be as much work at Murray River as at Georgetown, and there is a great deal more work at Montague. These men are good supporters of the Administration and they are not fairly used compared with the officer at Georgetown.


John Dowsley Reid: I am acting on the recommendation of the Island.


Samuel Hughes: I am sure those gentlemen did not recommend that Mr. Owens be superannuated and another man placed in his position.


John Dowsley Reid: Oh, yes, the commissioner of customs recommended it, otherwise I would not have acted.


Samuel Hughes: All I want is to see that the men at the other points get a fair show, that there is fair play between the ports and that the man at Georgetown shall not be so far ahead of everybody else while he does no more work.


John Dowsley Reid: I shall look into the matter.
Steamship subsidies-between Prince Edward Island, Cape Breton and Newfoundland.


Samuel Hughes: What company is performing that contract?.


George Halsey Perley: That is performed by the Dominion Coal Company. The service has been under contract for several years. It goes from Montreal to Charlottetown and thence to Sydney and on to Newfoundland. We give them an additional amount this year because, according to statements I have under my hand, the service did not pay last year and there is an arrangement by which, in the fall of the year, they



provide additional steamers -when required to take produce to Newfoundland.


Samuel Hughes: Some years ago they performed a larger service for $12,000. They then called at Souris but a year or two ago that port was cut out.


George Halsey Perley: They are getting a larger subsidy because they provide additional steamers in the fall.


Samuel Hughes: When a great quantity of freight is offered.


George Halsey Perley: Last fall they had to pay almost $7,000 for these special steamers.


Samuel Hughes: Would not the steamers pay their way when filled with freight?


George Halsey Perley: The freight they take to Newfoundland is not high class and does not pay a very large rate.
M. HUGHES: It is farm produce and cattle.


George Halsey Perley: My hon. friend would not call hay and oats high class products.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, produce and cattle. I think the department should take that into consideration. I will certainly insist upon it next year if I am here.


George Halsey Perley: Any representation that
my hon. [DOT] friend may make will be considered by the department.


William Chisholm: The hon. member for South Cape Breton asked me to inquire why there is an increase in the vote for the steamship service between Sydney and Bay St. Lawrence.
Mr. PERLEY. This provides for an increase of $2,000. According to the statement which the contractors put in, this service was not paying them at the amount of the subsidy, and they refused to go on with the service unless they obtained an additional amount. There have been a good many cases of that kind this year. It would appear that the expense of running these services are increasing all the time. After looking into the matter carefully we thought it better to give the extra amount rather than have the service stopped.
Schooner service between Pictou and New Glasgow and Antigonish county ports, $500.


William Chisholm: What are the ports of call and what is the frequency of the service?


George Halsey Perley: This is a new subsidy for a schooner service twice a week during the season of navigation between Pictou and New Glasgow and Antigonish County ports. The .service is to be from New Glasgow to Morristown wharf calling at Pictou, Lis-
Mr. PERLEY.	- !
more, McAra's Brook, Arisaig, Malignant Cove, Georgeville, Livingstone Cove and Ballantyne Cove.
Trade and Commerce-to provide for the construction, acquisition, leasing or expropriation of terminal elevators, $4,000,000.


George Perry Graham: What does the minister propose to do with this amount?


George Halsey Perley: Part of this estimate is
for completing the elevator at Port Arthur. The rest is for the transfer elevators which matter was explained to the House a few days ago when the chief grain commissioner, Mr. Magill, was here. The Grain Commission has recommended that one of these elevators should be built at Saskatoon and one at Moosejaw, They have also recommended that one should be built in Alberta, but they have not specified the loeation as yet. They also recommend that a transfer elevator should be built at the Pacific coast, and a transfer elevator on Hudson bay, and the department proposes to prepare plans immediately in order that they may call for tenders for the elevators at Saskatoon and Moosejaw with as little delay as possible. The consideration of the Alberta elevator and the transfer elevators, will be delayed for a few months until they get some more information.


George Perry Graham: The department is going to undertake the elevator at Nelson, Hudson Bay, instead of the Railways and Canals Department.


George Halsey Perley: That matter has not yet been finally settled, but the provision is here for that purpose, though it may not be started this year. My own impression is that it would be better to have it built by the Department of Railways and Canals in order that they might control it in connection with the railway.
Civil Government-Department of Inland Revenue, to provide for the appointment of a cooper in the methylated spirits warehouse, $550.


Mr. YERVILLE:: Does the minister intend to pay a cooper $550 a year?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: He is employed in the
department and he is to be paid that salary.


Mr VERVILLE:: I do not think it is
right, because a cooper is supposed to be a skilled mechanic. You are paying him at the rate of $10.35 a week, or at $1.75 per day. I do not think it is fair for the Government to ask any skilled mechanic to work for that wage. He should get $15 a week or more. This is tower than that paid to our messengers. This man should be paid a living wage. I do not see how he can keep a familly on such wage, and I protest not only against this department, but against other departments

paying such a low wage to skilled mechanics, who have served three or four years apprenticeship.


Georges Henri Boivin: Where is this methylated spirits warehouse?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: It is on Victoria Island.


Georges Henri Boivin: 
Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: He is willing to work for that price, he has been in the department for two years. He was paid so much a day, and he has been appointed permanently.


Georges Henri Boivin: I suppose that a poor
man in his position has to work for the price that is offered to him or get out?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: He is satisfied.
in the province of Nova Scotia, the salaries paid to each, the date of their appointment, and also a statement of what the duty of a food inspector is?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Yes.


Georges Henri Boivin: What is the particular
work that these gas and electricity inspectors do in the different cities?


Mr NANTEL :: They inspect meters principally. They also make voltage tests.


Georges Henri Boivin: How often are these inspectors supposed to visit different buildings in the towns and cities where there is gas or electricity?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Whenever they are requested. They inspect electricity and gas meters.


Georges Henri Boivin: When the main estimates were up, I asked the minister fifteen or twenty questions, and he undertook to get the information. I understand that it has been prepared.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Yes, I have it here.


Georges Henri Boivin: I would ask the minister
if he would place his information on ' Hansard.'


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Certainly.
Excise-travelling expenses, rent, fuel, stationary, &c.,-further amount required, $5,-
000.


Georges Henri Boivin: I would like to know
something about the travelling expenses.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: These are the travelling
expenses of the inspectors and other officers of the department.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is that fuel supply for
some special building?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: It is for the different
offices of the department all over the country.
Salaries of gas and electricity inspectors- further amount required, $5,000.


Georges Henri Boivin: Where are these gas and
electricity inspectors?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: All over the country.


Georges Henri Boivin: Have they any in Quebec?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Certainly.
!Mr. BOIVIN:	Will the minister hand
to ' Hansard ' a list of the food inspectors residing in Montreal and operating throughout the province of Quebec? Would he be good enough to send me by letter a list of the electricity and gas inspectors for Quebec?


Georges Henri Boivin: How often do they go if they are not requested to do SO' by some particular individual?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: They are very busily
occupied, but arrange to visit towns within their districts once or twice each month.
Is there any particular


Georges Henri Boivin: 
Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: requested.


Georges Henri Boivin: 
Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Certainly.


William Chisholm: Will the minister put on ' Hansard ' a list of the food inspectors 382J	I 1 j


Mr BOIVIN:: They are called upon to
visit different places?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Yes.


Georges Henri Boivin: And if they were not requested they would not make any inspection?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: The inspectors are constantly going over their districts. Each town where meters are used is visited several times each year. We have a demand for new inspectors in Hamilton now. They are technical men and they have to pass an examination.


Georges Henri Boivin: Do their duties consist
simply in testing meters for gas and electricity or have they anything to do with the wiring of buildings or the quality of the current supplied?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I do not know for certain, but I am under the impression that the inspection of wiring in buildings is looked after by the underwriters. The electric current is tested as to pressure or voltage by our inspectors.
The following statements were handed in by the Minister of Inland Eevenue:
Food Inspection for Bedford.
Mr. Boivin: Before adopting this item, can the iion. minister tell me who is the food inspector in the district of Bedford?
Mr. Nantel: I must say that all the employees of the revenue are inspectors under the law, 'but the inspector in chief of this district resides in Montreal. The revenue officers are obliged, as I have fust said, to see to the administration of this law.
There is no district of Bedford, hut Bedford is included in the Sherbrooke division for the inspection of food stuffs.	.	,,
Mr. J. C. Rouleau, of St. Hyacmthe, is the
district inspector.
Mr. Van Antwerp.
Mr. Boivin: Will the hon. minister tell me what is the salary of Mr. Van-Antwerp, who is both officer of weights and measures and of excise, and also if he is a permanent officer or merely a temporary employee?
Mr. Nantel: Charles V. Van Antwerp was temporarily employed as assistant inspector of weights and measures from 4th December. 1911 at $600 per annum for the weights and measures district of Sherbrooke which comprises the counties of Sherbrooke, Brome, Compton, Missisquoi, Richmond bbefford, Stanstead and Wolfe.
He is not employed in the Excise.
~ He signs for his pay list West Erelighsburg in the county of Missisquoi.
Inland Revenue Officer at Farnham.
Mr. Boivin:	Can the hon. minister tell us
the name of the employee of his department, in the town of Farnham, which is situated in the division of Bedford?
Mr. Nantel: Have you got his name?
Mr. Boivin:	I have not his name. 1 believe he has been replaced by a Mr. PortelaMr.' 'Nantel:	Mr. P. A. Galipeau, deputy
collector vice P. A. portelance dismissed for partisanship at request of F. H. Picket and
Mr. NANTHL
upon sworn statements from reliable parties, one a Mr. Gleeson, of iSiweetsburg. Affidavits sent to the treasury board and not returned.
Food Inspection in ithe Dominion.
Mr. Boivin: How many divisions and how many inspectors? The hon. minister may be able to give me this information in supplementary estimates.
Mr. Nantel:	Yes. There are 20 divisions
and 21 inspectors.
Last year the laboratory has made the analysis Of 3,961 samples; it gives an idea of the importance of the work done. The inspectors are under the supervision of the analyst of the department, Dr. A. McGill.
Department of Inland Revenue.
Ottawa, September 10, 1912.
Sir,-I beg to inform you that by an Order in Council dated the 30th August, 1912, the undermentioned districts have been established in connection with the administration of tho ' Adulteration of Food Act/ viz..-
Nova Scotia.
The whole province.
Prince Edward Island.
The whole province.
New Brunswick.
The whole province.
Quebec.
Which comprises the city of Quebec, Montmorency, Charlevoix, Chicoutimi, Saguenay, Levis, Dorchester, Bellechasse, Montmagny, LTslet, Kamouraska, Temiscouata, Rimouski, Bonaventure and Gaspe.
Three Rivers.
Which comprises the city of Three Rivers and the counties of Terrebonne, L'Assomption, Montcalm, Joliette, Berthier, Maskmonge, Three Rivers and St. Maurice, Champlain, Portneuf, Vercheres, Richelieu, Yamaska, Nicolet, Lotbiniere.
Montreal.
The city of Montreal and the Island.
Eastern Townships.
Which comprises the city of Sherbrooke and the counties of St. Hyacinthe, Bagot Sherbrooke, Stanstead, Drummond, and Artlia-backa, Megantic, Rouville, Richimmd and Wolfe, Shefford, Compton, Brome, Beauce.
Valleyfield.
Which comprises the counties of Argenteuil, Two Mountains, Vaudreuil, Soulanges, Beau-harnois, Laprairie, Napierville, St. Jean anil Iberville, Missisquoi, Chateauguay, Huntingdon, Labelle, Chambly, Glengarry, Prescott.
Ottawa.
Which comprises the city of Ottawa and the counties of Russell, Carleton, Stormont Don-3 as. Grenville. Brockville. Leeds Lanark South and North; Renfrew South and 'North; Wright and Pontiac.
Kingston.
Which comprises the- city of Kingston and the counties of Frontenac, Lennox and Adding ton, Hastings East and West; North umber-

Ians East and West; Peterborough East and West; Durham, Victoria and Haliburton and Prince Edward.
Northern Ontario.
Which comprises the counties of Nipissing,
Algoma East and West; Parry Sound, Muskoka.
Toronto.
Which comprises the city of Toronto and the counties of Simcoe, East, North and South; York, Centre, North and South; Ontario, North and South.
Hamilton.
Which compris.es the city of Hamilton, and the counties of Halton, Peel, Wentworth, Lincoln, Welland, Haldimand, Dufferin, Grey, North, South and East; Bruce, North and South; Brant, Brantford, Wellington. North and South; Waterloo, North and South.
Windsor.
Which comprises the city of Windsor and the counties of Norfolk, Oxford, North and South; Middlesex, East, North and West; Lambton, East and West; Elgin, East and
West; Essex, North and South; Kent, East and West; Perth, North and South; Huron. East, South and West; London.
Manitoba.
The whole province.
Saskatchewan.
The whole province.
Alberta.
The whole province.
Rocky Mountains.
Which comprises Nelson, Eernie, Revelstoke, Rossland, Trail, Grand Forks and extends as far as Kamloops to the West.
Vancouver.
Which comprises the territory west of Kamloops to the coast.
Victoria.
The Island of Vancouver.
I remain, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Wm. Himsworth, Acting Deputy Minister.
Food inspection districts, in the order of their importance, on a bases of population, as in the census of 1910, with list of ins pectors, stating salary of each.
District.	Population.
1.	Montreal	
600,0002.	Toronto	500,0003.	Hamilton	
490,4714.	Windsor	
465,7505.	Nova Scotia	
459,5746.	Quebec	
409,6147.	Ottawa	
404,9598.	New Brunswick	
331,1209.	Eastern Townships	
300,10410.	Manitoba	
300,00011.	Thr ee Rivers	
293.21612.	Kingston	
253,02113.	Saskatchewan	
250,00014.	Alberta	
250,00015.	Valleyfield	
249,98016.	Vancouver	
175,00017.	Prince Edward Island	
103,25918 Northern Ontario	
135,33019.	Rocky Mountains	
61,88920.	Victoria	
40,000Inspector.	Salary.J. J. Costigan	$500D. J. Kearney-12/3/13	
400J. H. Dager	
200D. M. Cameron-21/3/13	
400J. Talbot	
200.W. J. Waugh	
350Moses Delorey-27/11/12	
100F. Z. W. E. Beland	
300
F. X. Roy

17/10/12	 100
A. Pelletier-1/10/12	 300
N. Belanger-17/5/13	'	 100
Onesime Brochu-19/5/13	 100
,T. R. Rickey, inside	service	1,200
J. C. Ferguson	 200
J. C. Rouleau	 200
A. C. Lariviere	 200
Dr. Lavallee-27/3/12	 400
J. Hogan	   200
No inspector.
No inspector.
No inspector.
J. F. Pcrver	 200
Wm. A. Weeks	 200
No inspector.
Thos. Parker	 200
D. O'Sullivan	 200
Public works-chargeable to capital-public buildings-Ottawa Royal Mint-refinery-additional storage building, $35,000.
Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish); Has the minister in contemplation the adjustment of the salaries of the men employed at the Royal Mint? I understand that some years ago when the Mint was established, a certain rate of wages, was paid and that the rate has not gone up since then, although it has gone up in all the other departments. The character of the wo-rk around there is pretty arduous, particularly for those in the higher grades, and the matter is one which deserves consideration.


Robert Rogers: The salaries of the officers in connection with the Royal Mint do not come under my department, but under the Finance Department.
Public Works-chargeable to income-public buildings-Nova Scotia-Amherst-drill hall, $30,000.


John Howard Sinclair: Is it the intention of
the department to put an armoury in the town of New Glasgow?


Robert Rogers: I cannot say what the
intention of the Department of Militia is.


Mr CHISHOLM (Antigonish):: Is it the intention to build an armoury in Antigon-

ish. Lately the Government bought a property there for $1,200 which independent valuators valued a few years ago at from $700 to $800. Captain Binghey of the Department of Militia visited the town last fall and reported that the present Government shed was utterly unsuitable. Captain Binghey also reports that from $700 to $800 is the outside value for that property, that it was not suitable, and that suitable property could be purchased on the main street for $1,000.


Robert Rogers: That matter would be
entirely in the Militia Department, and we have had no application to the Public Works Department yet.


William Chisholm: Even if the Department of Public Works were asked to do so by the Department of Militia, would they erect an armoury on a property that was condemned by an officer of the Militia Department?


Robert Rogers: Our duty would be simply to erect the building when the plans were prepared.


Edmund William Tobin: Have tenders been called
for a public building at Weedon Station in the county of Wolfe, and if so, who got the contract and what is the price of the contract?


Robert Rogers: The recollection of the
deputy minister is that tenders have not yet been called for Weedon.


Edmund William Tobin: Would the minister tell his deputy to write to me giving me the information?


Robert Rogers: Certainly.


Edmund William Tobin: Has the Government purchased the site for a public building at Disraeli and from whom?


Robert Rogers: No purchase has yet been made.


Edmund William Tobin: Have the department received a petition from the people of Disraeli asking that a site be bought from Champoux Brothers. The minister told me some time ago that they had an option for $5,500 under consideration. I understand the department has received a petition from persons in Disraeli asking them to buy the whole piece of land 'belonging to Champoux Brothers. Is it the intention to buy this land and the buildings belonging to Champoux Brothers, to repair the buildings and turn same into a public building? If so, it will not satisfy the people of Disraeli. The people of Disraeli would like to have a public building but they want a new one and one suitable to the town. Disraeli is a nice town with a population of between
l.'oOO and 1,800 and the building should be centrally situated. If the minister wants 1 Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish).
to get information, about Disraeli my friend from Peel will ,be able to give him some pointers as he visited Disraeli some years ago.


Robert Rogers: This question is under
consideration and nothing as yet has been decided as to the purchase of the location. We are desirous of having all the information we *"an before we erect the public building there, at ad events my hon. friend {Mr. Tobin) could give us his opinion about it.


Edmund William Tobin: If the Minister of Public
Works takes my recommendation I will go to Disraeli within the next few days and I will feel the pulse of the people and I guarantee that I will recommend a site satisfactory to the citizens of Disraeli. At Weedon, the municipal council chose a site for the public building, but after the change of Government influence was brought to bear and another site was purchased. The people of Disraeli do not want the Government to buy old buildings and repair them; they deserve better than that.


Robert Rogers: If the hon. gentleman will send in -his recommendation, it will have great weight.


Georges Henri Boivin: In the absence of the hon. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Kay) I would draw the attention of the minister to the absence of an item for a building in the town of Farnham. Rumour has it that several requests have been made to the Government for a building there. The Government already own a building in Farnham, which is used as a post office, but it was built several years ago and is too small. The minister knows that the town was practically wiped out by fire in 1911. The town authorities, aided by the provincial government, have built a magnificent town hall and court house, and the residents are doing all they can to rebuild and beautify their town. There is a splendid site for a new public building. I understand that Farnham is to be made a port of customs entry. I would ask the minister to give serious consideration to any request which may be received from the electors of that county for a public building.
I would also draw the minister's attention to the fact that the public building in Granby in the county of Shefford is altogether too small for that thriving and growing village. The place offers such insufficient accommodation that it is now impossible for a business man to get a post office box, and when the mail arrives in the evening, there is not room enough for the people though each person remains only for the length of time it takes the postmaster to hand out the mail. If the Minister of Public Works would order alterations to be made which would afford better accommodation, it would be very much appreciated.


Alphonse Verville: There is an item here for $45,000 for postal station M at Maison-neuve. Tenders were called for at one time for a building, but there was a change of site and an alteration of plans, and I am not informed as to the present position of affairs.	*


Robert Rogers: We appreciate the growing condition of Maisonneuve. A site was secured for a public building there, but the people suggested a change in the plans as the hon. gentleman knows, and have made a recommendation of a change of site to conform with the growth of the market part of the town. The matter has been taken up by the department and plans are being prepared. I understand that this is one of the works that will go on immediately.


Mr. LAFORTUNE:: In 1909 money was
voted to erect a public post office and public building in St. Jacques L'achigan in the county of Montcalm, my own riding. The site was chosen and bought, and plans were made. I greatly regret not to find an item in the estimates to carry on the work proposed. It is too bad for my people; the change of Administration has destroyed their hopes. This Administration promised to continue in regard to this matter the policy of the late Administration, which was a very good one in my humble opinion. The hon. gentleman's department is so well conducted that I think surely there must be some mistake in the dropping of this item. Will not he put it back again, and render justice to my electors who are very strong Conservatives? This is a very flourishing village, with a large college, convent, factories, and two banks have been erected in the village. One of them was robbed lately, but I hope that will not be repeated. If we are granted a post office, the minister cannot imagine what service it would render to that population. I am sure that knowing now the facts, he will do us justice.


Robert Rogers: I would say, as I explained the other evening, that this matter had not been brought to my attention since I was made Minister of Public Works. But as I told the hon. gentleman I will give the matter consideration, and will do so especially since he has won my sympathy by assuring me that his constituents are so strongly Conservative.
Rents, repairs, furniture, heating, etc.- Ottawa public buildings-Rideau Hall-Additions and improvements, $135,000.


George Perry Graham: What is to be done at Rideau Hall?


Robert Rogers: We propose to put an addition on the front. The entrance is very poor, and it is proposed to erect a proper front with offices for the military secretary and bed rooms upstairs. We hope to make a respectable front of it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am sorry to hear the hon. minister make the statement that he is making to-night. I think this country can well afford to have a fine residence for its Governor General; the minister can patch this building up as much as he likes and he will not have anything in the end but the old building we have at the present time. During the last forty years a great deal of money has been spent on this building, and we have not very much to show for it. I hope the minister will abandon his idea with a view to having as a residence for the Governor General a building that will be a credit to the country.


Robert Rogers: This matter has been
gone into very carefully, and in view of the fact that the present residence, Rideau Hall, is such an historic location, the individual responsible for recommending any change would have to proceed very slowly and carefully. I am satisfied from the information I can obtain from those who are most directly interested that they are entirely satisfied with the House, particularly with the new addition which my hon. friend knows was completed last year. The proposed addition will improve the dining room as well as provide for the front of the building, and with these additions 1 think the building will be very acceptable and will comply with the reoommendiations of those who are directly interested.


William Chisholm: What
work does the minister propose to do at Antigonish Landing?


Robert Rogers: This is for improvement, small repairs.


William Chisholm: Repairs to the old
wharf that was there years ago?


Robert Rogers: Repairs to wharf and
landing.


William Chisholm: Has the minister a
report on the dredging of the harbour and the building of another landing place in that vicinity?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


William Chisholm: Would the hon. minister place it upon ' Hansard '?


Robert Rogers: Yes. In a report dated March 13, 1913, District Engineer Millidge states as follows:
Improvements above Red Point, including the construction of a wharf and road at the landing and the dredging of a basin and a comparatively straight 10 foot low water channel, were asked for in the interest of the owners of 30 motor boats; 8 at Antigonish, used for excursions during the summer season, and 22 at Dunn's Cove, on the east side of the harbour, within the entrance and om the west side of St. George's bay, between the

entrance and Cape George, used as fishing boats.	)
It was represented to my assistants, during the progress of the survey in 1911 and 1912, that the use of the channel hy the owners of motor power fishing boats, who occasionally come to the ' landing ' with fresh fish for the Antigoinish market, or for supplies, would be very much increased if the improvements asked for are effected.
I am of opinion that it will not he advisable to undertake more at present than the construction of a wharf and road at the ' landing.'	t
Below are given the probable coats of constructing a wharf and road at the ' landing,' as shown on plan No. 2, herewith, and of four proposals for improvement by dredging:
Wharf and road at 'landing'	$1,000
llo. 1. Dredging a basin 550 feet hy 300 feet and a 10 foot low water channel 80 feet in width at bottom,
A to F on plan (a distance of 12,200
feet)	20,160
TTo. 2. Dredging a basin 550 feet by 300 feet and an 8 foot low water channel 80 feet in width at bottom, A to
F, on plan (12,000 feet)	14,940
No. 3. Dredging a basin 550 feet by 300 feet, A to B, and 8 feet low water channels, 80 feet in width at bottom,
C to D (1,350 feet), and E to F,
2.650 feet (instead of a basin and
through channel,) A to F	 7,476
No. 4. Dredging an 8 foot low water basin 460 feet in length by 150 feet,
between A and B	8,000
A small basin at the landing between A and B on plan would be useful in affording more room for anchorage and turning, but as (if undertaken independently), the	work will
have to be performed by a dipper dredge, the cost ($8,000 as per estimate No. 4) would be excessive in Comparison with	the	cost of
carrying out any one of the proposals, Nos. 1 to 3, by means of a:n hydraulic (sand pump) dredge of, and when, one is available.


William Chisholm: What is the amount estimated for repairs?


Robert Rogers: 


William Chisholm: Malignant Cove, extension of piers and dredging; is that a Oiew work?


Robert Rogers: It is an extension to the old one.	[DOT]


William Chisholm: Is that the same
work that was proceeding two years ago?


Robert Rogers: I have no knowledge of that.


William Chisholm: Has the minister any idea as to the nature of that work?


Robert Rogers: This work is necessary to allow the fishermen of that locality to bring their catch to the lobster factory, and to provide shelter for their boats in bad weather by opening the channel between the piers, which was filled in during the heavy storms last fall. The extension of the piers will prevent the sand and grave] from entering the channel.


William Chisholm: Is not this the same work as was proposed to be constructed in 1911-12 for $2,300? '


Robert Rogers: There is nothing in the
report that I have before me to show that. During 1910 and 1911, $1,057 were expended at the inner end of the western pier and the removal of sand from the channel. The total expenditure up to March, 1912, was $24,293.


William Chisholm: In 1911-12 what was
proposed?


Robert Rogers: Nothing was done.


William Chisholm: The next item to
which I wish to direct the hon. minister's attention is Breen's Pond. When was the report made on that?


Robert Rogers: The date of the contract was August 8, 1911; amount $13,490; date completed November 22, 1912; contractor T. D. Morrison.


William Chisholm: Is the minister not
aware that in the estimates of that year there was an item of $2,300?


Robert Rogers: I am not aware of that, I have nothing to show it.
Mr. CHISHOLM Is not his deputy aware of it?


William Chisholm: Is this for a further
extension?


Robert Rogers: This is to complete the payments on the work.


William Chisholm: Delorey's Beach;
what is proposed there?


Robert Rogers: That is for repairs and extension to the present wharf.


William Chisholm: How will this work be done, by day labour or by contract?


Robert Rogers: The repairs will be done
by day labour, and the extension by contract.


Robert Rogers: No knowledge of it. It may be in the flies of the department, but they do not remember it at the moment.


William Chisholm: I would ask what it is proposed to do at McAra's Brook where $1,200 is to be expended?


Robert Rogers: Extending the present
boat landing.


William Chisholm: Was anything done
last year?


Robert Rogers: There is no information
that anything was done last year.


William Chisholm: Was anything done
the year before?
Mr. ROGERS.

MV. ROGERS : No information.


William Chisholm: At South Lake, extension of the present pier, $3,000, in the estimates' of 1911-12 there is a vote for $12,000. Is this an estimate for practically the same work?


Robert Rogers: The proposed expenditure is based on the report of the district engineer that this work is necessary.


William Chisholm: What is the item of
$27,000 for harbour improvement at Tra-cadie for?


Robert Rogers: Those improvements include a block and span wharf, 222 feet in length, with a creosoted superstructure 15 feet wide and having :% block 20 by 20 at the outer end, estimated cost $4,000. There are also protection works on the northern side 860 feet in length and 400 feet of brush and stone 7 feel wide and some other work


William Chisholm: Is that work to be done at Bowerman Head or Barry's Beach?


Robert Rogers: There does not seem to be any mention of the name.


William Chisholm: When was the report
made on which the estimate is founded r


Robert Rogers: In August, 1912.


William Chisholm: Have you before you
the report made in the summer of 1911?


Robert Rogers: No.


William Chisholm: Will the minister
give me a copy of the report made in 1911 when it was proposed to build a wharf at the west pier at an estimated cost of $12,700 and will the minister inform me why it is that the original grant was dropped and the new preposition undertaken?


Robert Rogers: I will supply all that information.


John Howard Sinclair: How does it happen
that the item in the estimates of last year to extend the breakwater at New Harbour has been dropped from the estimates of this year? It is a very important item and a very necessary work at this place. It is one of the exposed places on the coast and prior to the building of the breakwater the fishermen of that district endured great hardships. In fact they had to keep a watch on stormy nights so that if a sudden storm came on, their boats would not be lost. The late Government built a breakwater, spending $27,000, which made a very good little harbour for fishing boats. Immediately the place became prosperous and a thriving village grew up beside the breakwater. A large number of comfortable cottages were built and it is now one of the most thriving villages on the coast in that vicinity. So many young men got boats of
their own and the place grew so rapidly that there was not room behind the breakwater and there was a good deal of quarrelling as to who should get in on the approach of a storm. The Liberals used to complain that it was their breakwater and that they would get in and the Conservatives would try to drive them out. The late Government decided to extend the breakwater one hundred feet and an item for $20,000 was included in the first estimates brought down by this Government. I have been informed that tenders were asked for and a survey made and everything done preparatory to building an extension of the breakwater. I was very much surprised that the work did not go on. Under the late Government, during ten years out of the fourteen they were in power, the county of Guysborough does not appear in the estimates prior to 1896 simply because the county was represented by a Liberal. It looks as though the Government intended to starve out the county again .because nearly every item for improvements of that kind w'as struck out by his predecessor or himself. This item of New Harbour is most important, and I feel it is my duty to draw the attention of the minister to it. It ought to be restored to the estimates. That breakwater ought to be extended. I want to press upon him the importance of carrying out the plan of the late Government and of constructing an extension of that breakwater.


William Chisholm: I wish to refer to the promises of the Minister of Public Works made to the electors of the county of Antigonish on the eve of the recent election, but as the hour is late I shall do so very briefly. There are a few facts which I wish to have placed on ' Hansard ' for the benefit of the minister and for his future consideration. According to the letter which the minister wrote to Senator Girroir, and which appeared in the Casket of January 9, 1913, the main and supplementary estimates neither of which had then been prepared would amount to $211,300, but according to the estimates, main and supplementary, that have been brought down I find that the total is only $100,100 or not quite half of what was promised. Some people might be uncharitable enough to say that that is a3 near as Tory promises come to realization, but let that pass. I desire to point out that there is not a single new item for Antigonish county. The items that are in these estimates are practically revotes, or items that were in the estimates for 19111912. I also wish to point out that in the letter which the Minister of Public Works sent to Senator Girroir, and which the latter circulated throughout the county there was an item of $90,000 for George-ville and another item for Auld's Cove,

amounting to $15,000, and yet neither of these items is to be found in this year's estimates. Perhaps the minister would be able to explain why they are not included, and why he has not implemented the promises which he made to Senator Girroir and which the senator made to the electors of Antigonish. It is very humiliating to some Conservatives in the district that these items have been omitted. To such an extent were the people misled that the Sunday before the election public announcement was made that the material was required and that men were required to go to work in the course of a very short time. I had occasion to discuss the matter of the minister's promise to Senator Girroir with one of the leading citizens there-I will not mention his name-and I toid him that the letter which had been published in a newspaper and which purported to show that the items had been placed in the estimates for Antigonish county for 1913-1914 was a fake. The gentleman with whom I discussed the matter said, nonsense. It is true that the list of items was headed ' list of items noted for Antigonish county ' but you will observe that the letter states distinctly that these amounts had been placed in the estimates for Antigonish county; the word ' noted ' merely means that the estimates have not yet been passed, and the minister could not use any other word. He said it was a sort of technical word but it meant that the minister and Senator Girroir had pledged themselves that these items would be in the estimates. This gentleman to whom I refer is an honest conscientious Conservative, a good loyal Scotchman, who will resent this if he has the blood in his veins that I think he has. He will not allow himself to be imposed upon in this manner by the Minister of Public Works or by Senator Girroir. As to the items, the first is that of Tracadie. We initiated this work. A survey was made in the summer of 1911 for a wharf at West Arm, estimated to cost $12,700. I am glad to see that the minister is going one better and that he proposes to spend $27,000 there. Then there is Blue Bock. A report dated January 31, 1911, was for ian extension, to cost $8,300, and $600 for repairs. Neglect to attend to the repairs makes $1,200 necessary instead of $600. The extension provided for in the estimates for 1911-12, under the late Administration, is not found in the main or supplementary estimates of this year. Then there is Delorey's Beach, that is not a new item. There was a report dated February 13, 1908, in regard to this work which was estimated to cost $20,000. The first block was built at a cost of about $5,000, and the intention was to spend $6,500 in 1911-12. The $6,500 was not spent, and the $14,700 is therefore now available. In regard to Malignant Cove, that is an Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish)
old work. A sum of $2,300 was in the estimates for 1911-12, but was not spent. The result is that it will now cost $4,000 to do the work. If the department had not neglected to attend to the work, it could have been completed for $2,300. Then McNair's Cove is an old work, the present estimate being virtually a revote of the amount which was in the estimates of 1911-12, when there was an item of $5,400. That item was dropped and there was only an expenditure of $1,100 for repairs, and now the present estimate is $5,500. South lake, Lakeville, is an old work which was estimated at $4,000 in the estimates of 1911-12; the present appropriation is $3,000. Ogden's Pond is an old work, and is merely for the purpose of repairing damage done in the summer of 1911-12. McAra's brook is an old work, as there was an item of $1,700 in the estimates of 1911-12. That sum was not spent, and it is in the estimates now. With the exception of the additional $14,300, the difference between $27,000 and $12,700 for Tracadie harbour improvements, which we had in the estimates for 1911-12, not a single dollar has been provided for Antigonish county, but what we had in the estimates as I have stated or arises out of neglect on the part of the Government to spend the money that was available at the proper time. All the remaining items are revotes. What i3 the matter with Georgeville and Auld's Cove? Why is it that these districts have been cut off? Why is it that nothing outside of some wharf repairs to the wharf is provided for at Bayfield? In a report dated April 1, 1911, the estimated cost of improvements at the place was $35,000. Bayfield is an important place. According to that report the exports for 1910 amounted to $25,950, and the imports to $4,000. There were twenty-five boats belonging to the place engaged in fishing, and thirty boats from the outside frequented the harbour during the fishing season. This is the point to which the farmers of Antigonish county and of Guysborough county shipped their products to Newfoundland. That harbour should have been provided for. In the estimates of 1911-12, we had the sum of $35,000, but the present Government has dropped that altogether. Then there is the Blue Bock extension. When the Minister of Public Works wrote the letter to Senator Girroir, and talked of the generosity and munificence of the Government he was merely drawing on his imagination. The fact is the present Government found estimates for Antigonish county in 1911-12 which they dropped. They revised these and now claim great credit for them. But as I have said there is virtually nothing new in the present estimates so far as Antigonish county is interested. Now they are reviving them and they are seeking

to get credit for it. They are doing nothing but what they should have done last year.


Robert Rogers: I know from the hon. gentleman's remarks that he is apparently pleased that the $90,000 for Georgetown has been dropped.


William Chisholm: I am sorry.


Robert Rogers: If I felt that I could still further please the hon. member for Anti-gonish, I would have no hesitation, at his request, in removing the different items to which he has ref erred j entirely from the list of estimates.
Mr . CHISHOLM: Surely the minister would not be as petty as that ?


Robert Rogers: I would like to please my hon. friend.
New Brunswick-Bathurst harbour improvements, $50,000.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I presume this is to do the inside dredging at Bathurst harbour. Has the contract been signed yet ?


Robert Rogers: Not yet.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I would ask the minister to have the contract signed as quickly as possible and to push these works on with all the vigour possible, because there are immense interests depending on the completion of these improvements, which were commenced a few years ago by the late Government. The Bathurst Lumber Company have 40,000,000 feet of lumber to be shipped out of that harbour, and they are very greatly handicapped by reason of the fact that it has to be taken out on launches. This amount will not be sufficient to complete the whole work. Meanwhile, I hope the contractors will be able to give a sufficient depth of water to allow large ships to take out part cargoes before the close of the season. I congratulate the minister about having placed this amount in the estimates. I expected that he would have done so last year. Still, I am not attaching any blame to him, as he was not responsible for the action of the department last year. Have the scows arrived at Bathurst to assist the Resti-gouche which is engaged in dredging the outside bar ?	-


Robert Rogers: The tug has arrived and the scows are expected very shortly. Tenders have been called for the dredging and the work will be let in a short time.
Stonehaven-wharf, $1,200.


Onésiphore Turgeon: Is that for repairs?


Robert Rogers: Repairs to the wharf.
Prince Edward Island-Cardigan-extension and reconstruction of ferry wharf, $10,000.


James Joseph Hughes: Does
that mean a wharf on each side of the river?


Robert Rogers: This is for the reconstruction of the existing wharf.


Samuel Hughes: It will be no good without a wharf on each side of the river, because this is intended to be a ferry.


Robert Rogers: You must not expect everything in one year.


Samuel Hughes: I suppose it will he done by tender and contract ?


Robert Rogers: By contract.
Little Sands

breakwater, $13,500.


James Joseph Hughes: Is it intended to make a boat harbour?


Robert Rogers: A boat harbour for the fishermen.


Samuel Hughes: Will the amount be sufficient to build a breakwater ?


Robert Rogers: The estimate is $22,500;
$11,500 for the wharf and $13,500 for the breakwater.


Samuel Hughes: This is a very desirable piece of work. What depth of water is it expected to have?


Robert Rogers: Eight to ten feet.
North Lake-boat harbour, $24,000.


Robert Rogers: This is for the construction of two breakwaters forming a fishing boat harbour.


James Joseph Hughes: Has the department a report from the engineer on this?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: Does he recommend it?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: I had information from the engineer himself who made the survey some two years ago that he did not think a breakwater there would be practicable, and he recommended that it be constructed at Long Point, some distance from that place. The chief engineer was Mr. Hegan. Who made the survey upon which the report to the minister was founded?


Robert Rogers: Mr. Hyndman.


Samuel Hughes: I think it was young Mr. Miller who made the survey. No doubt Mr. Hyndman may have signed it. A boat harbour will be very desirable on that shore, but it is important to select a suitable place for it. If there is a shifting sandbar, as Mr. Hegan says, and he has had a great deal of experience in work of this kind, it might be well to consider whether yjj can construct a harbour that will be permanent at that place. Another thing to be considered is whether the harbour might not interfere with the direction of the sand drifts. The farms in the neigh-

bourhood might be greatly injured. If that should happen in this case, and I know that the chief engineer has some doubts about it, the department would have to compensate the farmers whose lands would be injured. The department would be well advised to carefully consider whether this particular place, or Long Point, which the chief engineer recommended some few years ago, would be the better place.


Robert Rogers: We will have the matter carefully looked into.


Samuel Hughes: Has any changes been
made in the status of the chief engineer at Charlottetown?


Robert Rogers: He is consulting engineer.


Samuel Hughes: What does that mean?


Robert Rogers: The acting engineer would have the benefit of his advise.


Samuel Hughes: Will Mr. Hegan have to take the responsibility?


Robert Rogers: No, but he will give the acting engineer all the information possible.


Samuel Hughes: After the change of Government many of the supporters of the Administration seemed to be under the impression they would have an opportunity of getting a considerable rake-off on most of the expenditure made in Prince Edward Island, and Mr. Hegan was waited upon many times, but he would not approve of anything of the kind. He set his face steadily against it and these men went so far as to threaten him with dismissal. Under these circumstances I would like to know whether Mr. Hegan would have the power to resist that kind of thing in the future as he has done in the past, or whether it is because of his resistance that his responsibility will be taken away from him.


Angus Alexander McLean: Would
you please name the men you refer to?


Robert Rogers: Mr. Hegan applied for a change; did my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) get that information from Mr. Hegan himself or is it second-hand?


Samuel Hughes: That is hardly a fair
question; it is well known it was done. And although I do not think anything of the kind was done by the members supporting the Government in this House, and perhaps they would not approve of it, yet I think they knew it. I am not surprised that Mr. Hegan has asked for a change, because it was a difficult position for him to occupy. He had to put up a fight for the protection of the department, that must have been very unpleasant for him. I tell the minister that it is my opinion that if Mr. Hegan's power is taken away from him the department will suffer. So far as his politics are concerned, I heard him express himself in Mr. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.).
words that would indicate that he had Conservative leanings, but I do not think he has any party beyond the fact that he was appointed by Sir John Macdonald. The department would be well advised to strengthen Mr. Hegan's hands rather than take power from him. Mr. Hyndman is a good man, I think, but he knows what is going on and if he knows that his chief was kicked upstairs for trying to protect the department it is only natural to expect that Mr. Hyndman will not seek to borrow trouble by doing the same thing. The chief engineer was supposed to have charge of the dredging of the province, but since the Government came into power a superintendent of dredging was appointed and I do not know whether Mr. Hegan was over the superintendent or the superintendent was over the engineer, but I do know that a new captain was appointed on dredge No. 9, and the captain was doing private dredging for Matthew and McLean at Souris, and against the wishes of Mr. Hegan, and Mr. McLean of the firm of Matthew and McLean told Mr. Hegan he would not allow him to interfere. He called the captain to account for doing work without the authority of the officers of the department, and the captain of the dredge went on and did the work. I put a question on the Order Paper this session asking what dredging had been done for private firms, or parties in Prince Edward Island, and the answer was none, except half a day's dredging done for McDonald Brothers, Georgetown, and the department did not think it worth while to charge for that. I say that the department did private dredging for McLean at Souris and the captain knows it.


Angus Alexander McLean: Does Mr. Hegan know it?


Samuel Hughes: Yes, he had a dispute
about it, for Mr. Hegan objected to the captain doing it without authority from him or from the department. I understand that Mr. Poole of Lower Montague wanted dredging done, but the department would not do it unless it was paid for. I think everybody should be treated in the same way. These are the facts and I would ask the minister to have an enquiry made.


Robert Rogers: We will look into it and if the statement the hon. member makes is in accordance with the facts, we will fire everybody connected with it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Angus Alexander McLean: The
hon. member (Mr. Hughes) made the statement that Mr. Hegan was approached by leading Conservatives and asked about a rake-off on public works. I do not believe a word of that statement

and I do not believe Mr. Hughes could get Mr. Hegan to say so because it is not a fact, and the hon. member is drawing on his imagination. There is not a leading man of the Conservative party that would be guilty of such a thing. I challenge the hon. member to produce any statement from Mr. Hegan, to the effect that he was approached. I do not think the hon. gentleman can come here himself with clean skirts, because if report be true he built a warehouse on the public property of the Dominion of Canada and that warehouse is there still. While the Liberal party was in power, dredging was done near his own warehouse. The dredging that was stopped by the department was in a place in which there was a deposit of about eighteen inches of mud suitable for holding anchors. This was being removed by the order of some officials. The consequence was that the vessels could not anchor there. The captain of the dredge reported this to the department, and the department ordered that the dredging be stopped. The hon. member for Kings makes a statement to the contrary which he must know to be untrue.


James Joseph Hughes: I did
nothing of the kind, but the hon. member for Queens is making a statement which he knows to be untrue, or else he does not know anything about it. He says the dredging was done at my wharf in Souris. I have no wharf in Souris. There are only two wharfs there, the Government wharf and that of Matthew McLean.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Samuel Hughes: No it is not carried. The hon. gentleman is making a statement that is entirely untrue. If he wishes I will characterize it by a stronger term. If the department will bring Mr. Hegan to Ottawa and assure him that he will be protected. he will give the information. The superintendent of dredging will give the information, if it is wanted.
Public Works-chargeable to income-harbours and rivers-Quebec-Knowlton Landing-reconstruction of wharf. $8,000.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is this Knowlton landing in the county of Brome on Lake Memphra-magog? .


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Georges Henri Boivin: Has not the hon. gentleman made a mistake? $8,000 for a wharf there?


Robert Rogers: No. The notes before me show that this is for the reconstruction of a wharf, and the items, including round and square timber, stone filling, labour, &c., make a total of $8,000.


Georges Henri Boivin: Does the minister know
the population of Knowlton landing?


Robert Rogers: I do not, but I do not
see that that affects the case; it is the business to be done.


Georges Henri Boivin: Does the minister think it right to spend $8,000 on a wharf where there are only three or four families-$2,-000 per family?


Mr. SMYTHE:: That is nothing; the
late Government built a wharf where there were no families at all.


Georges Henri Boivin: A timber wharf was built there by the late Government, but to spend $8,000 for a wharf at such a point-I could not let the item go through without calling attention to it. I do not want to move that it be struck out.


Robert Rogers: I have given the hon.
gentleman the information, and I assure him I will look into what he says.
St. Croix-extension of wharf and removal of boulders, $5,000.


Mr. FORTIER:: Is that to be done by
contract or by day work?


Robert Rogers: By contract.


Edmond Fortier: Both the extension of
the wharf and removal of boulders?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Edmond Fortier: Have the plans been prepared for the extension of the wharf?


Robert Rogers: Not yet.


Edmond Fortier: Will the minister call for tenders for that work?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Edmond Fortier: This spring?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Edmond Fortier: I am very glad, for the locality greatly needs that wharf. It was commenced five years ago. This is a very important place, and the farmers only have this wharf to carry their products by boat to market at Quebec and Montreal.
Public Works-chargeable to income-harbours and rivers-British Columbia-Fraser river-North America-improvements, $200,000.


Robert Rogers: I move that the item be amended by striking out the words ' North Arm.'


George Perry Graham: Will not that be ' changing the destination of the vote?' It changes it from the North Arm to some other part of the river. I am not going to insist on it, but if I did, Mr. Chairman, you would have to rule it out of order.

12132i
To provide for making good the full sessional indemnity of members of the Senate -days lost through absence caused by illness during the present session-notwithstanding anything in chapter 10 of the Revised Statutes, an Act respecting the Senate and House of Commons, $11,840.00.


John Howard Sinclair: Does this cover the case of Dr Robertson of Prince Edward Island?


John Stanfield: I cannot speak for the Senate, but in connection with the members of the House of Commons all those who have been sick are provided for. I presume the same .rule applies to the>
Senate.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My deskmate, Mr. Bickerdike, has been ill; will he be provided for?
Mr. STANFIELD. Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is provision made for those who have not been sick, but who have been away on business?


John Stanfield: No, only on public business.
Labour-grant to the international association for labour legislation, $500.


Alphonse Verville: What does this item mean?


Mr. CROTHERS:: There is an association which has its headquarters in Switzerland, and which is engaged in collecting labour legislation throughout the world and making it public to the different nations. The United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and other countries contribute to the maintenance of this association. Many of them gave $1,000 this year, but we are giving only $500.
Mr. VERVIT.LE: Has the minister increased his staff during the past year, and if so, are there any practical men in his department, and from which counties do they come?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I will be able to give my hon. friend the particulars in that regard; there have been very few appointments. I think there is one additional clerk in the inside service, and two or three in the outside service.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Minister of Inland Revenue called my attention to a statement which I made in this House a week or two ago. I stated that a Mr. Brown had been appointed as a preventive officer in Woodstock, New Brunswick, at a salary of $400. The minister tells me that is not true. I am very much surprised. I know the gentleman intimately, he is a friend and neighbour of mine, and I certainly believed that he was enjoying this little salary. However, the minister tells me he is not and I accept his statement.
Mr. GRAHAM.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Will the Minister
of Public Works tell us whether we will have any supplementary estimates later on? I ask with particular reference to the question as to whether there will be any compensation to members of the House. The minister is aware of the interest that has been taken by hon. members on both sides of the House in this question and I think he should make some statement as to what the (Government propose to do on the subject.


Robert Rogers: I have been very much
interested in that myself. I am not able to give my hon. friend a definite answer, but I shall give him an answer at eleven o'clock, the first .thing when we reassemble this morning.


Georges Henri Boivin: If the Government decides that the bonus will not be given, then are there any other supplementaries to be tabled at eleven o'clock?


Robert Rogers: Not unless this item of
indemnity for the members is brought down. There will be no further supplementaries.


George Perry Graham: We have endeavoured
to do our best to expedite the passing of this large amount of supplementaries tonight in order that the House might be prorogued this afternoon as per arrangement. But I think the Government will agree that the passing of estimates in this way is not really just what it should be, and that another session they ought to endeavour to get the estimates down so that we may have a fairly reasonable time to discuss them. A good deal has been said about the rules of the House. I am going to give away a state .secret. One of the suggestions that I made to my colleagues when in the Government as to rules, and I think it would perhaps do as much as anything else to expedite business, was to have a date set after which no. legislation could be introduced by the Government except by the unanimous consent of the House, no railway subsidies could be introduced and no estimates could be brought down; so many weeks after the opening of the session this business must be on the table of the House unless there was some emergency which could be met by the unanimous consent of the House. Another suggestion I made was that there should be no supplementary estimates. The Minister of Public Works would be in terrible trouble for some time at least-


Robert Rogers: I would be very glad of
it.


George Perry Graham: I undertook to enforce
the rule in my own department to show that it could be done and there were no supplementaries in the Railway Department the last year I was in that depart-

ment. It involves a good deal of difficulty but it can be done. If that rule were laid down, that' everything should be in the main estimates except under exceptional circumstances where the unanimous consent of the House should be obtained, I think it would expedite business more than any other rule that could be devised and would prevent us being asked to put through such large amounts, practically without discussion.


Robert Rogers: There is some force in what my non. friend has said. The matter will be brought to the attention of the Government and they will give it consideration. I quite agree that the passage of estimates in the form we have been doing is not really the best we might hope for in this House, and we will endeavour at the next session to so arrange the business that the estimates will be brought down at a little earlier date.
Resolutions reported, read the first and the second time and concurred in.



[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker read a communication from the Governor General's secretary, announcing that His Excellency the Administrator would proceed to the Senate Chamber to-morrow at 4 p.m. for the purpose of proroguing the present session of Parliament.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Rogers (Minister of Public Works), the House went into Committee of Ways and Means.
['That Bill No. 97, respecting the Canadian Northern Branch Lines Railway Company be withdrawn and the fees paid thereon, less the cost of printing and translation, be refunded\nHe said: This is a Bill on which the two Houses disagreed, and the promoters want the Bill withdrawn. The motion is made accordingly, in the usual way.']
Robert Rogers: Resolved that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1914, the sum of $23,470,316.65 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the first and the second time, and concurred in.
Mr. ROGERS thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 249, to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1914.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first and the second time, considered in Committee, and reported.

Mr. LANCASTER moved:: That Bill No. 97, respecting the Canadian Northern Branch Lines Railway Company be withdrawn and the fees paid thereon, less the cost of printing and translation, be refunded
He said: This is a Bill on which the two Houses disagreed, and the promoters want the Bill withdrawn. The motion is made accordingly, in the usual way.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, House adjourned at 4.22 a.m. Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 6, 1913.